Banks

[teamsaint]

i'm sorry PhilipT I was being flippant because I do find these sorts of discussion pretty mind-numbing.

There wasn't a single council that was not built using some money from the private sector (banks or other investots) plus money from central government (tax-payers) via the local authority. Why was it possible in the 1930s and then in the 1960s and later, but no longer?

It is possible to raise the money. Governments might have to go to the markets to borrow. They might need to tax. They won't have to spend subsidy money like they do to power generators and Railway franchises now. Profits can be reinvested. We have a nationalised bank which can get its finger out and do something useful, they can have various types of Stakeholder ( awful word) to contribute to capital costs.
I am by nature a believer in low taxes. But if we need higher taxes, especially on the folks at the top who just got 27% pay increases, then so be it. It would be worth it to save our country from the banks and other associated psycopaths,and their whitehall poodles.
When people say it can't be done, they mean, I don't want it to happen.

And Ams, you are quite right. Look back, see what we used to do. We did it then, we can do it now.

[PhilipT]

I'm quite sure it is possible. The trouble is that the money is now being spent on other things. If, say, Blair's mantra had been "housing, housing, housing" then maybe we would now have more social housing, lower rents (because of more supply), fewer twenty-somethings still living with their parents (and not worrying about their student loans because they never went to uni in the first place) etc. etc.

Council taxes have been frozen for a few years now. Do you want to see them raised substantially to fund new council houses? (I do, by the way, agree that flogging off the old ones below market value for ideological reasons was wrong, but thinking that won't bring them back.)

[PhilipT]

Profits can be reinvested.

What profits? Are we talking high-rent social housing here? Or affordable-rent rabbit-hutch social housing? Or affordable-rent gerry-built social housing?

Please face it: Any attempt to make the bottom end of the market affordable for the least well off will need public subsidy. This is true of transport, housing, health care, education and everything else. There won't be any profits. The question is: how much subsidy is the taxpayer prepared to fund?

[teamsaint]

If there are no "profits", why do private companies invest in or run all these services?
American healthcare companies are desperate to get in here.
Builders make money...usually.
Rail companies(subsidised )make profits.
I accept that in most of these areas its difficult to make a non subsidised profit....but the post subsidy profit would be saved.

you either spend less on subsidy , or reap the profit reward.

And I have no problem with government money going to help fund health care, housing, and transport for the less well off. None at all.
We already do it, as we have seen. We could just do it better by taking it completely into government control.

(incidentally, I don't like state monopolies in principle, but some things you have to live with....like banks for instance!)

[Flosshilde]

What profits? Are we talking high-rent social housing here? Or affordable-rent rabbit-hutch social housing? Or affordable-rent gerry-built social housing?

Please face it: Any attempt to make the bottom end of the market affordable for the least well off will need public subsidy. This is true of transport, housing, health care, education and everything else. There won't be any profits. The question is: how much subsidy is the taxpayer prepared to fund?

I'm glad you agree that the private sector can't make a profit by providing services without subsidy from the tax payer. In which case, why are they involved? It would be cheaper for the public sector to provide the services, & not have subsidies propping up the income shareholders get.

[amateur51]

What profits? Are we talking high-rent social housing here? Or affordable-rent rabbit-hutch social housing? Or affordable-rent gerry-built social housing?

Please face it: Any attempt to make the bottom end of the market affordable for the least well off will need public subsidy. This is true of transport, housing, health care, education and everything else. There won't be any profits. The question is: how much subsidy is the taxpayer prepared to fund?

Oh I'd be quite happy to see the same amount of subsidy that was handed out from 1969 to 2000 as MIRAS (Mortgage Interest Tax Relief At Source) to the middle classes to buy their own homes, figures brought up-to-date of course

[MrGongGong]

Just picking up again the micro-thread on using a personal account to run ones business through. Leaving aside the ethics of that, what you're now doing (TS and MrGG) is doubling the chances of you going into the red unexpectedly/financial mismanagement/poor credit control of debtors/whatever and then when you get allegedly 'penalised' by the banks, somehow it is their fault?

How on earth do you conclude that ?
Like I said before you don't seem to have any grasp on things at all

and as for your idea of "ethics"

anyway RM I think its about time YOU came out about what YOU do
rather than sitting in your armchair passing judgement on others and not even reading what people say

I suspect a case of all mouth and no trousers though

[Flosshilde]

I suspect a case of all mouth and no trousers though

Oo-er missus - don't get me too excited.

[PhilipT]

I'm glad you agree that the private sector can't make a profit by providing services without subsidy from the tax payer.

I said no such thing and I hold you in utter contempt for misrepresenting me. The crucial words in what I said were "for the least well off". You know that as well as I do. You know as well as I, and everyone else here, that your omission of those crucial words is proof of your bad faith. If you can't hold a civilised conversation without resort to such tactics please go somewhere else.

[Flosshilde]

I said no such thing and I hold you in utter contempt for misrepresenting me. The crucial words in what I said were "for the least well off". You know that as well as I do. You know as well as I, and everyone else here, that your omission of those crucial words is proof of your bad faith. If you can't hold a civilised conversation without resort to such tactics please go somewhere else.

Goodness me, what got your knickers in a twist?

Please face it: Any attempt to make the bottom end of the market affordable for the least well off will need public subsidy. This is true of transport, housing, health care, education and everything else. There won't be any profits. The question is: how much subsidy is the taxpayer prepared to fund?

You quite clearly accept that subsidies are neccessary to provide services, whether for the poor or rich - I don't think that the ones you cite are segregated by provider according to income.

[scottycelt]

As I've said before, that was a deliberate policy of the Tory governments; and the Inter-City section was profitable. The point is that the taxpayer is still paying for railways, except that now some of the money goes into shareholders pockets.

And whose pockets did the private investment come from. then ... ?

Have you ever been a shareholder, Flossie? Don't you realise that shareholders are just as likely to make a thumping loss than a substantial gain? That's the risk they take with their own money. It's not your money it's THEIRS ...

If the Inner-City operation was so profitable, where did the profits go? ... certainly not on improving the network ... and you certainly didn't get the opportunity of the very cheap tickets that are available on websites like Trainline today!

[amateur51]

And whose pockets did the private investment come from. then ... ?

Have you ever been a shareholder, Flossie? Don't you realise that shareholders are just as likely to make a thumping loss than a substantial gain? That's the risk they take with their own money. It's not your money it's THEIRS ...

If the Inner-City operation was so profitable, where did the profits go? ... certainly not on improving the network ... and you certainly didn't get the opportunity of the very cheap tickets that are available on websites like Trainline today!

Far and few, far and few ....

[scottycelt]

Far and few, far and few ....

I've rarely had any difficulty, amsey, as long as one doesn't insist on travelling at peak times?

Of course, there may be the very rare occasions one is forced to (travel at peak times), but, as you put it, far and few, far and few ...

[Flosshilde]

Have you ever been a shareholder, Flossie? Don't you realise that shareholders are just as likely to make a thumping loss than a substantial gain? That's the risk they take with their own money. It's not your money it's THEIRS ...

Not when the company is supported by subsidies from the government.

If the Inner-City operation was so profitable, where did the profits go? ... certainly not on improving the network ...

well, no, because the governments of the day didn't want to - a deliberate policy of running the service down. The money went back into government coffers, or cross-subsidised the unprofitable local services.

[scottycelt]

... a deliberate policy of running the service down ...

Considering government politicians (of whatever hue) may reasonably aspire to be re-elected what has made you arrive at such a shockingly alternative view of natural human ambition then, Floss ... ?