Why is there now an obsession with re-nationalisation?

The Ham · 18 Jul 2018

Railwaysceptic said:
As long as it's done within the framework and principles of democracy.

No-one in this thread has suggested that any tax-payer can refuse to pay any particular tax.

For the most part Governments spend money on policies which have substantial support and minimal opposition; e.g. education, law enforcement, the NHS. Included in this is expenditure which benefits only a small minority: very few people object to extra help for the disabled. There is also expenditure on minority interests which do not have much public support: e.g. subsidising opera. However there is little strong feeling about subsidies to the arts because most people recognise that the sums involved are small.

The sums spent subsiding railways are not small but most people in this country do not use railways. The question which has been raised is: it is proper to spend such large amounts to subsidise a minority form of transport which is not available to some people?

Yes the government spends a lot on the railways, however if you stopped having the railways you would also loose the tax paid by those railway staff. Which more than offsets the money paid out to the railways.

As such it could be argued that the only tax paid by railway staff pay for the railways and no one else's tax issues for the railways.

RailUK Forums

Bertie the bus · 18 Jul 2018

The Ham said:
Yes the government spends a lot on the railways, however if you stopped having the railways you would also loose the tax paid by those railway staff. Which more than offsets the money paid out to the railways.

That is completely made up. The tax paid by railway employees comes to nowhere near the amount the government puts in.

achmelvic · 18 Jul 2018

A quick google search suggests the number of people in the railway industry is about 200,000. Obviously income tax rates vary but say a very rough average of £10,000 tax per person per year gives £2bn income. Based on the ORR report for 2016-17 the net government support was £4.2bn so just over double the tax income from industry workers.

Of course that's assuming those 200,000 people wouldn't be working in another industry and still paying tax if the railway didn't exist.

Esker-pades · 18 Jul 2018

Bertie the bus said:
That is completely made up. The tax paid by railway employees comes to nowhere near the amount the government puts in.

I don't understand why that matters though.

Bertie the bus · 18 Jul 2018

achmelvic said:
A quick google search suggests the number of people in the railway industry is about 200,000. Obviously income tax rates vary but say a very rough average of £10,000 tax per person per year gives £2bn income. Based on the ORR report for 2016-17 the net government support was £4.2bn so just over double the tax income from industry workers.

Of course you have to add to that rail employees, like everybody else, use the NHS, have children of school age, expect a state pension, are victims of crime requiring the services of the police and the criminal justice system, etc, etc.

The Ham · 18 Jul 2018

achmelvic said:
A quick google search suggests the number of people in the railway industry is about 200,000. Obviously income tax rates vary but say a very rough average of £10,000 tax per person per year gives £2bn income. Based on the ORR report for 2016-17 the net government support was £4.2bn so just over double the tax income from industry workers.

Of course that's assuming those 200,000 people wouldn't be working in another industry and still paying tax if the railway didn't exist.

£4.2 billion includes HS2 construction costs, which if you exclude drops it to circa £3.4 billion.

According to:
https://www.google.com/url?q=http:/...YAWMQFggUMAM&usg=AOvVaw2poVRx6CbpzZdRfJlP4ex8

There's 114,500 rail staff and 248,900 staff in rail supply chain which based on your above £10,000 in income tax would be £3.6 billion. (Note this doesn't include retail staff in station locations).

However income tax isn't the only tax that people pay (council tax, VAT, etc.), so it's likely that the total tax paid could be higher. It also doesn't include the tax paid by the companies which employ them.

Yes some would be able to find alternative employment, however that could be at the expense of others who currently have jobs.

Esker-pades · 18 Jul 2018

All of this pales into insignificance when one considers the billions of journeys made that would be significantly disrupted.

Bertie the bus · 18 Jul 2018

So you are citing a report financed by the rail industry which includes, amongst others, retail staff at stations. Retail staff aren’t railway workers. If you want to quote from that report then the chart on page 19 is rather interesting. It would suggest the subsidy for the railway requires the entire tax take from everybody who works in Manchester. Hardly insignificant.

Esker-pades · 18 Jul 2018

Bertie the bus said:
So you are citing a report financed by the rail industry which includes, amongst others, retail staff at stations. Retail staff aren’t railway workers. If you want to quote from that report then the chart on page 19 is rather interesting. It would suggest the subsidy for the railway requires the entire tax take from everybody who works in Manchester. Hardly insignificant.

I'm still unsure of your argument here. Why is a £4.2bn rail subsidy unreasonable?

The Ham · 18 Jul 2018

Bertie the bus said:
So you are citing a report financed by the rail industry which includes, amongst others, retail staff at stations. Retail staff aren’t railway workers. If you want to quote from that report then the chart on page 19 is rather interesting. It would suggest the subsidy for the railway requires the entire tax take from everybody who works in Manchester. Hardly insignificant.

I used staff figures A and B from figure 1 on page 4, which also lists retail and the supply chain under C which is a further circa 42,000 staff.

The total tax for everything is cited in that report is £11 billion. With £5.8 billion being income tax. However that also includes D which is jobs created by those railway staff paying for stuff.

I was very careful to only include those which are more directly employed with running the railways (rail and rail supply) and none of the extra (retail staff and linked staff).

The graph on page 19 is the number of Jobs, that doesn't mean that the same tax is paid. As there could be difference in pay between the jobs.

Bertie the bus · 18 Jul 2018

The definition of "railway supply chain" in that document is incredibly vague but does suggest it includes hotels! What the other things are that it includes is anybody's guess. Regardless none of them are railway workers and you originally claimed rail staff paid for the sudsidy to the railway.

Railwaysceptic · 18 Jul 2018

FelixtheCat said:
Because tax pays for things which are a public service for the public good. The railways easily come under that. Affordable and fast public transport is one of the most important things when it comes to stimulating an economy.

Such is your opinion. There are far more effective ways of stimulating economic expansion.

Many people will argue that public transport includes buses, and as buses cost far less than trains, the taxpayer is entitled to ask that buses, not trains should be subsidised. Please note that much of the railway would not need a subsidy if it were run cost-effectively.

Esker-pades · 18 Jul 2018

Railwaysceptic said:
Such is your opinion. There are far more effective ways of stimulating economic expansion.

Many people will argue that public transport includes buses, and as buses cost far less than trains, the taxpayer is entitled to ask that buses, not trains should be subsidised. Please note that much of the railway would not need a subsidy if it were run cost-effectively.

Because, whilst a bus is reasonable for short hops, it is awful for journeys like London to Edinburgh. Good luck getting that done in 4h20m by road.

Esker-pades · 18 Jul 2018

Railwaysceptic said:
Please note that much of the railway would not need a subsidy if it were run cost-effectively.

This is possibly the best argument for nationalisation.

Goldfish62 · 18 Jul 2018

Railwaysceptic said:
Such is your opinion. There are far more effective ways of stimulating economic expansion.

Many people will argue that public transport includes buses, and as buses cost far less than trains, the taxpayer is entitled to ask that buses, not trains should be subsidised. Please note that much of the railway would not need a subsidy if it were run cost-effectively.

InterCity ran at a profit and NSE was close to break-even. It was an act of national vandalism to destroy them.

Railwaysceptic · 18 Jul 2018

AndrewE said:
He does benefit: people on trains are therefore not driving, causing congestion on the roads round him (and also adding to the pressure for more roadbuilding - I say that as someone in the middle of a 3 month road blockade for a big road junction enlargement, which when completed will make our life more difficult too.) Not to mention the loss of farmland and groundwater recharge because of the amount of tarmac being put down.
Exactly, and it also cuts pollution and consequent ill-health which a narrow-minded complainant might ignore.

You don't know if there is congestion where he lives. All you know is there is no railway.

He - and millions of other non-railway users - may have heard all the usual platitudes put out by railway supporters, and may have rejected them. So democracy raises its irritating head. He and others who don't use the railway are not second class citizens. They have the same rights as anyone else . . . and there are far more of them than there are railway enthusiasts.

Railwaysceptic · 18 Jul 2018

Goldfish62 said:
InterCity ran at a profit and NSE was close to break-even. It was an act of national vandalism to destroy them.

You'll get no argument from me!

Esker-pades · 18 Jul 2018

Railwaysceptic said:
You don't know if there is congestion where he lives. All you know is there is no railway.

He - and millions of other non-railway users - may have heard all the usual platitudes put out by railway supporters, and may have rejected them. So democracy raises its irritating head. He and others who don't use the railway are not second class citizens. They have the same rights as anyone else . . . and there are far more of them than there are railway enthusiasts.

If that's your opinion, vote for a party or form your own that includes the policy of scrapping central government funding for the railways altogether.

nottsnurse · 18 Jul 2018

FelixtheCat said:
This is possibly the best argument for nationalisation

Indeed.

How is it "cost effective" to have multiple TOCs who occasionally operate over the same routes and duplicate services, each with their own management structure, training programs, etc, etc, and all of them with their own shareholders with their hands out?

Railwaysceptic · 18 Jul 2018

FelixtheCat said:
This is possibly the best argument for nationalisation.

Only in the sense that when the railways were in public ownership, there was constant pressure on B. R. to brings costs down. For those who remember those days well, the contrast between the attitudes of politicians, senior civil servants and industry leaders then and now is enormous and horrifying.

Esker-pades · 18 Jul 2018

nottsnurse said:
Indeed.

How is it "cost effective" to have multiple TOCs who occasionally operate over the same routes and duplicate services, each with their own management structure, training programs, etc, etc, and all of them with their own shareholders with their hands out?

Plus the sharing of rolling stock, and services where the stock and staff are provided by different TOCs.

The Ham · 19 Jul 2018

Bertie the bus said:
The definition of "railway supply chain" in that document is incredibly vague but does suggest it includes hotels! What the other things are that it includes is anybody's guess. Regardless none of them are railway workers and you originally claimed rail staff paid for the sudsidy to the railway.

Even to get down to the £3.6 billion (excluding HS2) spent on railways there's circa 20,000 staff which could be lost from the 250,000 supply chain staff to allow for such spurious staff (>15% of the supply chain staff).

However even the £4.2 billion spent on railways this is only 14% of the transport budget of all government in the UK.

However this drops to 0.51% of the total spend of all government in the UK.

That means that someone paying £10,000 in taxes could have £50 back.

Gareth Marston · 19 Jul 2018

FelixtheCat said:
If that's your opinion, vote for a party or form your own that includes the policy of scrapping central government funding for the railways altogether.

I often wonder if Railwayscpetic is a Taxpayers Alliance staff member - Its my way of attaching even less importance to his posts :lol:

Gareth Marston · 19 Jul 2018

The Ham said:
Even to get down to the £3.6 billion (excluding HS2) spent on railways there's circa 20,000 staff which could be lost from the 250,000 supply chain staff to allow for such spurious staff (>15% of the supply chain staff).

However even the £4.2 billion spent on railways this is only 14% of the transport budget of all government in the UK.

However this drops to 0.51% of the total spend of all government in the UK.

That means that someone paying £10,000 in taxes could have £50 back.

Just think of all the extra civil servants you'd have to recruit and pay to administer the pick and choose what my taxes pay for nonsense were hearing from certain posters....

yorksrob · 19 Jul 2018

Its a shame that we don't have one of those pie charts to hand which shows just what proportion of public funding is spent on what services. These always show transport spending to be a tiny slither of what public funding goes on, and that of course, is further divided into rail/road etc.

Compared to the great expenditures of health, social security etc, all of which are vital of course, public expenditure on rail is tiny, and well justified for the sake of having a functioning transport system.

Goldfish62 · 19 Jul 2018

yorksrob said:
Its a shame that we don't have one of those pie charts to hand which shows just what proportion of public funding is spent on what services. These always show transport spending to be a tiny slither of what public funding goes on, and that of course, is further divided into rail/road etc.

Compared to the great expenditures of health, social security etc, all of which are vital of course, public expenditure on rail is tiny, and well justified for the sake of having a functioning transport system.

Yes, and car users continue to be heavily subsided with the cost in real terms of motoring continuing to decline.

The Ham · 19 Jul 2018

yorksrob said:
Its a shame that we don't have one of those pie charts to hand which shows just what proportion of public funding is spent on what services. These always show transport spending to be a tiny slither of what public funding goes on, and that of course, is further divided into rail/road etc.

Compared to the great expenditures of health, social security etc, all of which are vital of course, public expenditure on rail is tiny, and well justified for the sake of having a functioning transport system.

From here:
https://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/breakdown

£829 billion total governments spend, of which £30 billion (3.6% of the total) is on all transport. Of which £4.2 billion (including building HS2) is rail (0.5%).

That would work out at £125 a year for someone on £25,000 a year if it was a personal budget.

To put that in perspective the average spend per year or person on chocolate is about half that.

Or to put it another way, rail spend is the following percentages of the following budgets:
5% education
9% defence
2.5% of public pensions
8% of interest repayments

LNW-GW Joint · 19 Jul 2018

But every time rail claims the national spend is "only" £4.2 billion (or whatever), it forgets that bus, air and ferry transport is "free" because they cost the government "nothing".
Maybe not quite, but those modes broadly cover their costs (with some profit for the owners/operators.
Why shouldn't rail be expected to do the same?

Gareth Marston · 19 Jul 2018

LNW-GW Joint said:
But every time rail claims the national spend is "only" £4.2 billion (or whatever), it forgets that bus, air and ferry transport is "free" because they cost the government "nothing".
Maybe not quite, but those modes broadly cover their costs (with some profit for the owners/operators.
Why shouldn't rail be expected to do the same?

Because Government wants to pretend that the 1993 Railway Act wasn't a huge financial cock up.

Esker-pades · 19 Jul 2018

LNW-GW Joint said:
But every time rail claims the national spend is "only" £4.2 billion (or whatever), it forgets that bus, air and ferry transport is "free" because they cost the government "nothing".
Maybe not quite, but those modes broadly cover their costs (with some profit for the owners/operators.
Why shouldn't rail be expected to do the same?

Local councils are the ones who decide which bus services to subsidise. Recently, due to government spending cuts, these subsidies have been withdrawn for a lot of routes and bus services across the country have ceased to operated or have operated at much less frequent intervals. This has had a very detrimental effect on a lot of people who now have no public transport.

Why is there now an obsession with re-nationalisation?

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member