Europe --- In or Out

[Rayvin 5176]

Just now, ewerk said:

You're talking about introducing a ridiculous postcode lottery on tax.

 

It's only ridiculous because you've decided it is, I don't really get why it would be a challenge in a digital age. Program runs postcode and assigns tax code based on it. Technologically staggering stuff. I mean they do this with council tax already.

 

The alternative is Renton's view which, truthfully, I'm also ok with. But if it was a really serious sticking point, I think what I've outlined above would be fine.

[ewerk 30259]

2 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

It's only ridiculous because you've decided it is, I don't really get why it would be a challenge in a digital age. Program runs postcode and assigns tax code based on it. Technologically staggering stuff. I mean they do this with council tax already.

 

The alternative is Renton's view which, truthfully, I'm also ok with. But if it was a really serious sticking point, I think what I've outlined above would be fine.

You are assuming that the services that are needed are available from every train station.

[Rayvin 5176]

5 minutes ago, ewerk said:

You are assuming that the services that are needed are available from every train station.

 

Why am I assuming that?

 

I think there's a part of your argument that you're implying but that I'm not picking up. Which services? You mean direct trips to every other station in the country?

 

Maybe you mean that people will live near some stations but will have to travel to places that aren't near one, thus meaning they will have to drive. Ok, those people lose out. How many people can that possibly cover though? How many city dwellers regularly make trips into the country often enough for this to really be an issue? The only ones it should affect in any meaningful sense would be those that need to do so for work. And there just can't be too many of those. Certainly not those at the poorer end of the scale as far as I can imagine, since they would likely be living near to work.

[ewerk 30259]

2 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

Why am I assuming that?

 

I think there's a part of your argument that you're implying but that I'm not picking up. Which services? You mean direct trips to every other station in the country?

 

Maybe you mean that people will live near some stations but will have to travel to places that aren't near one, thus meaning they will have to drive. Ok, those people lose out. How many people can that possibly cover though? How many city dwellers regularly make trips into the country often enough for this to really be an issue? The only ones it should affect in any meaningful sense would be those that need to do so for work. And there just can't be too many of those. Certainly not those at the poorer end of the scale as far as I can imagine, since they would likely be living near to work.

So you're only talking about targeting cities? Outside of major cities I would guess a very large number of people don't both live and work within walking distance of a train station.

[Rayvin 5176]

I'm talking about targeting the areas that make sense. Yes, a very large number of people don't live and work within walking distance of a train station (overlooking buses for a moment) and if the 'postcode lottery' judged this to be the case then they would be on a different tax code.

 

I'm confused ewerk, you've just repeated back to me what I thought we'd already settled. Is this another one of those occasions where you're winding me up and I don't get it?

 

I cited cities specifically since they would be clear cut examples of areas in which the tax could be applied. They also constitute about 90% of the population. There will be other areas too, since there are plenty of stations in the arse end of nowhere.

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 3809]

Everybody benefits from a well provisioned rail network. Either as a direct user or as an indirect benefit because you drive on emptier roads because those using the railways are not driving. ALso of course you benefit from cleaner air due to the second point mentioned.

[ewerk 30259]

5 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

I'm talking about targeting the areas that make sense. Yes, a very large number of people don't live and work within walking distance of a train station (overlooking buses for a moment) and if the 'postcode lottery' judged this to be the case then they would be on a different tax code.

 

I'm confused ewerk, you've just repeated back to me what I thought we'd already settled. Is this another one of those occasions where you're winding me up and I don't get it?

 

I cited cities specifically since they would be clear cut examples of areas in which the tax could be applied. They also constitute about 90% of the population. There will be other areas too, since there are plenty of stations in the arse end of nowhere.

I just think it's a stupid idea and you will NEVER convince me otherwise.

[Rayvin 5176]

The tax code thing or nationalisation in general?

 

I'm actually more convinced about the latter following this discussion. And upon checking up that 90% of the population will live in cities by 2030, I'm actually more inclined to embrace Renton's view on the problems it causes.

 

Also as I set out in my original post and KCG has since echoed, there's a strong environmental argument for reducing car usage.

[Meenzer 15401]

Rail use is German and thus inherently suspicious.

[Rayvin 5176]

I am actually trying to imagine the fallout if the government didn't renew the licenses these companies get at the moment, and their business models cease to be. Shareholders go ballistic I guess and the right wing press tries to argue that this is a warning shot for all industries, sending the markets into a tumble.

 

Amusing thought, and certainly not a long term problem. If the government clearly set out the industries it was targeting then it would be able to limit the damage I think.

[ewerk 30259]

15 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

The tax code thing or nationalisation in general?

 

I'm actually more convinced about the latter following this discussion. And upon checking up that 90% of the population will live in cities by 2030, I'm actually more inclined to embrace Renton's view on the problems it causes.

 

Also as I set out in my original post and KCG has since echoed, there's a strong environmental argument for reducing car usage.

I'm not against nationalisation per se if it can be shown that the benefits outweigh the cons to the tax payer and end user.

[Rayvin 5176]

Well the environmental thing is one feather in its cap.

 

And I'm really not sure how much it would actually cost. I guess the hardware costs, so the trains and other assets... but they wouldn't have to reimburse any companies for the business in general as far as I can see.

 

Your point about how much of a saving the government could really offer is a fair one if there were large upfront costs associated with it - less so without them. As far as I can tell, the revenues for the rail providers was about £19bn a couple of years ago. So assuming that's more or less consistent, we're probably talking a yearly profit of £6-700m. Yeah it's not a lot, but the government could put that into something better than the pockets of already wealthy people. Plus, as I said, they can encourage uptake of rail usage to improve the difference. Fewer cars on the roads also means fewer costs for councils, etc. I think there's a strong knock on effect if a government really embraced rail usage after implementing nationalisation.

[Christmas Tree 4686]

2 hours ago, ewerk said:

You're not an intelligent man, CT. The sooner you realise that the happier you will be.

 

 It seems to me the “intelligent ones” are pretty fucking miserable. I’ll stay happy.

[Alex 34838]

Ignorance is bliss

[Christmas Tree 4686]

3 hours ago, Renton said:

 

Thatcher was a pro European and Chief architect of the single market. It was her that encouraged foreign investment by makng us the gateway to Europe. The very things you want to throw away.

 

Also, we were the sick man of Europe before we joined the EEC, and then we weren't. Can you see a connection there?

 

Thatcher was not a pro European, she was pro free trade. The EEC is a million miles away from what Europe has now become. She was in fact very anti Europe expanding in the way it did.

[Christmas Tree 4686]

2 hours ago, ewerk said:

And at the same time discriminating against those of us who don't have easy access to train services?

 

They’d just build more tracks with all the profits.

[ewerk 30259]

Well at least that would keep the Irish in work.

[ewerk 30259]

If CT was a MP

 

[Renton 21294]

15 minutes ago, Christmas Tree said:

 

Thatcher was not a pro European, she was pro free trade. The EEC is a million miles away from what Europe has now become. She was in fact very anti Europe expanding in the way it did.

 

You're completely wrong. The single market was her baby. In later years she railed against further political integration but she would have been spinning in her grave if she'd known May was trying to force us out of the biggest regulatory market on the planet, which is on our doorstep.

[ewerk 30259]

4 hours ago, Christmas Tree said:

 

STOP WORRYING MAN!

 

Seriously, you have the weight of the world on your shoulders.

 

A deal is getting done, we’ll carry on exactly as now for 2 or 3 years and then seemlessly transition to the new arrangements. Virtually nobody will notice the difference.

The French don't share your blind optimism.

 

[Dr Gloom 21812]

i just read that - there is no way on earth any of that is going to be allowed to happen. imagine being the PM who oversaw no deal man, no one wants to put their name to it and parliament won't allow it to happen. it's about salvaging as much as we can from this shit show

[Christmas Tree 4686]

46 minutes ago, Renton said:

 

You're completely wrong. The single market was her baby. In later years she railed against further political integration but she would have been spinning in her grave if she'd known May was trying to force us out of the biggest regulatory market on the planet, which is on our doorstep.

 

 we wouldn’t have even got past the Maastricht treaty if she’d still been PM.

[Christmas Tree 4686]

2 hours ago, Rayvin said:

Well the environmental thing is one feather in its cap.

 

And I'm really not sure how much it would actually cost. I guess the hardware costs, so the trains and other assets... but they wouldn't have to reimburse any companies for the business in general as far as I can see.

 

Your point about how much of a saving the government could really offer is a fair one if there were large upfront costs associated with it - less so without them. As far as I can tell, the revenues for the rail providers was about £19bn a couple of years ago. So assuming that's more or less consistent, we're probably talking a yearly profit of £6-700m. Yeah it's not a lot, but the government could put that into something better than the pockets of already wealthy people. Plus, as I said, they can encourage uptake of rail usage to improve the difference. Fewer cars on the roads also means fewer costs for councils, etc. I think there's a strong knock on effect if a government really embraced rail usage after implementing nationalisation.

 

Youre talking nonsense, the railways are still subsidised. Even if all the profits were reinvested it would still need subsidising. That’s money from other things like the NHS. That’s before we get on to the extra wages, perks, staff, rolling stock etc that would follow.

 

So forget lowering fares. 

 

All to for what? 

[Alex 34838]

We shouldn't really be that bothered what one of the main architects of neoliberalism thinks about anything given what a fucking disaster it's been

[Christmas Tree 4686]

23 minutes ago, ewerk said:

The French don't share your blind optimism.

 

 

Mots almost as though we are in a negogiation

 

Macron, already a very unpopular president, would absolutely shit himself if there was no deal.

 

Honestly, it’s all theatrics for the next 4 weeks and then lots of heroes when it’s finally signed.