Tax is immoral

[Kermit]

The government is scrounging off the earnings of people who work hard, it is making money on the labour of others.

This is immoral.

Discuss.

[Blagsta]

What nonsense. Tax is used to pay for schools, hospitals etc.

[lukesh]

tax provides us with public services however some of the money is abused but you get that in everything.

[Yerascrote]

The government is scrounging off the earnings of people who work hard, it is making money on the labour of others.

This is immoral.

Discuss.

it might be unfair but where else is the government going to get money for services, it all evens out somewhere along the line....usually.

[Blagsta]

btw kermit, I guess you're trying to show how my argument on the conservative thread is nonsense, but you're not, you're just showing how you have not understood it.

[Kermit]

No I'm not, it's just an interesting side-thought I just had.

Anyway.

[Blagsta]

OK, fairynuff. :)

[morrocan roll]

tax provides us with public services however some of the money is abused but you get that in everything.
ahhh ...the other lukesh who can type all neat and proper like ...

[The Matadore]

I absolutely agree, governments the world over are involved in the biggest mass thievery in history when they take peoples wealth.

[Blagsta]

I absolutely agree, governments the world over are involved in the biggest mass thievery in history when they take peoples wealth.

But capitalists aren't? How do you figure that out?

[Kermit]

But capitalists aren't? How do you figure that out?
Goodness knows.

Excessive profit is immoral, as is profit at all costs, but making a profit per se is perfectly acceptable.

I suppose I just resent having a big chunk of my poor wage taken for the chavs over the road to have Sky telly when we don't even have one.

[Senor Miguel]

dunno how i find myself agreeing with matadore twice in one night, but hey..........you say tax provides essential services, funny how i still have to pay for most essential services......i don't know what the statistics are over here, but in america 40% of federal taxes go towards paying off the interest owed to the Fed, so in essence the population are in slavery to a handful of rich banking families........clearly that is messed up.

[Mad Mac]

The government is scrounging off the earnings of people who work hard, it is making money on the labour of others.

This is immoral.

Discuss.
we are taxed on everything! i dont not want to pay tax because we need a cental pot,but we do get hammered in england!..and it pisses me off!

[Mad Mac]

not sure about the immoral bit though?

[The Matadore]

But capitalists aren't

Because you have a choice when you buy something.

But when taxed there is no choice, you give the government what it wants or you go to jail.

[Blagsta]

but making a profit per se is perfectly acceptable.

But where does the profit come from?

I suppose I just resent having a big chunk of my poor wage taken for the chavs over the road to have Sky telly when we don't even have one.

How do you know it does?

[Blagsta]

Because you have a choice when you buy something.

I have a choice in whether I buy food? Or heating? Or clothing? Or whether I pay rent?

[Mad Mac]

I have a choice in whether I buy food? Or heating? Or clothing? Or whether I pay rent?
no you dont!

[The Matadore]

have a choice in whether I buy food? Or heating? Or clothing? Or whether I pay rent

Sure you do. But sadly in the UK the state owned industries (health, education etc) mean that often you do not get a choice.

Full privitisation is the only way forward.

[Blagsta]

no you dont!

Yes, that was my point.

[Blagsta]

Sure you do.

Maybe you've figured out how to live off fresh air, but the rest of us mere mortals need food, warmth, clothing and shelter.

But sadly in the UK the state owned industries (health, education etc) mean that often you do not get a choice.

Full privitisation is the only way forward.

How is that going to help anything?

[The Matadore]

True proliferation of choice, no immovable government, no tax.

People working for themselves and their famalies again, not for a faceless government.

[Aladdin]

"Tax is immoral" thread... Are you trying to lure back our friend moncrat, Kermit? :p

Anyways... taxation might not be perfect from a certain point of view, but in the same way as some people say 'capitalism is far from perfect but still better than the alternatives' the same can certainly be said of taxation.

Sure, we must ensure that the money collected is used well. But as long as this is done, once thing becomes crystal clear: the higher the tax, the better society is. Have a look at the quality of life for ordinary citizens in Northern European countries and compare with countries that believe in low taxes (the US being the most obvious example). Shit public services, shit pensions, shit welfare, and unless you are very rich, shit education and not even access to healthcare.

Fuck that.

What makes me laugh the most is that some of the most vocal detractors of taxation are working class or otherwise non-rich people who would truly and utterly be fucked up the arse if their wishes were granted. Talk about turkeys voting for Xmas...

[The Matadore]

the higher the tax, the better society is

Gobshite and you know it.

[Mad Mac]

Gobshite and you know it.
i,ll second that!

[Kermit]

I suppose my problem with tax is not paying it, but the lack of say on what it gets spent on.

I don't want my money to be wasted on think tanks, local quango assemblies, war or dole cheats, and I deeply resent that it is. But there's nothing I can do about it.

[Aladdin]

Oh yeah?

If you think people having access to free, universal healthcare (as opposed to dumping dying people outside a hospital because the managers are unsure whether the person has insurance, and where the poor can't even afford to see a doctor) is a bad thing...

If you think having functioning, extensive, comprehensive and affordable transport links is a bad thing...

If you think giving OAPs a decent state pension so they can live the rest of their lives in comfort and dignity (as opposed to dying of cold becaue they can't afford the gas bill) is a bad thing...

Then perhaps you're right and those societies are not better than others with none of the above. :rolleyes:

It would seem that it is you who is peddling gobshite my friend.

Nighty night...

[The Matadore]

If you think people having access to free, universal healthcare

But if this so called 'healthcare' is a load of shite then its ahrdly worth paying for is it>?

as opposed to dumping dying people outside a hospital because the managers are unsure whether the person has insurance, and where the poor can't even afford to see a doctor

Very rare occurance, this. You are jsut as likely to die from a dirty European state run hospital as you are from this.

If you think having functioning, extensive, comprehensive and affordable transport

If you want to spend trillions of dollars on them then fine, go ahead.

If you think giving OAPs a decent state pension so they can live the rest of their lives in comfort and dignity

Private pensions work just as well.

This bullshit about private services being in some way 'immoral' is part of the package of lies the left have perpetuated since 1945 in order to increase spending on an increasingly bloated, iinefficient, ineffective state system which enfeebles the population and weakens society.

A truly good society is one where every person provides for him or herself, where government is cut back drastically so it does not infringe on peoples lives.

[freethepeeps]

This bullshit about private services being in some way 'immoral' is part of the package of lies the left have perpetuated since 1945 in order to increase spending on an increasingly bloated, iinefficient, ineffective state system which enfeebles the population and weakens society.

Yeah, of course a large chunk of the limited pot should be creamed off for the shareholder/s -its basic sense :rolleyes:

A truly good society is one where every person provides for him or herself, where government is cut back drastically so it does not infringe on peoples lives.

Welcome to ancient Sparta.....

[Kermit]

I really hope you don't lose your job.

[Aladdin]

But if this so called 'healthcare' is a load of shite then its ahrdly worth paying for is it>?
What ''load of shite'' would this be?

Even if you believe that healthcare in Britain is a load of shite (which is not) it is still infinitely better to NO HEALTHCARE.

Is it not?

And let's not mention hospitals in Northern European countries, paid by higher taxes.

Even the Cubans have better healthcare access than the less well off in the US. And that by the way is a fact.




Very rare occurance, this. You are jsut as likely to die from a dirty European state run hospital as you are from this. You're scrapping the bottom of the barrel now aren't ya? :D



If you want to spend trillions of dollars on them then fine, go ahead. Zillions. Zillions uptillions mega billions.

You're just being silly now. :D


Private pensions work just as well. For some.

This bullshit about private services being in some way 'immoral' is part of the package of lies the left have perpetuated since 1945 in order to increase spending on an increasingly bloated, iinefficient, ineffective state system which enfeebles the population and weakens society.

A truly good society is one where every person provides for him or herself, where government is cut back drastically so it does not infringe on peoples lives. Are you on ket?

Fact: public services run by the State are infinitely better, cheaper and more efficient than when run by private companies.

And do you know why? Because the ONLY goal of a private company is to make the maximum amount of profit possible for its shareholders. So consumers, service and quality be damned.

And before you mention any bullshit about 'competition' and customers going elsewhere, let me remind you that in practically all cases private companies have monopolies of the services they offer (water companies, train operators) so the consumer has no choice but to use them.

Oh dear dear Matadore... have you had a lobotomy courtesy of the Adam Smith Institute by any chance?

[Mad Mac]

Oh yeah?

If you think people having access to free, universal healthcare (as opposed to dumping dying people outside a hospital because the managers are unsure whether the person has insurance, and where the poor can't even afford to see a doctor) is a bad thing...

If you think having functioning, extensive, comprehensive and affordable transport links is a bad thing...

If you think giving OAPs a decent state pension so they can live the rest of their lives in comfort and dignity (as opposed to dying of cold becaue they can't afford the gas bill) is a bad thing...

Then perhaps you're right and those societies are not better than others with none of the above. :rolleyes:

It would seem that it is you who is peddling gobshite my friend.

Nighty night...
50/50..i agree with half of what your saying,but you neglect to realise where money gets wasted.

[The Matadore]

What ''load of shite'' would this be?

Waiting lists, dirty hospitals, lack of nurses and doctors, out dated equipment, cancelled operations. Need I go on? The NHS is heading for meltdown and it needs privitising.

Zillions. Zillions uptillions mega billions.

Thats how much it costs, you may not want to believe it, but its true.

For some.

For the vast majority.

Fact: public services run by the State are infinitely better, cheaper and more efficient than when run by private companies.

FACT : This is a load of bollocks. Private companies do not get bail outs from the state, therefore are more efficient.

Because the ONLY goal of a private company is to make the maximum amount of profit possible for its shareholders. So consumers, service and quality be damned.

Yes, and when people are encouraged to buy shares in these companeis (eg in the 80's) not only do the private companies get more cash to spend but the shareholder also gets a stake in the company, enhancing stability and productivity. You have absolutely no evidence that state run services are any better because you have been completely brainwashed by the leftist consensus that has existed for the past 60 years. Dont feel bad, this is the case with most people. But in the next 10 years or so when state run services approach meltdown, you will be sorry that things werent changed earlier.

[Blagsta]

True proliferation of choice

If you can afford it.

People working for themselves and their famalies again, not for a faceless government.

So you're an anarchist then?

[Blagsta]

But if this so called 'healthcare' is a load of shite then its ahrdly worth paying for is it>?

The NHS is a very good service ime.

[The Matadore]

If you can afford it.

It is a myth that if everything was privitised we would end up paying more for things like health and education. YOu would be suprised how much tax we actually pay, and labour has accelerated this robbery with its stealth taxes.

So you're an anarchist then?

Not at all, I nevr said I didnt want a government, just that the one we have now drastically needs cutting back.

[Blagsta]

Waiting lists, dirty hospitals, lack of nurses and doctors, out dated equipment, cancelled operations. Need I go on? The NHS is heading for meltdown and it needs privitising.

Its underfundning and privatisation that are fucking it up.

Private companies do not get bail outs from the state, therefore are more efficient.

Errr...they do actually.

[Blagsta]

It is a myth that if everything was privitised we would end up paying more for things like health and education. YOu would be suprised how much tax we actually pay, and labour has accelerated this robbery with its stealth taxes.

So creaming off profit is a good idea is it? You don't actually understand the world do you?

Not at all, I nevr said I didnt want a government, just that the one we have now drastically needs cutting back.

I agree, but for very different reasons than you.

[Mad Mac]

Waiting lists, dirty hospitals, lack of nurses and doctors, out dated equipment, cancelled operations. Need I go on? The NHS is heading for meltdown and it needs privitising.



Thats how much it costs, you may not want to believe it, but its true.



For the vast majority.



FACT : This is a load of bollocks. Private companies do not get bail outs from the state, therefore are more efficient.



Yes, and when people are encouraged to buy shares in these companeis (eg in the 80's) not only do the private companies get more cash to spend but the shareholder also gets a stake in the company, enhancing stability and productivity. You have absolutely no evidence that state run services are any better because you have been completely brainwashed by the leftist consensus that has existed for the past 60 years. Dont feel bad, this is the case with most people. But in the next 10 years or so when state run services approach meltdown, you will be sorry that things werent changed earlier.
privatisation sure did work for the rail network didnt it...or not?

[The Matadore]

Its underfundning and privatisation that are fucking it up.

Yes , underfunding but TRUE privitisation would solve this. How much more money would we all have if we didnt pay massive taxes? Fuckloads more.

Errr...they do actually.

Under New Labours half baked half measures, maybe, but not under properly privitised services.

[The Matadore]

So creaming off profit is a good idea is it? You don't actually understand the world do you?

I know you think profit is a bad thing, I did read the other thread, but I dont want to get into that debate here.

[Blagsta]

Yes , underfunding but TRUE privitisation would solve this. How much more money would we all have if we didnt pay massive taxes? Fuckloads more.

Sorry, what? How is running something for the benefit of a minority a better service?

[The Matadore]

Sorry, what? How is running something for the benefit of a minority a better service?

Its not run for the minority, where did you get that idea?

[Blagsta]

I know you think profit is a bad thing, I did read the other thread, but I dont want to get into that debate here.

Where do you think profit comes from?

[Blagsta]

Its not run for the minority, where did you get that idea?

Errrr...that's exactly how private businesses are run.

[Kermit]

The railways are neither hither nor thither. Full privatisation would be better, nationalisation would be better still. Though not many know who creams the money off the railways: hint, it's not the TOCs.

There is no real choice in a privatised monopoly: if my bus in a morning doesn't turn up, it makes no difference to Stagecoach, because I'll still be stood there when the next one turns up. I can't get to work any other way.

[Aladdin]

Waiting lists, dirty hospitals, lack of nurses and doctors, out dated equipment, cancelled operations. Need I go on? The NHS is heading for meltdown and it needs privitising. The NHS is improving, not getting worse. That is a fact (something which you always ignore if it disproves your agenda, by the look of things). It's not perfect, but it is certainly very good, free, and infinitely better than no having any healthcare at all.

Are you being deliberately obtuse, or just getting desperate?



Thats how much it costs, you may not want to believe it, but its true. Of course it does...

And if it did I wouldn't matter. Small price to pay. You wouldn't want the workforce to be ill and not be able to work and make fat profits for bosses, would you?



For the vast majority. ...of CEOs and bosses.

Not of the tens of millions of ordinary people.

Not to mention housewives. I guess a woman who never worked but raised her family and ran the family home (just as you ultra conservative types want, incidentally :rolleyes: ) doesn't deserve a decent pension, does she?



FACT : This is a load of bollocks. Private companies do not get bail outs from the state, therefore are more efficient.
FACT: Your ignorance is astonishing. Private companies who run public services GET bailouts all the time from the State when no profit can be made, and then keep all the profit for themselves and invest fuck all back when the accounts are in the black.

Do you know what the railways are? Do you pay any attention to how they are run and financed since they were privatised?

Do you live in this country? I'm starting to doubt it.



Yes, and when people are encouraged to buy shares in these companeis (eg in the 80's) not only do the private companies get more cash to spend but the shareholder also gets a stake in the company, enhancing stability and productivity. You have absolutely no evidence that state run services are any better because you have been completely brainwashed by the leftist consensus that has existed for the past 60 years. Dont feel bad, this is the case with most people. But in the next 10 years or so when state run services approach meltdown, you will be sorry that things werent changed earlier. Brainwashed eh? LOL. I've never seen such a sad and pathetic case of brainwashing as yours, my friend.

No evidence, eh?

I'll give a word: France.

In fact, I'll give you another: Spain.

Both countries with a trillion times better railways than Britain- not to mention the pisspoor US network.

Oh dear dear dear...

[Kermit]

FACT: Your ignorance is astonishing. Private companies who run public services GET bailouts all the time from the State when no profit can be made, and then keep all the profit for themselves and invest fuck all back when the accounts are in the black.

Partly true, and partly false.

GNER pays a premium of £25million pa to the government, First Great Western pay a premium of over £60million pa to the Government. To say that these private companies are getting bailouts is inaccurate (although at the beginning of the franchises they did receive a subsidy which has now been paid back).

But the list of state bailouts to private companies is huge. BNFL, Croydon Tram, Virgin Trains, Jarvis (education, railways, the lot), Northern Spirit railways, Connex...

About the railways though, Aladdin, your anger is misplaced. The TOCs (i.e. the company that runs the trains) aren't the ones making the obscene profits: HSBC and Abbey National are, because they own the trains. Trains that the taxpayer bought and paid for were sold cheaply, and now a small two-carriage DMU will costs £200,000 pa to hire. It's no wonder that more subsidy is spent: it used to cost BR £0 pa.

[CptCoatHanger]

Goodness knows.

Excessive profit is immoral, as is profit at all costs, but making a profit per se is perfectly acceptable.

I suppose I just resent having a big chunk of my poor wage taken for the chavs over the road to have Sky telly when we don't even have one.

You're issue isn't with tax in this instance.

It's with the way that benfits are handled, the work ethic of certain people and the abuse of a fundementally really good system.

[Man Of Kent]

Waiting lists, dirty hospitals, lack of nurses and doctors, out dated equipment, cancelled operations. Need I go on? The NHS is heading for meltdown and it needs privitising.

Come back to that topic when you have done some proper research so that you know what you are talking about.

[The Matadore]

The NHS is improving, not getting worse

Wrong, with the upcoming retirement of the baby boomer generation the workforce will shrink drastically. Therefore in order to keep the baby boomers alive through the NHS the workforce will have to pay more and more tax to support it. This isnt just a UK problem, all of the European wlfare states are running into a massive crisis that is only solvable by drastic cutting back in state benefits.

free

:lol:

And if it did I wouldn't matter. Small price to pay

Trillions of dollars in taxation is not a small price to pay. Your cavalier attitude toward basic economics and peoples incomes is disturbing.

Private companies who run public services GET bailouts all the time from the State when no profit can be made, and then keep all the profit for themselves and invest fuck all back when the accounts are in the black.

Wrong, in a properly privitised service industry there would be NO bailouts because the company wouldnt need them.

Do you pay any attention to how they are run and financed since they were privatised?

Yes, and the privitisations were a load of bollocks. They were not done properly.

I'll give a word: France.

Ill give you a word: piss poor economic growth, bloated states systems and in the case of Germany, 5 million unemployed.

Oh dear, dear, dear.

[Blagsta]

You seem to be living on a different planet to the rest of us Matadore. What's it like there? It sounds shit.

[Blagsta]

Wrong, in a properly privitised service industry there would be NO bailouts because the company wouldnt need them.

So what would happen if a school or hospital got into trouble? They'd fold leaving no service at all. Great idea there.

[Namaste]

I'm proud that I pay taxes...

[The Matadore]

They'd fold leaving no service at all

deregulation would make it easier for another hospital to be set up, and there would be another one anyway. The point is competition breeds efficiency, something the left cant seem to grasp.

[Blagsta]

"there would be another one anyway"

Shit logic there Matadore. How would many hospitals be sustainable and profitable in one area? Services like health etc are too vital to be left to the chances of business. You're crazy to suggest otherwise. Competition does not breed efficiency. It breeds greed and cutbacks and doing things on the cheap.

[Fiend_85]

deregulation would make it easier for another hospital to be set up, and there would be another one anyway. The point is competition breeds efficiency, something the left cant seem to grasp.
But purely capitalist healthcare would only provide for something that was 'worth' treating. What happens then?

[The Matadore]

and doing things on the cheap.

A massive state bureaucracy breeds inefficiency, laziness, poor services and monopoly as well as huge amounts of red tape.

What happens then?

I dont understand your point here, people will still get ill under the system I am proposing, so there would always be a market for treatment whatever the illness.

[Blagsta]

A massive state bureaucracy breeds inefficiency, laziness, poor services and monopoly as well as huge amounts of red tape.

I agree that state run services are not perfect. But private companies are run purely for the benefit of a minority of people. Explain to me how that will make for a good health service?

I dont understand your point here, people will still get ill under the system I am proposing, so there would always be a market for treatment whatever the illness.

Only if someone can afford it.

[The Matadore]

But private companies are run purely for the benefit of a minority of people

No they arent. There is no absolute poverty in Britain, we are an affluent society and with all the moeny people save off tax they would be more than capable of providing for themselves.

Only if someone can afford it.

99% of people would be able to, and whats more they would all get a better quality of service than we get under the NHShite.

[freethepeeps]

A massive state bureaucracy breeds inefficiency, laziness, poor services and monopoly as well as huge amounts of red tape.


It doesn't have to be that way. It isn't automatic.

A complacent management culture can be changed by the same methods - targets, incentive bonusses, cost benefit analysis etc, whether it is state controlled or privately managed.

[The Matadore]

targets, incentive bonusses, cost benefit analysis etc

You sound like a New Labour minister.

It doesn't have to be that way. It isn't automatic.

History says otherwise. Give me a government run system that isnt in some way inefficient, corrupt or mismanaged?

[freethepeeps]

You sound like a New Labour minister.



History says otherwise. Give me a government run system that isnt in some way inefficient, corrupt or mismanaged?

Enron :)

[Blagsta]

No they arent.

Yes they are. That's what private companies do - make a profit for a minority of people.

There is no absolute poverty in Britain,

Yes there is. Look around you, see how many people don't have a home.


we are an affluent society

Some people are affluent.

and with all the moeny people save off tax they would be more than capable of providing for themselves.

Really? Got any figures to back that up? What about pensioners? Single parent families on minimum wage?

99% of people would be able to,

Where did you pluck that figure from? Thin air?

and whats more they would all get a better quality of service than we get under the NHShite.

Again, more conjecture. For the record, my personal experience with the NHS (which is unfortunately a lot at the moment) is very good. Why do you think its shit?

[Blagsta]

You sound like a New Labour minister.



History says otherwise. Give me a government run system that isnt in some way inefficient, corrupt or mismanaged?


Give me a privately run business that allows poor people to use its services for free?

[Fiend_85]

99% isn't enough, and the RARE diseases are the MOST expensive to treat. And the ones for which you could charge whatever you wanted. Capitalism has no compassion.

[The Matadore]

Enron

Yes , a private business that was mismanaged and corrupt. Now answer my question.

That's what private companies do - make a profit for a minority of people.

They make a profit because they are good at what they do - in this case it would be providing health care.

Look around you, see how many people don't have a home.

An exteremely small minority. The state has done them a lot of good hasnt it?

Some people are affluent.

The vast majority are affluent.

What about pensioners? Single parent families on minimum wage

They all pay taxes dont they?

Why do you think its shit?

Because it is a statist service.

Give me a privately run business that allows poor people to use its services for free?

Give me a state service that isnt funded through forced taxation.

[freethepeeps]

Yes , a private business that was mismanaged and corrupt. Now answer my question.

Well, at least we've established that business practice can be corrupt, inefficient and mismanaged, whether in private or public hands.

I have to say that I haven't conducted any studies of state businesses, so I have no idea.

I do know that Tesco, for all its £2Bn profit, can't even keep its shelves stocked properly, and that its impossible to get good service in the local Curries though.

And they want my money - no doubt they'd be even worse if they already had it.

[Blagsta]

They make a profit because they are good at what they do - in this case it would be providing health care.

Where do you think that profit comes from? Where do you think it goes? Who benefits from it?

An exteremely small minority. The state has done them a lot of good hasnt it?

Its a lot more people than you think. The problem has become a lot worse with the cutbacks in benefits and the introduction of private enterprise into the benefits system and the selling off of social housing stock. Do you think thats a coincidence?

The vast majority are affluent.

I suggest you actually take a look around you.

They all pay taxes dont they?

A pensioner pays VAT yes, but nothing else. Someone earning under the tax threshold pays no income tax.

Because it is a statist service.

You're arguing in circles. What experience have you had thats led you to think that its shit?

Give me a state service that isnt funded through forced taxation.

What a weird question. I'll ask you again - what private businesses provide services for people who can't afford them?

[Aladdin]

Trillions of dollars in taxation is not a small price to pay. Your cavalier attitude toward basic economics and peoples incomes is disturbing. But then again, given that that estimate of yours is about 1,000 times higher than the actual figure, it doesn't matter does it...



Wrong, in a properly privitised service industry there would be NO bailouts because the company wouldnt need them. Which would result in a standard London-Manchester return costing around £500.

They already cost £150 (from £38-£40 not that long ago when the railways were in public hands) and that's with the government throwing hundreds of millions every year to the greedy, useless, selfish fat cat bastards.


Yes, and the privitisations were a load of bollocks. I am glad we agree on something. :D


Ill give you a word: piss poor economic growth, bloated states systems and in the case of Germany, 5 million unemployed.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

The smell of desperation is overwhelming.

[Blagsta]

You haven't really thought this through have you Matadore?

[wheresmyplacebo]

But then again, given that that estimate of yours is about 1,000 times higher than the actual figure, it doesn't matter does it...

Which would result in a standard London-Manchester return costing around £500.

They already cost £150 (from £38-£40 not that long ago when the railways were in public hands) and that's with the government throwing hundreds of millions every year to the greedy, useless, selfish fat cat bastards

im not quite sure, its the upkeep of our lines of which are over 100yrs old in design in many cases which makes it so expensive

and obviously walk on tickets are expensive, booking in advance is dirt cheap ;) £20 or so

[CptCoatHanger]

I can't believe this conversation is going on!

Matadore - The American health system. If you can afford it you get it, if you can't, you don't.

You can divide the country into who can afford cancer treatment and those who can't. It's disgusting.

The NHS needs attention. The last thing it needs is privitisation.

[Aladdin]

If you book 35 years in advance, travel at silly times and accept a million other restrictions, then yes it can be affordable.

If you commit the temerity of buying a ticket only a week in advance (let alone on the day of travel) or plan to travel in the morning and return in the early evening like normal working people need to do, be prepared to fork out a fortune.

And yes, maintenance can be expensive. That is why it should be left in public hands. Because private companies (like Railtrack) will cut corners and neglect expensive upgrades, because they don't want to spend money that eats into their precious fucking profits. And then people die in needless accidents.

The problem however goes back many years. Had successive Tory and Labour governments invested decent amounts of money on BR instead of neglecting it for decades, the railways would have never reached the state they are today.

Whichever party wants to win the election needs only to make one pledge: renationalise the railways and kick those greedy cunts off the gravy train (no pun intended) for good. It wouldn't even cost a penny to do so- simply don't renovate the franchises when they come up for renewal. Then ensure there is regular investment in the network and we might once again have a railways to be proud of.

[budda]

The problem is the political system though, you can never get anything done because the time between elections is far too short.

You cant make decent changes to something like the NHS or the railways in four years, it cant be done.

[Man Of Kent]

And too many people with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.