Quote:
Originally Posted by Redlambs
You seriously should be a politician.
The argument isn't paying for "stuff", it's what the "stuff" we are paying for is. You can't expect to understand anything if you don't at least try.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by spinoza
I seriously doubt that people know exactly what they are paying for, and how much of what annoys them comes from poorly spent money, as opposed to insufficient money.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redlambs
So, you've just basically pointed out what I've already pointed out to you?
|
No. I understood your first post to mean that people don't like what they are paying for, not that people don't know what they are paying for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Team Brian GB
So you would drastically decrease mobility in one of the most congested cities in the World, let's say your plan was introduced which results in a 20% fall in usage. That would put another 500,000 people on the roads- London's roads can barely cope as it is, the city would literally grind to a halt.
The idea is to keep it moving.
|
I think "keeping it moving" prevents it from being repaired. Besides, the whole point of raising the prices is to exploit relatively inelastic demand. People who can afford to use the tube will continue to use it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redlambs
That doesn't answer my point. Plus, it just repeats what I've already said, as in where's the management for this kind of thing? It's NOT more money needed, it's better filtering of that money.
|
Look, you didn't have much of a point in the first place. You said
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redlambs
That's plain stupid. So he raises money for the public transport by trying to force cars off the road? And what would happen if he succeeded, where's the money coming from next?
You do realise that you can't just refurbish once, it's a forever ongoing situation? You can't keep dragging money from the working class with bollocks charges and raising council tax, then pretend it's benefiting them. You have to look at better, more self-sufficient ways. One of those ways is to change the structure.
|
There's no way to raise local government revenue other than taxes or return on investments, so you were talking out of your arse anyway. I chose not to address it because it was obviously wrong and boring. What you mean is that the mayor should impose taxes and charges more palatable to YOU. You're entitled to vote based on that of course, but don't expect me to agree.
The bit about refurbishment is a lot more interesting because you seem to assume that refurbishment bills always go up. It's not so, and it's a major reason why a big capital expenditure could go some way to bringing down ongoing maintenance bills. Try reading the published budget, it's a pretty good guide to what could be reduced.