Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:35:41 on Mon, 8 Jan
2018, remarked:

mix of internally generated surplus and govt investment grant pays for new =
train fleets. I can't recall a train fleet being "flogged off" to pay for a=
new one. It was Caroline Pidgeon who remarked that the proposal was "craz=
y" (or some similar term).

And will almost certainly cost TfL more in the long run. Whoever buys the
trains won't be doing it for the good of mankind, they'll want a long term
profit. As ever short termism rules in british government.

What government wants is stability (whichever political party in power
we are talking about).

Thus, raising taxes to fund those trains could result in voters making a
change at the top, which tends to cause all sorts of costly consequences
reversing earlier policy decisions.

A long term lease (which is the opposite of short-term-ism actually)
does at least make things predictable.

Oh please. It'll cost a damn site more long term,

How do you know what the cost of political upheaval after raising taxes
is likely to be?

But they wouldn't raise taxes. They'd just borrow the money more cheaply,
thus ultimately reducing future taxes.


its just kicking the actual costs down the road for the next
government/administration to have to explain to the public.

The thing is, they don't ever have to explain it [again]. It's nailed
into the long term (that's good isn't it) operational costs, just like
the rent for the new HQ building they are leasing rather than buying.

Yes, but higher costs than if the government borrowed the money directly.

The whole point of this sort of obtuse deal is just to keep the borrowing
off the Treasury balance sheet.


I don't know what the ratios are for TfL (maybe PaulC can help) but on
National Rail leasing the rolling stock represents only 11% of the fares
basket.

I don't know either, but would speculate that the figure is a bit higher
for TfL as it runs many more trains per mile of track than National Rail.

On 08/01/2018 11:17, Recliner wrote:
snip


The whole point of this sort of obtuse deal is just to keep the borrowing
off the Treasury balance sheet.

Finance leases are on the balance sheet in the Whole of Government Accounts.



--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

In message
-septe
mber.org, at 11:17:32 on Mon, 8 Jan 2018, Recliner
remarked:

How do you know what the cost of political upheaval after raising taxes
is likely to be?

But they wouldn't raise taxes. They'd just borrow the money more cheaply,
thus ultimately reducing future taxes.

What makes you think they have the power to borrow the money required?
--
Roland Perry

On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 12:09:56 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message
-septe
mber.org, at 11:17:32 on Mon, 8 Jan 2018, Recliner
remarked:

How do you know what the cost of political upheaval after raising taxes
is likely to be?

But they wouldn't raise taxes. They'd just borrow the money more cheaply,
thus ultimately reducing future taxes.

What makes you think they have the power to borrow the money required?

Are you joking? Of course the Treasury can borrow more. It does so
all the time.

In article ,
(Recliner) wrote:

On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 12:09:56 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message
-s
eptember.org, at 11:17:32 on Mon, 8 Jan 2018, Recliner
remarked:

How do you know what the cost of political upheaval after raising
taxes is likely to be?

But they wouldn't raise taxes. They'd just borrow the money more
cheaply, thus ultimately reducing future taxes.

What makes you think they have the power to borrow the money required?

Are you joking? Of course the Treasury can borrow more. It does so
all the time.

But the Treasury has to give TfL permission to borrow through them. And they
aren't.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Mon, 08 Jan 2018 07:33:05 -0600,
wrote:

In article ,
(Recliner) wrote:

On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 12:09:56 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message
-s
eptember.org, at 11:17:32 on Mon, 8 Jan 2018, Recliner
remarked:

How do you know what the cost of political upheaval after raising
taxes is likely to be?

But they wouldn't raise taxes. They'd just borrow the money more
cheaply, thus ultimately reducing future taxes.

What makes you think they have the power to borrow the money required?

Are you joking? Of course the Treasury can borrow more. It does so
all the time.

But the Treasury has to give TfL permission to borrow through them. And they
aren't.

I agree, but as I'm saying that's increasing the costs. Or TfL could
be allowed to issue its own bonds, which wouldn't be quite as cheap as
doing it through the Treasury, but would be a fraction of the cost of
a sale and leaseback of an old Tube fleet.

Recliner wrote:

On Mon, 08 Jan 2018 07:33:05 -0600,
wrote:

In article ,
(Recliner) wrote:

On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 12:09:56 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message
-s
eptember.org, at 11:17:32 on Mon, 8 Jan 2018, Recliner
remarked:

How do you know what the cost of political upheaval after raising
taxes is likely to be?

But they wouldn't raise taxes. They'd just borrow the money more
cheaply, thus ultimately reducing future taxes.

What makes you think they have the power to borrow the money required?

Are you joking? Of course the Treasury can borrow more. It does so
all the time.

But the Treasury has to give TfL permission to borrow through them. And they
aren't.

I agree, but as I'm saying that's increasing the costs. Or TfL could
be allowed to issue its own bonds, which wouldn't be quite as cheap as
doing it through the Treasury, but would be a fraction of the cost of
a sale and leaseback of an old Tube fleet.

The issue is that would be seen as government backed as well, Increasing
government debt affwcts the interest payable on it thuis raidung
government spending. ALso there are many people complaining about
increasing debt. See the history of BR for underinvestment due to this.

What fraction of the cost of a sale and leaseback of an old Tube fleet
be? .001? or 99%?

--
Mark

In article ,
(Recliner) wrote:

On Mon, 08 Jan 2018 07:33:05 -0600,
wrote:

In article ,
(Recliner) wrote:

On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 12:09:56 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message

-s
eptember.org, at 11:17:32 on Mon, 8 Jan 2018, Recliner
remarked:

How do you know what the cost of political upheaval after raising
taxes is likely to be?

But they wouldn't raise taxes. They'd just borrow the money more
cheaply, thus ultimately reducing future taxes.

What makes you think they have the power to borrow the money required?

Are you joking? Of course the Treasury can borrow more. It does so
all the time.

But the Treasury has to give TfL permission to borrow through them. And
they aren't.

I agree, but as I'm saying that's increasing the costs. Or TfL could
be allowed to issue its own bonds, which wouldn't be quite as cheap as
doing it through the Treasury, but would be a fraction of the cost of
a sale and leaseback of an old Tube fleet.

The Government don't care. They want to punish Labour for the fares freeze.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

wrote:
In article ,
(Recliner) wrote:

On Mon, 08 Jan 2018 07:33:05 -0600,
wrote:

In article ,
(Recliner) wrote:

On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 12:09:56 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message

-s
eptember.org, at 11:17:32 on Mon, 8 Jan 2018, Recliner
remarked:

How do you know what the cost of political upheaval after raising
taxes is likely to be?

But they wouldn't raise taxes. They'd just borrow the money more
cheaply, thus ultimately reducing future taxes.

What makes you think they have the power to borrow the money required?

Are you joking? Of course the Treasury can borrow more. It does so
all the time.

But the Treasury has to give TfL permission to borrow through them. And
they aren't.

I agree, but as I'm saying that's increasing the costs. Or TfL could
be allowed to issue its own bonds, which wouldn't be quite as cheap as
doing it through the Treasury, but would be a fraction of the cost of
a sale and leaseback of an old Tube fleet.

The Government don't care. They want to punish Labour for the fares freeze.

Yes, that's a very good point.

wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Recliner) wrote:

On Mon, 08 Jan 2018 07:33:05 -0600,
wrote:

In article ,
(Recliner) wrote:

On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 12:09:56 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message

-s
eptember.org, at 11:17:32 on Mon, 8 Jan 2018, Recliner
remarked:

How do you know what the cost of political upheaval after raising
taxes is likely to be?

But they wouldn't raise taxes. They'd just borrow the money more
cheaply, thus ultimately reducing future taxes.

What makes you think they have the power to borrow the money
required?

Are you joking? Of course the Treasury can borrow more. It does so
all the time.

But the Treasury has to give TfL permission to borrow through them. And
they aren't.

I agree, but as I'm saying that's increasing the costs. Or TfL could
be allowed to issue its own bonds, which wouldn't be quite as cheap as
doing it through the Treasury, but would be a fraction of the cost of
a sale and leaseback of an old Tube fleet.

The Government don't care. They want to punish Labour for the fares
freeze.

Hm

I wonder what their plan is to win back the mayoralty in 2020 - only a 50%
fare increase?

tim