[MrChumley]

I see train users are up in arms yet again about fare increases. Now call me simple (some do) but if you want to enjoy London salaries at home counties house prices, is it reasonable to expect Joe Public to subsidise your travel costs?

During a (thankfully) brief spell working in the capital, I met many people who boasted of not needing a car because they just used the train and the tube. Well whoopy doo but why should I contribute to the cost?

[isleaiw1]

Originally Posted by MrChumley

I see train users are up in arms yet again about fare increases. Now call me simple (some do) but if you want to enjoy London salaries at home counties house prices, is it reasonable to expect Joe Public to subsidise your travel costs?

During a (thankfully) brief spell working in the capital, I met many people who boasted of not needing a car because they just used the train and the tube. Well whoopy doo but why should I contribute to the cost?

Is it subsidised? I would suggest commuter fares subsidise all those cheap weekend rates for you lot to come to the capital....

As for Home Counties house prices, my home counties house has almost exactly the same square footage as my former home in Derbyshire but was 75% more expensive than value of northern one....

I think their complaint is more about higher costs but worse service, more crowded trains, more late trains, more cancelled trains. You only have to look at southern rail generally or south west train currently with work at Waterloo / derailment to see the issue.

You didn't stick it down here then? Take it the London salary and subsidised travel weren't enough to keep you (shot by your argument I do believe).

3.6% more when your public sector pay has risen 1% is a bit of a ball ache don't you think?

Oh, I work in London and have 2 cars, 4 in household. We don't all use public transport all the time and actually enjoy driving, although not on the roads round here!

[R0B]

I pay - well my company pays 32 quid for the 32 minute journey into London. Generally standing room only on a disgusting hovel of a train that has arrived late and advertises wifi that doesn't actually work. Yes, it's a rip-off.

Indeed there are people earning big salaries and enjoying the benefits of not living in the city, but there are also people earning 20k but having to commute there because their chosen career doesn't marry up with jobs in their hometown in the shires for example. For them it's 25% of their income just to get to work and back.

[SteveChester]

It's a rip off - my monthly ticket from Chester - Manchester has gone up from £200-£280pm in 7 years , inflation and wages the same? Nope!!!

[MrChumley]

Originally Posted by isleaiw1

You didn't stick it down here then? Take it the London salary and subsidised travel weren't enough to keep you (shot by your argument I do believe).

I was on secondment to a government department at the time so my salary was unaffected and my train fares were reimbursed. While I quite enioyed seeing the Monopoly board sites I was quite glad to get back to normal (I'm a rural soul at heart).

Regarding the relative revenue/cost of commuter v occasional traveller you may well be right - I haven't seen a break down. However, as you're no doubt aware, the combined cost of fuel and car insurance has increased by rather more than 3.6% over the last year, so I still have little sympathy for those who choose to live the rail commuter lifestyle.

I accept that many have no choice but it's the whining of those who want it all that gets my goat - bigger salary, bigger house and subsidised travel.

[Tengocity]

Originally Posted by isleaiw1

Is it subsidised? I would suggest commuter fares subsidise all those cheap weekend rates for you lot to come to the capital....

As for Home Counties house prices, my home counties house has almost exactly the same square footage as my former home in Derbyshire but was 75% more expensive than value of northern one....

I think their complaint is more about higher costs but worse service, more crowded trains, more late trains, more cancelled trains. You only have to look at southern rail generally or south west train currently with work at Waterloo / derailment to see the issue.

You didn't stick it down here then? Take it the London salary and subsidised travel weren't enough to keep you (shot by your argument I do believe).

3.6% more when your public sector pay has risen 1% is a bit of a ball ache don't you think?

Oh, I work in London and have 2 cars, 4 in household. We don't all use public transport all the time and actually enjoy driving, although not on the roads round here!

Yes it is subsidised, though not to the same extent as most of the rest of Europe. On the radio this week they said it's about 40% subsidised in U.K. compared to about 60% typically in Europe.

[MrChumley]

Originally Posted by Tengocity

Yes it is subsidised, though not to the same extent as most of the rest of Europe. On the radio this week they said it's about 40% subsidised in U.K. compared to about 60% typically in Europe.

I guess they can afford bigger subsidies with the profits they make from running our railways. Maybe if it was renationalised the taxpayer and commuter would both benefit.

[xenon]

You are aware that there are nurses, fire sevices, ambulance drivers and people like that you have to work in London, MrChumley? I know 99% of London workers are on six-figure salaries in the City but some of the proletariat have to work there too.

[isleaiw1]

Originally Posted by xenon

You are aware that there are nurses, fire sevices, ambulance drivers and people like that you have to work in London, MrChumley? I know 99% of London workers are on six-figure salaries in the City but some of the proletariat have to work there too.

I suspect your tongue is firmly in cheek when you say 99%....

For all the tourists who visit your hotel workers, restaurant staff, theatre attendants etc all probably commute by rail and are on national living wage (London)....

As for MrChumley some of us have motoring costs as well, fuel hasn't done too badly but insurance (which you pay irrespective of mileage) has...

[isleaiw1]

Originally Posted by Tengocity

Yes it is subsidised, though not to the same extent as most of the rest of Europe. On the radio this week they said it's about 40% subsidised in U.K. compared to about 60% typically in Europe.

But are commuter fares subsidised? Cheap rates in off peak and weekends probably take the lions share, as well as less used routes. I suspect the expensive commuter routes are probably unsubsidised at those rates....

[Tengocity]

Originally Posted by isleaiw1

But are commuter fares subsidised? Cheap rates in off peak and weekends probably take the lions share, as well as less used routes. I suspect the expensive commuter routes are probably unsubsidised at those rates....

I'm not sure you can allocate massive state subsidy as easily as that give the absolutely huge amount of fixed cost involved in a railway system. I know what you're trying to get at though.

[xenon]

Originally Posted by isleaiw1

I suspect your tongue is firmly in cheek when you say 99%....

Indeed. It's the presumption from someone who doesn't live or work there that all these "bleating commuters" are living in home counties surburban utopia being subsidised by the rest of us.

I was making the point, bluntly, that an awful lot of these commuters are in a somewhat different situation.

[MrChumley]

Originally Posted by xenon

You are aware that there are nurses, fire sevices, ambulance drivers and people like that you have to work in London, MrChumley?

Of course I am, but their needs should be addressed through proper pay, not untargetted subsidy.

My post was prompted by a couple featured in the news, presumably on decent salaries, who say they moved out of London to get a bigger house and are now complaining about having to find an extra 2 or 3 quid a week for their season tickets.

In case anyone's forgotten, the public purse is in dire straits and I see no reason why the taxpayer should help people like that afford a bigger house.

[rlmesq]

Of course, every car owner builds his or her own private road to work, without any government subsidized roadways.

[MrChumley]

Originally Posted by isleaiw1

But are commuter fares subsidised? Cheap rates in off peak and weekends probably take the lions share, as well as less used routes. I suspect the expensive commuter routes are probably unsubsidised at those rates....

In the abscence of subsidy, all fares would be determined by supply and demand. Putting up fares for occasional travellers, students etc would probably put them off using the train, so the commuters, with little (short-term) choice, would bear the brunt of the increase.

On that basis, I would say commuters benefit from the subsidy, regardless of the fact they pay more than off-peak travellers.

[MrChumley]

Originally Posted by rlmesq

Of course, every car owner builds his or her own private road to work, without any government subsidized roadways.

No, but we pay road tax and fuel duty, which actually get spent on other things, like subsidising rail fares for example.

People who travel by train do not pay any additional tax through doing so. Therefore those who drive are subsidising those who take the train.

[isleaiw1]

Originally Posted by MrChumley

In the abscence of subsidy, all fares would be determined by supply and demand. Putting up fares for occasional travellers, students etc would probably put them off using the train, so the commuters, with little (short-term) choice, would bear the brunt of the increase.

On that basis, I would say commuters benefit from the subsidy, regardless of the fact they pay more than off-peak travellers.

If you took the subsidy off commuters then people wouldn't work in london unless salaries went up - so increased prices for everything and higher salaries would drive higher house prices too..

Your economics is a little unsound.

Ps it's £4400 for me inc parking - ehat does your annual commute cost? You can use 45ppm as that's what the tax man things running a car costs...

[isleaiw1]

Originally Posted by MrChumley

No, but we pay road tax and fuel duty, which actually get spent on other things, like subsidising rail fares for example.

People who travel by train do not pay any additional tax through doing so. Therefore those who drive are subsidising those who take the train.

I drive about 16k a year on top of commute - glad to see I am subsidising myself.

I also pay extra tax on my additional London salary and NIC, which goes somewhere....

[MrChumley]

Originally Posted by isleaiw1

If you took the subsidy off commuters then people wouldn't work in london unless salaries went up

Or they'd have to live in smaller houses - the whole point of my post.

Originally Posted by isleaiw1

Your economics is a little unsound.

Yeah, I really should retake that MSc sometime

[MrChumley]

Originally Posted by isleaiw1

I drive about 16k a year on top of commute - glad to see I am subsidising myself.

I also pay extra tax on my additional London salary and NIC, which goes somewhere....

My post was clearly aimed at people who commute and don't own a car. If you have to be so argumentative, at least take the time to read the thread.

[xenon]

Where are these smaller houses in which they would live?

[Tengocity]

Originally Posted by xenon

Where are these smaller houses in which they would live?

Windsor....





Legoland!