It’s Christmas Eve! What Are We...
ChatterBank11 mins ago
Fares
38 Answers
ind.pn/OlrnhM
One Kent MP – Sir John Stanley, the member for Tonbridge and Malling – accused ministers of "exploiting commuters" and using rail fares as "a disguised form of taxation".
That wouldn’t be, by any chance, what Tories always delighted in calling a “stealth tax”, would it?
One Kent MP – Sir John Stanley, the member for Tonbridge and Malling – accused ministers of "exploiting commuters" and using rail fares as "a disguised form of taxation".
That wouldn’t be, by any chance, what Tories always delighted in calling a “stealth tax”, would it?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Quizmonster. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
have they, can you provide evidence. Most of my colleagues at the time would have been what one calls core Tory voters, not all mind but most, and they paid the highest premiums for their often packed trains. My o/h was exactly the same, cost a small fortune to travel on the train, trudging back and forth, several hours out of a very long day. Unhealthy, packed, and uncomfortable trains, where you could rarely get a seat.
I just don't understand how they can even consider raising fares. I commute a very short distance from south east london to central london Mon-Fri, and have been doing so for a year now. It would be fare to say that at least once a week I have a train cancelled and/or (but usually 'and') I get to charring cross and there is a great horde of people there because of 'signal failures' so all the trains are running late. Every morning London Bridge is a bottle neck. The trains also seem to be getting steadily more crowded. There have never been seats for my journey in to work and when I come back home the train is quite often packed before we've even started the journey, it was not like that a year a go, usually took a couple of stops to get packed.
I don't see how if they can't get this relatively short journey right how they can possibly charge any more money to commuters living miles away who I'm guessing probably have an even worse daily journey than me.
I don't see how if they can't get this relatively short journey right how they can possibly charge any more money to commuters living miles away who I'm guessing probably have an even worse daily journey than me.
The true cost of the transport is more than the fare. See here for some details of subsidies per passenger mile:
http://
So somebody doing a 35 mile commute from, say, the Medway Towns to London via South East Trains has each day's travel subsidised by about £13. So it is a little disingenuous of Sir John Stanley to suggest that raising rail fares is a "form of taxation". All it is doing is relieving all taxpayers (most of whom never set foot on a train) from the burden of providing subsidised travel for people who use the trains.
What is puzzling is the fact that, despite the "efficiencies" alleged to have accrued from rail privatisation the railways now cost more to run in real terms, and are a greater burden on the taxpayer than they did in British Rail days. Further puzzling is the fact that, despite the privatisation and subsidy, commuters undertaking a twenty or thirty mile daily journey pay at least four and up to ten times the cost of a comparable journey elsewhere in Europe and the UK has far and away the highest rail fares in Europe.
http://
So somebody doing a 35 mile commute from, say, the Medway Towns to London via South East Trains has each day's travel subsidised by about £13. So it is a little disingenuous of Sir John Stanley to suggest that raising rail fares is a "form of taxation". All it is doing is relieving all taxpayers (most of whom never set foot on a train) from the burden of providing subsidised travel for people who use the trains.
What is puzzling is the fact that, despite the "efficiencies" alleged to have accrued from rail privatisation the railways now cost more to run in real terms, and are a greater burden on the taxpayer than they did in British Rail days. Further puzzling is the fact that, despite the privatisation and subsidy, commuters undertaking a twenty or thirty mile daily journey pay at least four and up to ten times the cost of a comparable journey elsewhere in Europe and the UK has far and away the highest rail fares in Europe.
StarBeast, do you ever bother to read earlier comments before posting your own views? The following link was provided earlier by Em, when I had trouble getting it to work for myself…
http://
It contains these words in Paragraph 3:
“Conservative and Lib Dem MPs said they would lobby the chancellor and the transport secretary, Justine Greening, to cap increases at 1% above inflation at most. Rises at that level are written in to franchise agreements, but all of the extra 2% above that flows directly to the Treasury – prompting MPs and commuters to complain of a tax on commuting.”
As you can see, fares at 1% above inflation are to be expected but 3% means that the extra 2% goes straight to the Treasury. That means it is, in effect, a tax and a stealthy one at that!
http://
It contains these words in Paragraph 3:
“Conservative and Lib Dem MPs said they would lobby the chancellor and the transport secretary, Justine Greening, to cap increases at 1% above inflation at most. Rises at that level are written in to franchise agreements, but all of the extra 2% above that flows directly to the Treasury – prompting MPs and commuters to complain of a tax on commuting.”
As you can see, fares at 1% above inflation are to be expected but 3% means that the extra 2% goes straight to the Treasury. That means it is, in effect, a tax and a stealthy one at that!
The cash only "goes straight to the Treasury", QM, insofar as it offsets some of the £5bn or so which flows out in the form of rail subsidies. The government has decided that the annual subsidy to the railways (which amounts to about 45% of their revenue) is unsustainable and is particularly unpallatable because the railways are used by only about 12% of the population. So I still maintain that it is incorrect to describe the fare rises as a tax (stealthy or otherwise). Nobody would describe an increase in NHS prescription charges as a stealth tax and rail fare increases are the same in principle.
there are more passenger miles made by rail in japan than almost any country in the world. yet this network too requires a state subsidy.
only 12% of the population regularly use the trains, and the government have suggested that they no longer wish to sustain a subsidy of 45% of the network's revenue.
why is it that our government (and just about every other where railways exist) insist on pouring cash into a bottomless hole?
only 12% of the population regularly use the trains, and the government have suggested that they no longer wish to sustain a subsidy of 45% of the network's revenue.
why is it that our government (and just about every other where railways exist) insist on pouring cash into a bottomless hole?
"Nobody would describe an increase in NHS prescription charges as a stealth tax."
Tories probably would have, NJ, if Labour had made such an increase! Indeed, it was a Tory who did so in the present case, given that there's little difference in meaning between a 'disguised' form of taxation and a 'stealthy' form of taxation.
Tories probably would have, NJ, if Labour had made such an increase! Indeed, it was a Tory who did so in the present case, given that there's little difference in meaning between a 'disguised' form of taxation and a 'stealthy' form of taxation.
Yes, I read it, thoroughly, the fact that some money ends up going to the treasury does not mean it's a tax. The true cost of the transport is more than the fare, I think that is well established, so when it all comes out in the wash, arithmetically, any money collected is offset by subsidy. I was merely answering your question. It's not a tax, "stealth" or otherwise.
I seem to recall asking you (unanswered) elsewhere, StarBeast, whether you recalled the 13 years of Labour power, as I did not know your age. If you truly did, you would certainly remember that every single time Labour did anything whatsoever about raising costs, an element of which ended up in Treasury coffers, the Tories and their gutter press screamed, "Stealth tax, stealth tax!"
The fact that it was not 'technically' called[i a tax did not matter in the least to them. All that did matter was that it seemed to take money out of some British people's pockets that had previously stayed there, as in the current commuters' case.
Accordingly, that's precisely what I and others here, as well as the Tory MP quoted, choose to call the inflationary fare-rises...taxation. We don't care what you call it any more than the Tories did when it was their turn! So there's a subsidy...so what? The dosh raked in this time will obviously help the Treasury pay part of the subsidy [i]next] time!
The fact that it was not 'technically' called[i a tax did not matter in the least to them. All that did matter was that it seemed to take money out of some British people's pockets that had previously stayed there, as in the current commuters' case.
Accordingly, that's precisely what I and others here, as well as the Tory MP quoted, choose to call the inflationary fare-rises...taxation. We don't care what you call it any more than the Tories did when it was their turn! So there's a subsidy...so what? The dosh raked in this time will obviously help the Treasury pay part of the subsidy [i]next] time!
I am sure that way back I read somewhere that the idea of public transport was to get as many commuters as possible off the roads, that being the case rail prices are now forcing people back on to the roads. As they are as stated subsidizing rail travel anyway is it not time for the government to rethink about a national rail system ? I feel sure that reasonable national fares could be worked out & profits if any would go into government coffers.
WR.
WR.
Fair enough QM, however I was not commenting on political posturing merely the actual arithmetic of the situation. Yes I do remember the Tory "stealth tax" accusations and I can see the parallel you are making here. I can see the inherent need of Labour supporters to turn the tables. I was trying to answer pragmatically.
