Join the Labour Party and save your country!

1…267268270272273…509

Comments

  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,327
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    I do appreciate the argument; I’d slightly counter it with the idea that many towners have been priced out of their city of work, so the move out is not necessarily for a big house. Mine certainly isn’t

    It’s hard to fathom why it is so expensive if it is subsidised.
    Shareholders, salaries and bonuses.
    Wasn't there a news story covering this very issue recently?
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    bompington wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    It’s hard to fathom why it is so expensive if it is subsidised.
    https://nationalcareersservice.direct.g ... in-driver#

    Am I supposed to find those salaries high? Because I don’t really.
    _
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,327
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    bompington wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    It’s hard to fathom why it is so expensive if it is subsidised.
    https://nationalcareersservice.direct.g ... in-driver#

    Am I supposed to find those salaries high? Because I don’t really.
    Which would beg the question, what are you complaining about?
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    PBlakeney wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    bompington wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    It’s hard to fathom why it is so expensive if it is subsidised.
    https://nationalcareersservice.direct.g ... in-driver#

    Am I supposed to find those salaries high? Because I don’t really.
    Which would beg the question, what are you complaining about?

    I was talking about costs of travel tickets, not their salaries?

    I can see the line of argument but I don’t particularly see why those salaries automatically lead to high ticket prices.
    _
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,327
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    PBlakeney wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    bompington wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    It’s hard to fathom why it is so expensive if it is subsidised.
    https://nationalcareersservice.direct.g ... in-driver#

    Am I supposed to find those salaries high? Because I don’t really.
    Which would beg the question, what are you complaining about?

    I was talking about costs of travel tickets, not their salaries?

    I can see the line of argument but I don’t particularly see why those salaries automatically lead to high ticket prices.
    Add on shareholder profits and management bonuses, then it will become clearer.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • Jez mon
    Jez mon Posts: 3,809
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    PBlakeney wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    bompington wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    It’s hard to fathom why it is so expensive if it is subsidised.
    https://nationalcareersservice.direct.g ... in-driver#

    Am I supposed to find those salaries high? Because I don’t really.
    Which would beg the question, what are you complaining about?

    I was talking about costs of travel tickets, not their salaries?

    I can see the line of argument but I don’t particularly see why those salaries automatically lead to high ticket prices.
    https://nationalcareersservice.direct.g ... line-pilot

    Plane drivers get more by the looks of it... but flying is often cheaper than the train.

    Gas turbines have also got a lot more going on inside than the busses on rails that they see fit to put on Northern Rail.
    You live and learn. At any rate, you live
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,398
    PBlakeney wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    I do appreciate the argument; I’d slightly counter it with the idea that many towners have been priced out of their city of work, so the move out is not necessarily for a big house. Mine certainly isn’t

    It’s hard to fathom why it is so expensive if it is subsidised.
    Shareholders, salaries and bonuses.
    Wasn't there a news story covering this very issue recently?
    The pie chart is the attached is from mid this decade but won't be far off the mark:
    https://www.stagecoach.com/media/insight-features/the-facts-about-rail-fares.aspx

    Not quite as much of the voracious capitalists as some might want to imply.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    Point is surely the U.K. has seen transport prices and rent/house prices all go up substantially more than wages. That tends to hit low earners hardest; young people tend to be lower earners for obvious reasons.
    _
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,398
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Point is surely the U.K. has seen transport prices and rent/house prices all go up substantially more than wages. That tends to hit low earners hardest; young people tend to be lower earners for obvious reasons.
    Depends what it's going on - based on the link I posted, looks like people have to pay if they want nice shiny new rolling stock and new/upgraded train lines.

    And as has been said above, there is already an element of state subsidy and state ownership.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    Stevo, how is that not missing the point?
    _
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,398
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Stevo, how is that not missing the point?
    It's not missing my point...
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    I read an interesting (crazed?) article recently that pointed out that normal train journeys you accept you pay more for longer journeys as you want to go there. With commuting the cost should be inverse to the time spent on the train. I think it was seen as solution to the housing "crisis" as it would make it affordable for people to live further out.

    Almost certainly an academic but an interesting hypothesis.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    Wouldn’t be particularly productive on a macro level?
    _
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Wouldn’t be particularly productive on a macro level?

    all sorts of problems if you poke at it but interesting concept that why do you pay more to commute for longer

    How about a joined up plan for local authority and developer to gtee a commute subsidy which would be paid for by the increase in property values
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,551
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Cost of commuting shouldn’t need to be paid out of taxable income if my firm wasn’t so tight fisted.

    Is usual for firms to buy your ticket and take the cost out of your salary each month.

    Is it? Since when?
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    rjsterry wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Cost of commuting shouldn’t need to be paid out of taxable income if my firm wasn’t so tight fisted.

    Is usual for firms to buy your ticket and take the cost out of your salary each month.

    Is it? Since when?

    Every firm I’ve encountered...
    _
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,915
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Cost of commuting shouldn’t need to be paid out of taxable income if my firm wasn’t so tight fisted.

    Is usual for firms to buy your ticket and take the cost out of your salary each month.

    Is it? Since when?

    Every firm I’ve encountered...

    Definitely pre-tax? Because if so, you have worked in some dubious places!
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    They buy your ticket and you pay it back out of your salary.

    This isn’t common?
    _
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,915
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    They buy your ticket and you pay it back out of your salary.

    This isn’t common?

    It's common to have an interest free loan, but that is post tax.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    TheBigBean wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    They buy your ticket and you pay it back out of your salary.

    This isn’t common?

    It's common to have an interest free loan, but that is post tax.

    I must have understood it wrong.
    _
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,551
    TheBigBean wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    They buy your ticket and you pay it back out of your salary.

    This isn’t common?

    It's common to have an interest free loan, but that is post tax.

    Otherwise I think it would be a taxable benefit, which would be slightly self-defeating.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,327
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    TheBigBean wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    They buy your ticket and you pay it back out of your salary.

    This isn’t common?

    It's common to have an interest free loan, but that is post tax.

    I must have understood it wrong.
    Any subsidised travel between home and work is a benefit in kind and taxable. Therefore what you had was either taxed or dodgy. Go on the naughty step. :wink:
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    PBlakeney wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    TheBigBean wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    They buy your ticket and you pay it back out of your salary.

    This isn’t common?

    It's common to have an interest free loan, but that is post tax.

    I must have understood it wrong.
    Any subsidised travel between home and work is a benefit in kind and taxable. Therefore what you had was either taxed or dodgy. Go on the naughty step. :wink:

    I think he has been pushing it as a benefit on his candidates - still if he ends up in prison he can get a refund on his season ticket
  • shirley_basso
    shirley_basso Posts: 6,195
    Pretty sure it's just an interest free loan. Not tax deductible.

    On topic. I wonder how sweetly ironic it would have been if Labour had got in and we weren't f*cking around with brexit.

    Seems the country could have been saved.
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,398
    Shirley Basso wrote:
    Pretty sure it's just an interest free loan. Not tax deductible.

    On topic. I wonder how sweetly ironic it would have been if Labour had got in and we weren't f*cking around with brexit.

    Seems the country could have been saved.
    I think the saying is 'out of the frying pan and into the fire' (with bells on).
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    https://quillette.com/2018/12/03/the-id ... corbynism/

    The ideology of Corbynism.
    Three aspects of their critique, in particular, offer an illuminating perspective on Corbynism: the notion of “two campism,” the moral mythology surrounding the person of Corbyn, and the relationship between Corbynism and conspiracy theories.

    Which obviously begs the question, what is making people (predominantly young people) support him?
    _
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,551
    That's pretty damning isn't it.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • shirley_basso
    shirley_basso Posts: 6,195
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Shirley Basso wrote:
    Pretty sure it's just an interest free loan. Not tax deductible.

    On topic. I wonder how sweetly ironic it would have been if Labour had got in and we weren't f*cking around with brexit.

    Seems the country could have been saved.
    I think the saying is 'out of the frying pan and into the fire' (with bells on).

    A short sharp searing in the fire, but then back in the relative sauna of the frying pan after 4 or so years. But at least no Brexit.
  • bompington
    bompington Posts: 7,674
    Shirley Basso wrote:
    A short sharp searing in the fire, but then back in the relative sauna of the frying pan after 4 or so years. But at least no Brexit.
    Maybe, but alternatively...
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,551
    bompington wrote:
    Shirley Basso wrote:
    A short sharp searing in the fire, but then back in the relative sauna of the frying pan after 4 or so years. But at least no Brexit.
    Maybe, but alternatively...

    Now what could the current incumbents do about that, I wonder?
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition

Categories