By: Tim Worstall
Date: 7 August 2014
The most bizarre complaint yet about rising train fares
We’ve all, at some time or another, stood aghast when listening to
one or another outbreak of lefty intemperance. The stamping of the foot
as they insist upon absurdities like all people are born equal in every
possible skill and talent, it’s only society that makes us turn out
different. Or to move from one of Danny Dorling’s misconceptions of the
world, how about Thomas Piketty’s insistence on an 80% income tax plus
an annual wealth tax in order to avoid the fate of France which is a
country with a 75% income tax and an annual wealth tax. Or today’s
example, that it really is outrageous that rail fares should rise as
subsidies to railways fall:
Agreed, we here think that privately run railroads are a wonderful idea, that’s why we campaigned for that privatisation. We’re aware that there’s some people who don’t agree with us on that too. But look at that specific reason that’s being given. That it’s right and proper that people be taxed in order to make middle class commuting cheaper. That the dustman must pay to subsidise the stockbrokers’ travel in from Surrey. It’s an absurdity when put that way but that is the argument being made. That it is somehow wrong that those who wish to live a long way from their work should pay their own costs of doing so.
How about that for an absurd insistence?
In reality, fare increases aren’t really paying for infrastructure but are instead covering the gradual withdrawal of government subsidies, which have fallen by 9% in real terms since 2010-11.Well, yes, and?
Agreed, we here think that privately run railroads are a wonderful idea, that’s why we campaigned for that privatisation. We’re aware that there’s some people who don’t agree with us on that too. But look at that specific reason that’s being given. That it’s right and proper that people be taxed in order to make middle class commuting cheaper. That the dustman must pay to subsidise the stockbrokers’ travel in from Surrey. It’s an absurdity when put that way but that is the argument being made. That it is somehow wrong that those who wish to live a long way from their work should pay their own costs of doing so.
How about that for an absurd insistence?
No comments:
Post a Comment