No. If they were really public, it wouldn’t be measured as a loss. Like my city’s free buses aren’t losing money, they are providing a necessary service.
It’s still a fare they could have charged, calling it something different doesn’t change the fact that someone has to pay to keep the trains running. Why should the taxpayer be the one on the hook? If it’s such an important service the people who use it would be willing to pay for it.
Why should I pay for schools, I don’t have kids? It’s not like it benefits our entire country’s future.
Why should I pay for hospitals, I’m not sick. Not like my taxes are being used to help people who really really need it, and whose families are devastated
I don’t have access to a railway station either, should I pay for quieter, safer roads and communities, and making life easier for my fellow citizens?
Kids don’t have jobs and people don’t choose to get sick. People do choose to ride trains. Do you just think nobody should ever pay for anything? Haven’t we seen enough times how that works in practice?
People absolutely do choose trains over cars, when the train is actually viable. Just because that isn’t a thing in the UK doesn’t mean it couldn’t be.
Trains are not the only way to travel. Your definition of ‘need’ is so broad as to encompass most of the economy. Organizing society on the basis of that kind of thinking has been tried and the results are invariably disastrous.
I did read the article, I think the fine was too harsh for an honest mistake. But I wasn’t responding to the article, I was responding to someone celebrating the railways losing money because of people not paying their fares.
Because it incentivizes the most pro social option, especially in regards to land use. When more people use trains less roads are needed, less parking space is needed, and less traffic occurs. Subsidizing trains as a driver is significantly more sensible to me than the fact that my taxes pay for meat subsidies despite me being a vegetarian for example.
No. If they were really public, it wouldn’t be measured as a loss. Like my city’s free buses aren’t losing money, they are providing a necessary service.
It’s still a fare they could have charged, calling it something different doesn’t change the fact that someone has to pay to keep the trains running. Why should the taxpayer be the one on the hook? If it’s such an important service the people who use it would be willing to pay for it.
Yeah!
Why should I pay for schools, I don’t have kids? It’s not like it benefits our entire country’s future.
Why should I pay for hospitals, I’m not sick. Not like my taxes are being used to help people who really really need it, and whose families are devastated
I don’t have access to a railway station either, should I pay for quieter, safer roads and communities, and making life easier for my fellow citizens?
You sound like a yank
Kids don’t have jobs and people don’t choose to get sick. People do choose to ride trains. Do you just think nobody should ever pay for anything? Haven’t we seen enough times how that works in practice?
Nobody chooses to ride trains except old steam trains, stuff like the Orient Express
99% of people use trains because they need them, usually to get to work.
You’d be about as effective an economist as Liz The Lettuce
People absolutely do choose trains over cars, when the train is actually viable. Just because that isn’t a thing in the UK doesn’t mean it couldn’t be.
Trains are not the only way to travel. Your definition of ‘need’ is so broad as to encompass most of the economy. Organizing society on the basis of that kind of thinking has been tried and the results are invariably disastrous.
Calm doon Liz, western Europe organises society just like that, and there’s no need for you to gargle a billionaire’s todger about it
Nothing to see here folks. Just another brainwashed capitalist-dick-sucking class-traitor. He can go to the wall with the rest of them.
Didn’t read the article huh?
I did read the article, I think the fine was too harsh for an honest mistake. But I wasn’t responding to the article, I was responding to someone celebrating the railways losing money because of people not paying their fares.
I’m guessing you didn’t read the article, about how thousands of people are getting fined unfairly?
Because it incentivizes the most pro social option, especially in regards to land use. When more people use trains less roads are needed, less parking space is needed, and less traffic occurs. Subsidizing trains as a driver is significantly more sensible to me than the fact that my taxes pay for meat subsidies despite me being a vegetarian for example.