Join the Labour Party and save your country!

mamba80

i m in good health, have no relatives needing on going social or med care, have no kids in state education.... i still pay for all those that do, its called society.

we dont have hypothicated taxes (yet) in the UK.

anyhow, i m still paying for your train journeys too, subsidy is £4 billion, and some 6billion in loans every year to network rail, will these be repaid.

So your journeys to work re costing the tax payer.

tangled_metal

I don't actually use the majority of roads that are supported by the majority of transport budget allocated to highway maintenance and construction. I don't use trains that often but there's a lot of state funding going on. I don't use a lot of public services. Shall we stop the funding of things we don't use?

By increasing state funding if railways is just another thing funded that we probably don't all use for the greater good of society. Political choice that's all. Stevo's politics say no, other's politics say its a good idea.

surrey_commuter

mamba80 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

So we are split between people who think rail passengers should pay and those who think somebody else should pay more tax.

That is ideology and we should agree to disagree

Not really. I have lived in a few places where a car was unnecessary, or an expensive luxury option at best. A car is necessary here and now. That is not ideology, that is practical.

A public transport analogy. Paris = London? Near enough, fair enough.
Nice = Torquay or Scarborough? I don't think so.

We all have to pay taxes for things we dont use/have access too or dont agree with, so, what would the SE road network look like if there were no trains?

Same goes for other major conurbations

Maybe train users dont want their taxes spent on the road network, which is funded out of general taxation.

apparently our sub standard transport system is one reason we ve low productivity, so improving it might benefit us all?

I just don't get why a bricklayer in Scarborough should subsidise the train fare of a banker in Tonbridge Wells or a corporate lawyer in Guildford.

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

i m in good health, have no relatives needing on going social or med care, have no kids in state education.... i still pay for all those that do, its called society.

we dont have hypothicated taxes (yet) in the UK.

anyhow, i m still paying for your train journeys too, subsidy is £4 billion, and some 6billion in loans every year to network rail, will these be repaid.

So your journeys to work re costing the tax payer.

- So why should we not be subbing say the food bills of the less well off - bit more fundamental than a train journey sub?
- Also please explain why trains should be singled out for the 'society' treatment and subbing others, whereas other methods of getting around are not?

While I can see arguments for owning the basic infrastructure in the same way that the roads are public, I still agree with SC that the charges should be on a usage basis. (And on roads it is quite easy to argue that there is usage based taxation in the form of VED and fuel taxes).

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

i m in good health, have no relatives needing on going social or med care, have no kids in state education.... i still pay for all those that do, its called society.

we dont have hypothicated taxes (yet) in the UK.

anyhow, i m still paying for your train journeys too, subsidy is £4 billion, and some 6billion in loans every year to network rail, will these be repaid.

So your journeys to work re costing the tax payer.

- So why should we not be subbing say the food bills of the less well off - bit more fundamental than a train journey sub?
- Also please explain why trains should be singled out for the 'society' treatment and subbing others, whereas other methods of getting around are not?

While I can see arguments for owning the basic infrastructure in the same way that the roads are public, I still agree with SC that the charges should be on a usage basis. (And on roads it is quite easy to argue that there is usage based taxation in the form of VED and fuel taxes).

Stev0 i hate to be the bearer of bad news here but you an me are subbing the food bills, transport costs and no doubt their 2 weeks holidays in the sun of the less well off via tax credits and housing benefit...... meanwhile many of the companies they work for, post big profits pay themselves and the share holders super large salaries, bonuses and dividends....so, we are subbing v profitable companies too :evil:

there are employees in our scheduling team earning close to the min wage and doubling their take home pay with TC and HB payments.

We give billions away to people with children too, regardless of their earnings (up to the higher rate of income tax) fuel payments to the elderly and free TV licences.

We sub bicycle ownership and electric vehicles, fuel efficient cars dont pay VED or much in the way of fuel tax but they still use the roads, oh yes buses are subsidised too.

So you can see, we live in a socialist paradise :shock: :shock: :shock:

pblakeney

Stevo 666 wrote:

- Also please explain why trains should be singled out for the 'society' treatment and subbing others, whereas other methods of getting around are not?

Not by me. Buses and trams should be considered along with trains as a whole infrastructure means of transport for the public. Bicycles are well cared for (as long as everyone obeys the rules) and cars are taken care of out of general taxation.

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

i m in good health, have no relatives needing on going social or med care, have no kids in state education.... i still pay for all those that do, its called society.

we dont have hypothicated taxes (yet) in the UK.

anyhow, i m still paying for your train journeys too, subsidy is £4 billion, and some 6billion in loans every year to network rail, will these be repaid.

So your journeys to work re costing the tax payer.

- So why should we not be subbing say the food bills of the less well off - bit more fundamental than a train journey sub?
- Also please explain why trains should be singled out for the 'society' treatment and subbing others, whereas other methods of getting around are not?

While I can see arguments for owning the basic infrastructure in the same way that the roads are public, I still agree with SC that the charges should be on a usage basis. (And on roads it is quite easy to argue that there is usage based taxation in the form of VED and fuel taxes).

Stev0 i hate to be the bearer of bad news here but you an me are subbing the food bills, transport costs and no doubt their 2 weeks holidays in the sun of the less well off via tax credits and housing benefit...... meanwhile many of the companies they work for, post big profits pay themselves and the share holders super large salaries, bonuses and dividends....so, we are subbing v profitable companies too :evil:

there are employees in our scheduling team earning close to the min wage and doubling their take home pay with TC and HB payments.

We give billions away to people with children too, regardless of their earnings (up to the higher rate of income tax) fuel payments to the elderly and free TV licences.

We sub bicycle ownership and electric vehicles, fuel efficient cars dont pay VED or much in the way of fuel tax but they still use the roads, oh yes buses are subsidised too.

So you can see, we live in a socialist paradise :shock: :shock: :shock:

Ah, back to the old socialst populist stereotype of big bad companies screwing the employees. Do you seriously believe that? Especially when to the larger companies that you are generalizing about pay average wages of nearly £35k - well above the national average.

However you still haven't explained why you think rail is a special form of transport that need to be 'socialised' - please do.

I think that the minimum wage covers the food bills for pretty much everyone so you cannot say that tax credits sub food. Fags, booze and Sky subs maybe There is no direct link in any event.

mamba80

i ve explained that tax payers subsidise other transport systems to varying degrees, rail is nt something special at all.

how many workers on the supermarket tills get min wage and claim tax credits etc its a subsidy, either of their wages or the companies, which do you think it is? how much profit did Tesco make last year? i am subsidising that profit and i dont care if it is only fcuking worker... why should i ?????

btw the number of working families getting WTC is 4,8 million in 2015/16 ..... the state of UK business is indeed poor if they all work for employers that are penniless..

rjsterry

mamba80 wrote:

meanwhile many of the companies they work for, post big profits pay themselves and the share holders super large salaries, bonuses and dividends....so, we are subbing v profitable companies too :evil:

Stevo 666 wrote:

I think that the minimum wage covers the food bills for pretty much everyone so you cannot say that tax credits sub food. Fags, booze and Sky subs maybe

I see you two are trading clichés again. :roll:

surrey_commuter

mamba80 wrote:

i ve explained that tax payers subsidise other transport systems to varying degrees, rail is nt something special at all.

how many workers on the supermarket tills get min wage and claim tax credits etc its a subsidy, either of their wages or the companies, which do you think it is? how much profit did Tesco make last year? i am subsidising that profit and i dont care if it is only fcuking worker... why should i ?????

btw the number of working families getting WTC is 4,8 million in 2015/16 ..... the state of UK business is indeed poor if they all work for employers that are penniless..

I am with Mamba on this one. However HB got out of control under Blair/Brown and WTC was them as well. Tories are only guilty of not ending it but people squeal a lot louder when they lose something than they cheers when they gain.

mamba80

Yay !!!!!! success!!!!!

yep old new Labour were wrong on this, the prob is low wages and though WTC was an attempt at putting it right, it doesnt solve the problem and possibly more importantly, reduces differentials as more an an more people find themselves on it.

but the point i was making to Stev0 is we subsidise many things (for the supposed common good of society) not just rail, he just being argumentative because i m correct!

surrey_commuter

mamba80 wrote:

Yay !!!!!! success!!!!!

yep old new Labour were wrong on this, the prob is low wages and though WTC was an attempt at putting it right, it doesnt solve the problem and possibly more importantly, reduces differentials as more an an more people find themselves on it.

but the point i was making to Stev0 is we subsidise many things (for the supposed common good of society) not just rail, he just being argumentative because i m correct!

Small state vs large state is a different argument. Rail users should pay not taxpayers. If you want to subsidise specific groups that is another debate but universal subsidies is how you end up £2trn in debt.

pblakeney

Surrey Commuter wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Yay !!!!!! success!!!!!

yep old new Labour were wrong on this, the prob is low wages and though WTC was an attempt at putting it right, it doesnt solve the problem and possibly more importantly, reduces differentials as more an an more people find themselves on it.

but the point i was making to Stev0 is we subsidise many things (for the supposed common good of society) not just rail, he just being argumentative because i m correct!

Small state vs large state is a different argument. Rail users should pay not taxpayers. If you want to subsidise specific groups that is another debate but universal subsidies is how you end up £2trn in debt.

By the same argument road users should pay, not general taxation. Multiply road tax by 10 fold (?), ring fence it and make all users including cyclists pay?

tangled_metal

Pay by mile for cycling and strava will look less impressive!

tangled_metal

Charge pedestrians too because footways need maintenance.

rick_chasey

No one is gonna mention railtrack?

rjsterry

Surrey Commuter wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Yay !!!!!! success!!!!!

yep old new Labour were wrong on this, the prob is low wages and though WTC was an attempt at putting it right, it doesnt solve the problem and possibly more importantly, reduces differentials as more an an more people find themselves on it.

but the point i was making to Stev0 is we subsidise many things (for the supposed common good of society) not just rail, he just being argumentative because i m correct!

Small state vs large state is a different argument. Rail users should pay not taxpayers. If you want to subsidise specific groups that is another debate but universal subsidies is how you end up £2trn in debt.

Last time I checked, rail users do pay. Some figures here.

http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_fil ... 015-16.pdf

Franchised train operator income, prior to
consolidation adjustments, was £12.4bn in
2015-16 as shown in figure 2.2.
Fares income of £9.2bn represents 74% of
gross franchised train operator income.
Government support of £2.4bn represents
19% of total gross franchised train operator
income.
Other income (for example, from on-board
catering, car parks etc.) of £0.8bn is 7% of
total gross franchised train operator
income.

Don't forget that a majority of those using the trains will be tax payers themselves (people on lower incomes tend to use cheaper buses). Given the assistance to businesses of having decent transport infrastructure, I would imagine that the money the government puts in sees a pretty good return in increased tax revenue. Imagine for a second London without its rail and tube network.

surrey_commuter

PBlakeney wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Yay !!!!!! success!!!!!

yep old new Labour were wrong on this, the prob is low wages and though WTC was an attempt at putting it right, it doesnt solve the problem and possibly more importantly, reduces differentials as more an an more people find themselves on it.

but the point i was making to Stev0 is we subsidise many things (for the supposed common good of society) not just rail, he just being argumentative because i m correct!

Small state vs large state is a different argument. Rail users should pay not taxpayers. If you want to subsidise specific groups that is another debate but universal subsidies is how you end up £2trn in debt.

By the same argument road users should pay, not general taxation. Multiply road tax by 10 fold (?), ring fence it and make all users including cyclists pay?

Govt takes more off motorists than they spend so this is already done and they make a profit. Essentially VED and fuel tax is a rough approximation for wear and tear plus environmental pollution

rjsterry

You know taxes aren't hypothecated so VED and fuel duty no more fund the roads than Corporation Tax or NIC. You could argue that roads are a net benefit to the Treasury, but that's not a very holistic view unless you start factoring in losses due to congestion, pollution and accidents.

If railways are a net cost to the Treasury, surely that's another argument against the current system.

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

meanwhile many of the companies they work for, post big profits pay themselves and the share holders super large salaries, bonuses and dividends....so, we are subbing v profitable companies too :evil:

Stevo 666 wrote:

I think that the minimum wage covers the food bills for pretty much everyone so you cannot say that tax credits sub food. Fags, booze and Sky subs maybe

I see you two are trading clichés again. :roll:

Notice the strategically placed smiley in mine - I was seeing if the 'evil tory' stereotype might get wheeled out again

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

meanwhile many of the companies they work for, post big profits pay themselves and the share holders super large salaries, bonuses and dividends....so, we are subbing v profitable companies too :evil:

Stevo 666 wrote:

I think that the minimum wage covers the food bills for pretty much everyone so you cannot say that tax credits sub food. Fags, booze and Sky subs maybe

I see you two are trading clichés again. :roll:

Notice the strategically placed smiley in mine - I was seeing if the 'evil tory' stereotype might get wheeled out again

You wheeled it out, not me and this went on under Labour, which is why i never mentioned any evil tory.... blah blah blah..

...whilst singularly failing to address that there are almost 5 million families in receipt of working tax credits, meaning despite having jobs, they fail to meet the basic monetary requirements needed, as set down by the DWP.

if we are not subsidising their employers, what are we doing?

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

meanwhile many of the companies they work for, post big profits pay themselves and the share holders super large salaries, bonuses and dividends....so, we are subbing v profitable companies too :evil:

Stevo 666 wrote:

I think that the minimum wage covers the food bills for pretty much everyone so you cannot say that tax credits sub food. Fags, booze and Sky subs maybe

I see you two are trading clichés again. :roll:

Notice the strategically placed smiley in mine - I was seeing if the 'evil tory' stereotype might get wheeled out again

You wheeled it out, not me and this went on under Labour, which is why i never mentioned any evil tory.... blah blah blah..

...whilst singularly failing to address that there are almost 5 million families in receipt of working tax credits, meaning despite having jobs, they fail to meet the basic monetary requirements needed, as set down by the DWP.

if we are not subsidising their employers, what are we doing?

Subsidising the people who receive the credits.

Why don't you look at other countries as many of our esteemed European colleagues seem to be well ahead of us in terms of 'subsidising employers':
https://www.glassdoor.co.uk/blog/social-benefits-europe-isnt-britain/

If you don't want to read the detail, just read the title. Then direct your socialist ire elsewhere

pblakeney

These are benefits for time off. Not subsidies for actually going.

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

meanwhile many of the companies they work for, post big profits pay themselves and the share holders super large salaries, bonuses and dividends....so, we are subbing v profitable companies too :evil:

Stevo 666 wrote:

I think that the minimum wage covers the food bills for pretty much everyone so you cannot say that tax credits sub food. Fags, booze and Sky subs maybe

I see you two are trading clichés again. :roll:

Notice the strategically placed smiley in mine - I was seeing if the 'evil tory' stereotype might get wheeled out again

You wheeled it out, not me and this went on under Labour, which is why i never mentioned any evil tory.... blah blah blah..

...whilst singularly failing to address that there are almost 5 million families in receipt of working tax credits, meaning despite having jobs, they fail to meet the basic monetary requirements needed, as set down by the DWP.

if we are not subsidising their employers, what are we doing?

Subsidising the people who receive the credits.

Why don't you look at other countries as many of our esteemed European colleagues seem to be well ahead of us in terms of 'subsidising employers':
https://www.glassdoor.co.uk/blog/social-benefits-europe-isnt-britain/

If you don't want to read the detail, just read the title. Then direct your socialist ire elsewhere

whataboutism......... dont matter what EU does, not my taxes... aside, i m not quite with you here... i m NOT in anyway agreeing with these subsidies... eg if you cant afford kids, dont hav em.

The day i get a subsidy for my DA groupset, is when i ll agree with subsidising TESCO et el....

btw i didnt even read the title :shock: :oops:

rjsterry

From that article

It’s never good to be out of work, but Denmark is the ‘best’ place in Europe to be unemployed with residents receiving 90 percent of previous earnings granted for up to 104 weeks.

:shock:

mamba80

rjsterry wrote:

From that article

It’s never good to be out of work, but Denmark is the ‘best’ place in Europe to be unemployed with residents receiving 90 percent of previous earnings granted for up to 104 weeks.

:shock:

It certainly does show why we need a contributory benefits system, people who pay taxes, should get more out if they fall on hard times.
Personally, i cant understand how there can be an argument against this, it was a founding principal of the Welfare state.

rick_chasey

rjsterry wrote:

From that article

It’s never good to be out of work, but Denmark is the ‘best’ place in Europe to be unemployed with residents receiving 90 percent of previous earnings granted for up to 104 weeks.

:shock:

Can you imagine UK politicians proposing that kind of welfare system when the UK struck oil in the North Sea?????

Stevo_666

PBlakeney wrote:

These are benefits for time off. Not subsidies for actually going.

Fail.

I guess you didn't read past the first paragraph because there are clear references to in work benefits in the second and third paragraphs

pblakeney

Stevo 666 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

These are benefits for time off. Not subsidies for actually going.

Fail.

I guess you didn't read past the first paragraph because there are clear references to in work benefits in the second and third paragraphs

Fail.

How important is sick pay, unemployment benefits or annual leave entitlements to you? Social benefits for people in the workplace in Europe are generally far more generous than in the U.S. Yet even within Europe, benefits vary dramatically. For the very first time, Glassdoor has pulled together social benefits data from 14 key European neighbouring economies, to establish which countries in Europe offer what provisions for people and which are most generous.

It is bad news for Britain, though. Unfortunately, the UK is in the bottom four overall taking into account factors such as maternity and paternity leave, general parental leave, paid holiday allowance, paid sick leave and unemployment benefits. Only the Swiss, the Irish and the Americans have a more frugal government policy.

The report, conducted in cooperation with Llewellyn Consulting titled “Which Countries in Europe Offer Fairest Paid Leave and Unemployment Benefits”, reveal that the countries offering the most generous workplace and welfare benefits overall are Denmark, France and Spain, with Denmark and Belgium in particular offering the best unemployment benefits (pay and eligibility period).

Zero mention of benefits or subsidies whilst actually at work.

surrey_commuter

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

meanwhile many of the companies they work for, post big profits pay themselves and the share holders super large salaries, bonuses and dividends....so, we are subbing v profitable companies too :evil:

Stevo 666 wrote:

I think that the minimum wage covers the food bills for pretty much everyone so you cannot say that tax credits sub food. Fags, booze and Sky subs maybe

I see you two are trading clichés again. :roll:

Notice the strategically placed smiley in mine - I was seeing if the 'evil tory' stereotype might get wheeled out again

You wheeled it out, not me and this went on under Labour, which is why i never mentioned any evil tory.... blah blah blah..

...whilst singularly failing to address that there are almost 5 million families in receipt of working tax credits, meaning despite having jobs, they fail to meet the basic monetary requirements needed, as set down by the DWP.

if we are not subsidising their employers, what are we doing?

Subsidising the people who receive the credits.

Why don't you look at other countries as many of our esteemed European colleagues seem to be well ahead of us in terms of 'subsidising employers':
https://www.glassdoor.co.uk/blog/social-benefits-europe-isnt-britain/

If you don't want to read the detail, just read the title. Then direct your socialist ire elsewhere

The argument is that Tesco can keep it's wage bill lower because the Govt is topping up wages to a liveable level.

TBH I am amazed you are defending one of el Gordo's more calamitously expensive mistakes (HB also right up there) when it is a prime example of utopian seeking socialists desperately spending other people's money without even the smallest understanding of the law of unintended consequences.