Paul Weaver wrote the following in:
news
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 09:31:30 +0000, Cast_Iron wrote:
So by that argument high wage earners in London payting higher
a\mounts of income and other taxes shouldn't contribute to the
unemployed of other parts of the UK?

No. Tax is evil, social security is evil, and subsidising rail is
evil.

We live in a society where we all pay in to a central pot and
everyone benefits from that central pot.

And that society is wrong

So what society would you think is right? One where the poor starve,
the sick die and the rich get richer?

On a different theme, why is building a new railway "subsidy" and
a road "investement"? They're both for the same purpose.

Except car drivers pay £30bn a year in taxes through Car tax and
petrol tax, yet only see £5bn investment in roads.

Probably partly because there are lots of other costs caused by cars,
for example pollution, illness (asthma etc.) and injury (accidents
etc.).

In reality
train users should be paying something like £150pw for a travel
card for zone 1 alone.

And you think that making public transport inaccessible to the vast
majority of people would be a good thing? Do you think it would somehow
benefit society?

--
message by Robin May, consumer of liquids
If bathroom means toilet in America, I'll have a shower please.

Hacker is to computer as boy racer is to Ford Escort.

"Cast_Iron" wrote in message
...

The poor can't afford to run motor vehicles.

In country areas, the poor can't afford not to run motor vehicles.
--
Terry Harper, Web Co-ordinator, The Omnibus Society
http://www.omnibussoc.org
E-mail:
URL: http://www.terry.harper.btinternet.co.uk/

In article , Colin
wrote:

"Michael Bell" wrote in message
...
In article , Colin
wrote:

"Michael Bell" wrote in message
...
I have been told that a parliamentary commsission judged that
Crossrail was poor value for money. Can anybody confirm this?

--


Michael Bell

That was the first time around many years ago, where the project was
killed
off by a committee of (mainly Tory) London MP's with a 'not in my back
yard'
and anti-subsidy agenda.

Things have somewhat progressed since then.

Colin

Saying that they don't want it in their back yard is quite a different
thing from saying that it is "poor value for money". Saying that it is
"poor value for money" at least accepts the idea that it can be right
to spend money, but that the money might be better spent on other
things, eg making better use of what's already there by creating
interchange where routes cross over each other without interchange,
there must be several dozen such sites in London. And there must be
many other serious contenders for available funds. AS REPORTED TO ME,
the judgement was made that Crossrail did not rank high against such
competitors even within London. So why is there such a push for it?



--

Michael

Because the people with the money want it to happen:

http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/our_s...rail_response_
09_02.pdf

Quote: "The construction of Crossrail is vital for the future success of
London as a world-class city."

Colin

"Because the people with the money want it to happen:"

They want to spend other people's money on a project for their
own benefit? That's corruption!

Or is it simple setting aside of all economic calculation and

Wider then and wider, shall thy bounds be set
God who made thee mighty, make thee mightier yet!

Something like that?

Micahel Bell

--

Michael Bell wrote in
:

In article , Steve
wrote:

[snip]


If taxpayers do have to subsidise it, it should come out the local
taxes of London business and commuters.

You are obviously ignorant of the fact that Londoners massively
subsidise the rest of the UK with their tax outlay - something that
Ken is always quick to highlight.

Crossrail would only go a small way to redress the huge historic
inbalance.

Perhaps London should go independent and keep all our tax revenue
to ourselves - then you'd be sorry!

While this is true in pure numbers terms, the wealth of this country
that Londoner's pay themselves for (mis)managing was never generated
in London.


There has been a series of articles in the Guardian newspaper recently
on this topic (all available on the Guardian web site, so you can look
at it), and the conclusion is that London does get slightly more money
spent on it per head than the rest of the country, but that's not the
question I asked, which is, "Is it true that Crossrail has been judged
Poor Value for Money? And on what grounds?"

Sure but this is usenet and besides, my post was about whether, despite
London 'generating' more wealth than the rest of the country, that wealth
really belongs to London. Now please keep up :-)

On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 17:23:23 +0000, Cast_Iron wrote:
(Yet again), this is unfair theft and discrimination
against the poor.

The poor can't afford to run motor vehicles.

The poorest people in this country - the ones living in places like the
highlands of Scotland, Wales and Cornwall, have no choice but to run motor
vehicles. Taxes make it hard.

Not everywhere in the UK suffers the plague of being London, with public
transport every 200 yards 24/7, and nowhere to park

On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 20:21:40 +0000, Robin May wrote:
And that society is wrong

So what society would you think is right? One where the poor starve,
the sick die and the rich get richer?

One where taxes go into their own pot (cigarette taxes go to the NHS for
example), where central government is tiny and only really concerned with
foreign affairs, and all major decision and funding is done at a local
level.

Probably partly because there are lots of other costs caused by cars,
for example pollution, illness (asthma etc.) and injury (accidents
etc.).

All of which has a tiny economic cost in comparison to the £25bn p.a.
that car drivers are owed.

In reality
train users should be paying something like £150pw for a travel card
for zone 1 alone.

And you think that making public transport inaccessible to the vast
majority of people would be a good thing? Do you think it would somehow
benefit society?

Do you think that charging massive taxes on transportation benefits
society? Look beyond the M25 and you'll realise that the density of
population isnt anywhere near high enough to support even a subsidised
publis transport infrastructure good enough for people to use.

In article , Steve
wrote:
Michael Bell wrote in
:

In article , Steve
wrote:

[snip]


If taxpayers do have to subsidise it, it should come out the local
taxes of London business and commuters.

You are obviously ignorant of the fact that Londoners massively
subsidise the rest of the UK with their tax outlay - something that
Ken is always quick to highlight.

Crossrail would only go a small way to redress the huge historic
inbalance.

Perhaps London should go independent and keep all our tax revenue
to ourselves - then you'd be sorry!

While this is true in pure numbers terms, the wealth of this country
that Londoner's pay themselves for (mis)managing was never generated
in London.


There has been a series of articles in the Guardian newspaper recently
on this topic (all available on the Guardian web site, so you can look
at it), and the conclusion is that London does get slightly more money
spent on it per head than the rest of the country, but that's not the
question I asked, which is, "Is it true that Crossrail has been judged
Poor Value for Money? And on what grounds?"

Sure but this is usenet and besides, my post was about whether, despite
London 'generating' more wealth than the rest of the country, that wealth
really belongs to London. Now please keep up :-)


That's a separate question, explain what you mean by "Despite
London 'generating' more wealth than the rest of the country, does
that wealth really belongs to London?" How do you determine "generate"
and "belong"?

Michael Bell

.. --

In article ,
says...
That was the first time around many years ago, where the project was killed
off by a committee of (mainly Tory) London MP's with a 'not in my back yard'
and anti-subsidy agenda.

Wasn't the committee two Conservative members and two Labour members,
and both Labour members opposed to it?

Michael Bell wrote in
:

In article , Steve
wrote:
Michael Bell wrote in
:

In article , Steve
wrote:

[snip]


If taxpayers do have to subsidise it, it should come out the
local taxes of London business and commuters.

You are obviously ignorant of the fact that Londoners massively
subsidise the rest of the UK with their tax outlay - something
that Ken is always quick to highlight.

Crossrail would only go a small way to redress the huge historic
inbalance.

Perhaps London should go independent and keep all our tax
revenue to ourselves - then you'd be sorry!

While this is true in pure numbers terms, the wealth of this
country that Londoner's pay themselves for (mis)managing was never
generated in London.


There has been a series of articles in the Guardian newspaper
recently on this topic (all available on the Guardian web site, so
you can look at it), and the conclusion is that London does get
slightly more money spent on it per head than the rest of the
country, but that's not the question I asked, which is, "Is it true
that Crossrail has been judged Poor Value for Money? And on what
grounds?"

Sure but this is usenet and besides, my post was about whether,
despite London 'generating' more wealth than the rest of the country,
that wealth really belongs to London. Now please keep up :-)


That's a separate question, explain what you mean by "Despite
London 'generating' more wealth than the rest of the country, does
that wealth really belongs to London?" How do you determine "generate"
and "belong"?

'generating more 'wealth' - Tax revenues from economic activities within
the region. Belong - as in people claiming that said revenue is subsidising
the rest of the country - said people imply that it is their money, hence
belong.

My argument against is thus, this so called 'wealth' is simply commision
from buying an selling the fruits other others labour, historically this
was merchandise, now it is mostly holding our pension funds while taking a
percentage per annuum. A small percentage of what they take is returned to
the state, it is a percentage of this that certain posters are complaining
about being returns to the rest of the country.


Michael Bell

. --

As Mon, 22 Sep 2003 01:55:57 +0100 appeared fresh and rosy-fingered,
Paul Weaver wrote:

On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 20:21:40 +0000, Robin May wrote:
And that society is wrong

So what society would you think is right? One where the poor starve,
the sick die and the rich get richer?

One where taxes go into their own pot (cigarette taxes go to the NHS for
example),

I'll vote for you if beer taxes go towards building more pubs.

--
Arthur Figgis