The face of your avatar was deliberately drawn in low detail so they could be interpreted as a person of any gender.
Whatever Part of the World Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II Owns Right Now.
- 主题发起人 AreJohn
- 开始时间
正在查看此主题的用户
Paronomasia12
Master Knight
Hey, it's fortunate I renewed my EHIC* recently (Y)
*European Health Insurance Card
*European Health Insurance Card
pentagathus
Baron
Apparently we've had another extension and we're going to have a general election soon. If Labour can form a government they'll hold a referendum including the option to remain, if BigBadBoris smashes it like an Asian kid in a rugby match I presume he'll push through his deal and if the libdems manage to spike the nation's drinking water with enough LSD to achieve a win then they'll just revoke the leaving thing.
pentagathus
Baron
Probably not the most relevant thread but whatever.
Trains. Those old choochoomobiles. J Corbs has been pretty big on re-nationalising our rail network since forever and he wants to reduce fares too apparently, the economic argument seems pretty feeble to me since they compete with buses, carrs, planes etc and the "fairness" argument seems even weaker since I don't see how it's fair to make people who drive, walk, cycle or bus to work subsidise the commute of those who use the trains.
But then there's the environmental argument, which seems legit. Except maybe not, because a long commute is still not environmentally friendly when you take the train and the discussion around rail fares seems to be centred on people commuting from smaller towns to London or other cities. And subsidising such commutes would presumably increase their prevalence.
Can't remember why I started writing this post.
Trains. Those old choochoomobiles. J Corbs has been pretty big on re-nationalising our rail network since forever and he wants to reduce fares too apparently, the economic argument seems pretty feeble to me since they compete with buses, carrs, planes etc and the "fairness" argument seems even weaker since I don't see how it's fair to make people who drive, walk, cycle or bus to work subsidise the commute of those who use the trains.
But then there's the environmental argument, which seems legit. Except maybe not, because a long commute is still not environmentally friendly when you take the train and the discussion around rail fares seems to be centred on people commuting from smaller towns to London or other cities. And subsidising such commutes would presumably increase their prevalence.
Can't remember why I started writing this post.
pentagathus
Baron
Bus goodest?
no
Abdullah Öcalan's stache 说:
Well, constitutions can be rewritten and promptly ignored as well.
Big Bad Pent 说:
The whole point of a public service is to distribute the costs of something that benefits society as a whole. Taxes on corporations and trade, despite how insanely low they are right now, probably pay for most of it. You're never just paying for yourself, you're paying so that the whole society can run properly. For instance even if I hate kids and have sterilised myself to prevent me from ever reproducing, it is in my best interests to pay for education as a whole, and even that is the most selfish Randian motive. I don't use public transport all that often but I would be fine paying a bit extra in tax so that it's free for all and can be expanded.
Big Bad Regard 说:
Cars are ridiculously inefficient compared to trains and buses. Assuming we can't prevent people from commuting to london, the best option is to make sure there are enough trains to prevent millions of people driving into the city every day.
pentagathus
Baron
No, if businesses in London want to attract a commuting workforce they can pay wages to compensate for the commute. Having the entire nation subsidise this is not fair, and it obscures the actual cost of these commutes. If you're not willing to pay £15 a day for your journey to work for example then it obviously isn't worth that cost, or perhaps in the long run it will make you consider moving closer to work or finding alternative transport - but if we subsidise it so you pay £5 you may well be happy to pay this, use an inefficient service and ruin the entire country Jacob! And since buses seem so much cheaper to run than trains, why trains? (And apparently it's not the environmental argument because buses are on average less damaging than trains per passenger).
Assuming we can't prevent people from commuting to London means we should subsidise it? If it's undesirable I don't think we should be financially encouraging it, but possibly it is a case of being the lesser evil. But assuming we can't prevent people from commuting to London would be silly - we can't prevent all people from commuting but we most likely could reduce the number by actually making them pay the cost of their commutes. Perhaps we should be subsidising business that make an effort to recruit locally? Is making sure London remains the epicentre of business in the UK actually important or even useful for our economy? Is it worth the monetary cost? And if so is the economic gain worth the environmental and human cost of commuting? Can we not just stage fake terror attacks on commuter trains to stop this nonsense?
Btw I actually like trains. I also don't care that much about whether or not they're nationalised. But I'm not sure the case for doing so is particularly good.
Assuming we can't prevent people from commuting to London means we should subsidise it? If it's undesirable I don't think we should be financially encouraging it, but possibly it is a case of being the lesser evil. But assuming we can't prevent people from commuting to London would be silly - we can't prevent all people from commuting but we most likely could reduce the number by actually making them pay the cost of their commutes. Perhaps we should be subsidising business that make an effort to recruit locally? Is making sure London remains the epicentre of business in the UK actually important or even useful for our economy? Is it worth the monetary cost? And if so is the economic gain worth the environmental and human cost of commuting? Can we not just stage fake terror attacks on commuter trains to stop this nonsense?
Btw I actually like trains. I also don't care that much about whether or not they're nationalised. But I'm not sure the case for doing so is particularly good.
Trains more polluting per passegner than buses? I would be surprised if that were true, but I assume you have seen figures for it somewhere. However, buses cannot really replace trains for long commutes- they aren't fast enough. Believe me; years ago when I was commuting I had to take the train, and on the occasions when I was late or the train didn't turn up, I had to take the bus and it was not an adequate alternative. And when you say that businesses are tempting commuters to London with higher wages, well I would think it more the case that workers cannot get the sort of job that they want outside of London. After all, nobody is going to commute to London for a beefier wage if they can save their time and rail money by not commuting to London in the first place, and just work close to home. But anyway, if businesses need workers and have chosen to situate themselves in London, then they will pay what they can to get staff, there is no changing that. Although one could certainly argue that the Government could do something to make other parts of the country more attractive to business and thus reduce the focus on the capital.
Besides, if you aren't going to pay taxes for a relatively efficient train system, then you would be paying more taxes to cover the cost of building new roads etc, because people are always going to need to commute (unless more work starts being done from home, in which case we will need to spend loads more on upgrading the internet). No option is going to be cheap for the taxpayer. You could say in the case of roads, just ramp up road tax and don't burden the general population, but there comes a point where the higher price isn't encouraging people to find an alternative to making the journey, you are just impoverishing them because there isn't a viable alternative. For loads of new road projects and colossal car parks, they would probably have to tax the general population, if it were even feasible to try and service London's commuters mainly through car traffic as opposed to trains (I suspect not).
Besides, if you aren't going to pay taxes for a relatively efficient train system, then you would be paying more taxes to cover the cost of building new roads etc, because people are always going to need to commute (unless more work starts being done from home, in which case we will need to spend loads more on upgrading the internet). No option is going to be cheap for the taxpayer. You could say in the case of roads, just ramp up road tax and don't burden the general population, but there comes a point where the higher price isn't encouraging people to find an alternative to making the journey, you are just impoverishing them because there isn't a viable alternative. For loads of new road projects and colossal car parks, they would probably have to tax the general population, if it were even feasible to try and service London's commuters mainly through car traffic as opposed to trains (I suspect not).
I think this image can benefit the discussion, since Pent has repeatedly mentioned this false uncited factoid.
Please spoiler big images.Χρήσιμος Ηλίθιος 说:
I think this image can benefit the discussion, since Pent has repeatedly mentioned this false uncited factoid.
Also, what Dan said. Speed and travel distance efficiency is also an argument, so even if coach>domestic rails, or if cars are the same as rails, if you have an absolute insane amount of people travelling, it's better to do on trains than in cars.
类似的主题
