Playing with trains/ HS2 & 3

[Flosshilde]

But how much tax do the rail operators have to pay on the diesel that most if not all non-electrified trains incur? Simon B's post above tells us something about this. The fact remains that, if all subsidies on taxation on fuel were to be withdrawn from all public transport operators, whether they run coaches, planes or trains, even greater numbers of those middle- and lower-income people would be unable to afford to use public transport to get to work.

SimonB's post referred to how little fuel trains use compared to planes, not about how much tax they pay - which is more than airlines do. Airlines enjoy the unique benefit of not having to pay any tax on the enourmous amount of fuel they consume.

[teamsaint]

I like trains. I would love to see the UK (ALL of it) with fast , efficient, affordable trains.

But if there is anybody on this board who can't think of better ways to spend £32bn of our money,on transport or otherwise, I would be utterly amazed .

[MrGongGong]

I like trains. I would love to see the UK (ALL of it) with fast , efficient, affordable trains.

But if there is anybody on this board who can't think of better ways to spend £32bn of our money,on transport or otherwise, I would be utterly amazed .

Why not give it to the banks ?
after all they will really know what to do to stimulate the economy .................................................. ....not

[ahinton]

SimonB's post referred to how little fuel trains use compared to planes, not about how much tax they pay - which is more than airlines do. Airlines enjoy the unique benefit of not having to pay any tax on the enormous amount of fuel they consume.

Sure - but many people can't afford to travel on them nevertheless, because the fares are so much lower to fly and, as I state, if the tax on airline fuel were to be drastically increased, many more people would be denied access to the means of travel to work than is already the case - except, of course, that it's probably rather easier for airlines that opedrate domestic services within Britain to purchase their fuel elsewhere if such government action were to target them than it is for British train operating companies to do so.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I like trains. I would love to see the UK (ALL of it) with fast , efficient, affordable trains.

But if there is anybody on this board who can't think of better ways to spend £32bn of our money,on transport or otherwise, I would be utterly amazed .

The money to be spent on new railway projects is not wasted money. Money spent on bombing Libya and Iraq - that's a different matter. I'm in favour of investing in a low carbon transport system that will benefit Britain.

[ahinton]

The money to be spent on new railway projects is not wasted money. Money spent on bombing Libya and Iraq - that's a different matter. I'm in favour of investing in a low carbon transport system that will benefit Britain.

I rather fear that it will be, especially since not only can the country not afford to spend this money which it doesn't have (and will have to borrow because it doesn't); that said, the money wasted on Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan, together with that wasted on appallingly incompetent procurement procedures by the defence depertment as well, no doubt, as numerous other state departments, has indeed been and continues to be a gross waste but we can't now get that money back to outlay on HS2 or anything else because it's already been wasted.

[MrGongGong]

The "cheaper to fly" argument (obviously) only works if one is travelling between major cities
flying from Birmingham to London would be a bit ridiculous even without high speed trains

[ahinton]

The "cheaper to fly" argument (obviously) only works if one is travelling between major cities
flying from Birmingham to London would be a bit ridiculous even without high speed trains

Yes, of course that is the case (and we are already without high speed trains and will still be so when HS2 has been completed and put into service); of course there's no substitute for trains as far as public transport goes when the distances are relatively small and there are no airports at either end that one could otherwise consider using - but then if the train fares are already so prohibitive (as indeed most of them are), people will abandon public transport altogether and get in their own cars to make the journeys concerned - all the more so if train and plane fuel comes to be fully taxed and fares increase again substantially as a direct consequence.

[teamsaint]

The money to be spent on new railway projects is not wasted money. Money spent on bombing Libya and Iraq - that's a different matter. I'm in favour of investing in a low carbon transport system that will benefit Britain.

I completely agree.
build HS2 IF we stop the wars, and supporting banks etc.

Until that stops, spent the money better elsewhere.

[ahinton]

I completely agree.
build HS2 IF we stop the wars, and supporting banks etc.

Until that stops, spent the money better elsewhere.

I'm all in favour of massive defence cuts and better use of the money thus saved but, as we've already learnt, if we don't support the banks, however errant, they'll fail and then we won't have any money to do anything!

[MrGongGong]

if we don't support the banks, however errant, they'll fail and then we won't have any money to do anything!

that's not strictly true at all
there are other ways of doing things
there was a fascinating item on Laurie Taylors programme this week about the history of Debt which dispelled several myths , worth a listen
allowing something to fail when it clearly has can be a very good thing indeed
bailing people out when they make huge mistakes can be a huge mistake in itself
I can't see that we , as a society, have benefitted from bailing out the banks more than if the money had been given in CASH (not tax cuts or anything hidden) in blocks of a few hundred quid to random people (preferably in the afternoon .............) that's what would stimulate the economy , as would national curry night !

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I'm all in favour of massive defence cuts and better use of the money thus saved but, as we've already learnt, if we don't support the banks, however errant, they'll fail and then we won't have any money to do anything!

The government has supported the banks to protect customers. but those responsible for their gambling debts were not brought to account, - made liable - and declared bankrupt, etc.

[ahinton]

that's not strictly true at all
there are other ways of doing things
there was a fascinating item on Laurie Taylors programme this week about the history of Debt which dispelled several myths , worth a listen
allowing something to fail when it clearly has can be a very good thing indeed

It can be in certain circumstances but it can't in ones that mean that the money suppoy ends up drying up, tens of thosands of people are put out of work, salaries and pensions cannot be paid reliably and all the rest.

bailing people out when they make huge mistakes can be a huge mistake in itself

Again, it can, but that would, in cases as large as the ones that we've recently encountered, be a matter of deciding to substitute one devastating mistake for another.

I can't see that we , as a society, have benefitted from bailing out the banks more than if the money had been given in CASH (not tax cuts or anything hidden) in blocks of a few hundred quid to random people (preferably in the afternoon .............) that's what would stimulate the economy , as would national curry night !

That's not really the point; we haven't "benefitted" from this, of course - what has happened is that we'd have been even worse off if we hadn't done it. It certainly been far from a success to date, but the fallout from the alternative would almost certainly have been more drastic still.

[ahinton]

The government has supported the banks to protect customers. but those responsible for their gambling debts were not brought to account, - made liable - and declared bankrupt, etc.

This is true but there's no point in making individual miscreants liable unless they have sufficient personal funds to meet such liabilities as might be imposed; it's the old argument, once again, that it doesn't matter how good a legal case you might have, there's still no point in suing anyone for damages and redress if that person has insufficient funds. Whilst Fred the Shred isn't exactly short of a bob or three, his entire worldwide assets would barely represent a drop in the ocean in terms of redress even just for his own bank's misdemeanours.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

This is true but there's no point in making individual miscreants liable unless they have sufficient personal funds to meet such liabilities as might be impose.

No, but bankruptcy ensures they cannot say "sorry" and then carry on doing more of the same.

I'me beginning to like the idea of reviving the debtors' prison.