Train Fares

[dervish]

Is it just me or does anyone else think that the two facts* that:

 

1. Train fares are roughly 50% paid by the tax payer.
2. 90% of train journeys start or end in London.

Make you have 0 sympathy for people bleating about fare hikes? Way I see it if you can't afford to commute to London from 100 miles away. Don't.

 

*Both "facts" are remembered but I can go source them if you really want.

[Big Man]

No need to go to source Dervish, i think you're a trustworthy type of cunt.

 

I start a new job next month and I'm getting a Glasgow to Edinburgh season ticket for travelling back and forth.

 

£3400 it costs. An utter scandal. They're paying for it though.

 

 

But I do feel sorry for people that actually have to pay those kinds of prices with a 4% rise on top...

[Dynamo]

I imagine people would rather live closer to their work as opposed to a 100 mile commute. Then again not everyone can afford to live in London!! Its normal average age earners that this will mostly affect.

[dervish]

Yeah but to subside it just distorts the natural order of things. If London can't sustain it'self then why should you and I effectively pay for it to be expensive to live there?

[Dynamo]

In a perfect world we'd only contribute tax to the services we use.

 

Prices are going up but the fares are still going to be subsidised.

 

Personally think train fares are high enough as it is and the whole network needs an over haul. Germany and Japan have great rail networks but then again to get a network to that standard would cost mega bucks.

 

Catch 22.

[dj_bollocks]

But then if the government hadn't flogged off everything.... well you know the rest...

[Big Man]

But then if the government hadn't flogged off everything.... well you know the rest...

 

Correct.

 

If Alec has got any sense an independent Scotland will have a nationalised rail system.

[Cowie]

In a perfect world we'd only contribute tax to the services we use.

 

Prices are going up but the fares are still going to be subsidised.

 

Personally think train fares are high enough as it is and the whole network needs an over haul. Germany and Japan have great rail networks but then again to get a network to that standard would cost mega bucks.

 

Catch 22.

Ironically because we bombed the shit out of them in WWII.

 

Prices are fucking ridiculous.. I live in reading & occasionally work requires & pays for me to go into London

[dervish]

In a perfect world we'd only contribute tax to the services we use.

 

Prices are going up but the fares are still going to be subsidised.

 

Personally think train fares are high enough as it is and the whole network needs an over haul. Germany and Japan have great rail networks but then again to get a network to that standard would cost mega bucks.

 

Catch 22.

 

You know how fast (effectively) the train from Wick to Inverness is? 25mph. Fuck em, all. Especially with their 6bn train stations and cross-rail and metro upgrades and HS2 etc. etc.

[Big Man]

You know how fast (effectively) the train from Wick to Inverness is? 25mph. Fuck em, all. Especially with their 6bn train stations and cross-rail and metro upgrades and HS2 etc. etc.

 

[dervish]

 

We dream of the day we get that capability!

 

 

 

[dervish]

To be serious though, every time you hear someone cry "it costs me

[Big Man]

To be serious though, every time you hear someone cry "it costs me

[Ke1t]

Paying for/supplementing other members of the community is a necessary part of a functioning society. I rarely need a cop, but if we were all allowed to stop paying their wages then pretty damned quickly I would need a cop.

[dervish]

We could widen it into the wider tax system if you like. But for me why should I spend more/less of my life (via a higher/lower rate of tax) "working for the state" than someone else just because of the job I do? Most the year I spend working is for the state, some people it's none. Fair?

 

I mean in terms of time.

[Big Man]

Paying for/supplementing other members of the community is a necessary part of a functioning society. I rarely need a cop, but if we were all allowed to stop paying their wages then pretty damned quickly I would need a cop.

 

I absolutely agree.

 

That's not to say i don't fantasise about buying a farm somewhere in rural Texas or the like, living of nuts and berries, shooting any cunt that comes onto my land and taking no active part in ''society'' whatsoever because i do.

 

But for now i'm happy to live and let live...

[Ke1t]

We could widen it into the wider tax system if you like. But for me why should I spend more/less of my life (via a higher rate of tax) than someone else just because of the job I do? Most the year I spend working is for the state, some people it's none. Fair?

 

I think it's fair.

 

There will be a dosser element in any society. It's up to a civilised society to take care of its elderly, its sick, its handicapped and less capable. And to provide a very basic level of living for people we consider wasters.

 

 

There's probably a huge chunk of me and the wife's taxes going to keep homeless Detroiters in soup and balaclavas. I can still go on vacation twice a year, drive a fancy car (even if it does look like an orthopaedic shoe ) and have flat screen tellies in most rooms in the hoose.

 

So a few ten dollar bills go to keeping the homeless from freezing to death... the fuck do I care? I'm fortunate enough not to live under a bridge.

 

I guarantee a hell of a lot more of my tax dollars go towards firing missiles into Iraqi Nursery Schools... now THAT I do have a problem with.

[dervish]

It's not live and let live.

 

Say everyone works the same hours a week, but some have a higher % tax. This means they spend more of their time working for the common good. Some do nothing for the common good, some actively just take from it. Now I'm restricting this to talking about completely able people here. Would it not be fair if we all gave the same time to the state regardless of our jobs (and their associated cash value).

 

Change to a flat-tax system and it's equal*.

 

*as a principle at least...

[dervish]

I think it's fair.

 

There will be a dosser element in any society. It's up to a civilised society to take care of its elderly, its sick, its handicapped and less capable. And to provide a very basic level of living for people we consider wasters.

 

 

There's probably a huge chunk of me and the wife's taxes going to keep homeless Detroiters in soup and balaclavas. I can still go on vacation twice a year, drive a fancy car (even if it does look like an orthopaedic shoe ) and have flat screen tellies in most rooms in the hoose.

 

So a few ten dollar bills go to keeping the homeless from freezing to death... the fuck do I care? I'm fortunate enough not to live under a bridge.

 

I guarantee a hell of a lot more of my tax dollars go towards firing missiles into Iraqi Nursery Schools... now THAT I do have a problem with.

 

Agree with the bold bit, completely but I'm talking about able working people here exclusively (and the different rates of tax). Purely in terms of hours worked towards the state. (sorry it's a stock rant for me, I'm probably not explaining it fully)

[Ke1t]

Agree with the bold bit, completely but I'm talking about able working people here exclusively (and the different rates of tax). Purely in terms of hours worked towards the state. (sorry it's a stock rant for me, I'm probably not explaining it fully)

 

Flat tax I don't believe in. It sounds fair, but I firmly believe that the more you earn, regardless of what you do, the more you pay into the system.

 

A guy slinging pipes for BP will earn what, three times the amount of a registered nurse? That's hardly fair. But if he's earning three times more for manual labour then he should pay more than a nurse who does (to my mind) a far more important/skilled job, and gets a pittance in recompense.

 

And some guy who owns a sweat shop in sheffield, and lives in a multi-million pound mansion... fuck it, he'll pay more because he can afford more, and not just the same percentage.

[Big Man]

It's not live and let live.

 

Say everyone works the same hours a week, but some have a higher % tax. This means they spend more of their time working for the common good. Some do nothing for the common good, some actively just take from it. Now I'm restricting this to talking about completely able people here. Would it not be fair if we all gave the same time to the state regardless of our jobs (and their associated cash value).

 

Change to a flat-tax system and it's equal*.

 

*as a principle at least...

 

If everyone works the same hours then everyone contributes the same time working for the common good. The % of their income as a fixed proportion which is contributed to the common good would be different, but because everyone is working the same hours there would be no ''lost time''. But i think i understand what you're trying to say.

 

It's up to to the wealthiest and most capable individuals in society to subsidise the poor and unfortunate. That's the whole point of a society. However I do think the tax system in this country is grotesque. Flat-tax does seem fairer in principle.

 

In addition, there should be no such thing as job seekers allowance. Job seekers allowance should consist of three square meals a day for you and your family, tokens to buy clothes with, and help to find a job. That way these cunts can't live like kings at everyone else's expense. I saw a woman with three kids on tv the other day, complaining about how the RBS bank fuck up meant she couldn't get her family allowance on time so the kids had to eat pot noodle for two days. Each one of these said kids was sat in the living room as their mother was being interviewed playing with iphones and ipads...

[dervish]

Flat tax I don't believe in. It sounds fair, but I firmly believe that the more you earn, regardless of what you do, the more you pay into the system.

A guy slinging pipes for BP will earn what, three times the amount of a registered nurse? That's hardly fair. But if he's earning three times more for manual labour then he should pay more than a nurse who does (to my mind) a far more important/skilled job, and gets a pittance in recompense.

 

And some guy who owns a sweat shop in sheffield, and lives in a multi-million pound mansion... fuck it, he'll pay more because he can afford more, and not just the same percentage.

 

If he earns more he'll pay more, but not proportionally more. So each hour he works the same slice of time would be for the state as the nurse. (without getting into the whole debate about making judgement calls on which job should get more etc)

 

If people want to be x let them be x. If not enough people want to be x then pay x more but don't make some people give up their most precious thing (time) disproportionately.

[dervish]

If everyone works the same hours then everyone contributes the same time working for the common good. The % of their income as a fixed proportion which is contributed to the common good would be different, but because everyone is working the same hours there would be no ''lost time''. But i think i understand what you're trying to say.

 

It's up to to the wealthiest and most capable individuals in society to subsidise the poor and unfortunate. That's the whole point of a society. However I do think the tax system in this country is grotesque. Flat-tax does seem fairer in principle.

 

In addition, there should be no such thing as job seekers allowance. Job seekers allowance should consist of three square meals a day for you and your family, tokens to buy clothes with, and help to find a job. That way these cunts can't live like kings at everyone else's expense. I saw a woman with three kids on tv the other day, complaining about how the RBS bank fuck up meant she couldn't get her family allowance on time so the kids had to eat pot noodle for two days. Each one of these said kids was sat in the living room as their mother was being interviewed playing with iphones and ipads...

 

Part of this is like a thought experiment for me I have to say. But this bit actually is part of one my key arguments.

 

From what I've seen the most classical definition of being "rich" is being able to buy the fruits of other peoples effort (time basically) with a smaller proportion of your own. Like I'm richer if I can work 1hr to pay for you to work for 2hrs. (obviously devolved into something quite complex in products... but tstill there) But the interesting point is when you get to what I'd term the "non-working class" (won't exaggerate the effect and so on but hey...) If someone does nothing but yet gets paid it's a divide by 0 (Pay/Effort, Anything/0 = infinitely rich), benefit monkeys are indeed the new royalty in my eyes.

 

It is a far harsher and simplistic way than I'd like to explain it but you get the idea.

 

 

[DD1903]

You not moving to the weeg now then big man? Could you not face it?!

[Big Man]

Part of this is like a thought experiment for me I have to say. But this bit actually is part of one my key arguments.

 

From what I've seen the most classical definition of being "rich" is being able to buy the fruits of other peoples effort (time basically) with a smaller proportion of your own. Like I'm richer if I can work 1hr to pay for you to work for 2hrs. (obviously devolved into something quite complex in products... but tstill there) But the interesting point is when you get to what I'd term the "non-working class" (won't exaggerate the effect and so on but hey...) If someone does nothing but yet gets paid it's a divide by 0 (Pay/Effort, Anything/0 = infinitely rich), benefit monkeys are indeed the new royalty in my eyes.

 

It is a far harsher and simplistic way than I'd like to explain it but you get the idea.

 

 

 

Ahh right. I understand your thinking a lot better now. That's an interesting way to look at it.

 

To bring the discussion down to a much more fundamental level then, Western neo-liberal economics in general is no longer fit for purpose. In fact modern economics as a discipline is flawed. It's a dangerous pseudo-science - an awful lot of seemingly intelligent well educated people being paid an awful lot of money to chase numbers up and down a graph with no real understanding of the underlying cause an effect. It's all mythical and magical and exists inside the boundaries of their, as a social group's, own imagination. Worst still, they delude themselves and others in to thinking that they are ''good'' at it.

 

With 7+ billion people on the planet I don't think that a system that is based on ''money'' is desirable or indeed optimal any more.

 

If we, as a species, are going to have any chance of surviving beyond the next 150 years then we need a radical re-think. Personally i think we should organise ourselves into a Dharma initiative type collective - everyone contributes something to the system (in terms of time), with an emphasis on the most capable and intelligent individuals solving global/human scale problems.

 

The most gifted cunts, like ke1t for example, would work on the space programme. All the machines and scientific instruments they would need would be built by the other people in the initiative. There would be people in charge of power generation, and mass transport. Then there would be less gifted cunts who cooked their, and everyone else's meals, people who washed their clothes, right down to landscape gardeners that cut the grass. Everyone will be inter-dependent on one another but in a good way. There would be no marriage either, everyone could have a go on everyone else. Individualism and isolationism would be strictly discouraged. Decision making would be guided by what is best for the collective.

 

Ask yourself why it is that us hard working cunts even bother to get out of bed in the morning to go to work, to graft our bollocks off, to try and earn vast sums of money in the first place. It's so that we can put ourselves in the best possible position to propagate our DNA and continue the species. That's a pretty pointless goal if you ask me, perpetuation for perpetuation's sake, but, if we all pulled together as a species we could do it a hell of a lot better...

 

We might even have fun along the way.

 

p.s. I blame Margaret Thatcher for the current mess we are in.

 

 

[Big Man]

You not moving to the weeg now then big man? Could you not face it?!

 

No i'm still moving through, but there's been a slight change of plan with regards the job description.

 

I'll be mainly doing appeal work for my first year or two (the court of criminal appeal only sits in Edinburgh). So i'll be based in Glasgow but traipsing my arse through to Edinburgh whenever required, which should be about 3/4 days a week.

 

Bit of a ball ache seeing as I'm living in Ed now, but hey ho...

[Ke1t]

Ahh right. I understand your thinking a lot better now. That's an interesting way to look at it.

 

To bring the discussion down to a much more fundamental level then, Western neo-liberal economics in general is no longer fit for purpose. In fact modern economics as a discipline is flawed. It's a dangerous pseudo-science - an awful lot of seemingly intelligent well educated people being paid an awful lot of money to chase numbers up and down a graph with no real understanding of the underlying cause an effect. It's all mythical and magical and exists inside the boundaries of their, as a social group's, own imagination. Worst still, they delude themselves and others in to thinking that they are ''good'' at it.

 

With 7+ billion people on the planet I don't think that a system that is based on ''money'' is desirable or indeed optimal any more.

 

 

Capitalism is designed to funnel money and power into ever-decreasing numbers of people. As an economic model it's unsustainable over a long period of time. This has happened before, it'll happen again, because it's the nature of the model.

 

Many of those 7 billion people will be born, live, and die in abject poverty. They'll never have a pair of shoes on their feet, let alone an iPad.

 

Capitalism is great if you're somewhere near the top of the pile, not so great if you don't occupy a position somewhere above the poverty line. And as economic wealth migrates upwards, more people find themselves on the wrong side of that line.

 

 

 

 

 

If we, as a species, are going to have any chance of surviving beyond the next 150 years then we need a radical re-think. Personally i think we should organise ourselves into a Dharma initiative type collective - everyone contributes something to the system (in terms of time), with an emphasis on the most capable and intelligent individuals solving global/human scale problems.

 

There's already a dialectic for the mass distribution of wealth... Communism. That it has been tried on a half-arsed basis, and failed, is enough for most people to dismiss it as a socio-economic model. On the contrary, it's the most sustainable, equitable and rational model I can imagine for global sustainability. The only other model I would consider viable long term is Anarchism, more specifically Anarcho-syndicalism. The problem with Anarcho-syndicalism, to my mind, is that it's decentralised to the point where maintaining order becomes exponentially more unlikely as population increases. Capitalism, though I'm a benefactor, fucking sucks... and anyone with a passing interest in European history will know what I'm talking about.

 

 

The most gifted cunts, like ke1t for example, would work on the space programme.

 

Flattered though I am, if you've seen the Mars Simulation vid I posted, it should be apparent that something like the science and technology behind the space program is far, far beyond my comprehension. I can kind of understand some of the things they say when they have someone explaining their business like you woud explain an iPad to an octogenarian, but christ....

 

I won't even pretend to have the kind of mind that's wired for that sort of level. I could maybe be NASA's janitor if they have really lax standards for the kind of guy who polishes the floors at the Space Center. Maybe one of those peppy tour guides who talk in a high pitched voice and point at tangles of pipes and wires through 4" thick blast-proof glass and goes, "And HERE's a space thing that the space scientists are building using fantastical futuristic tools and such!" If you've been to Kennedy you'll know what I'm talking about.

 

Coincidentally though, I had a woman at the house today who was in Soviet Rocket Forces back in the heyday of the popular Cold War. Romanian she was, and she still laughs heartily when she talks about Ceausescu getting his. Her loon is friends with mine, and her and my wife get them together to go to the park or pictures or wherever. And funnily enough, her husband is ex-special forces in the US military. Interesting couple, and he's got a few tales to tell inna. I tell them I'm a pacifist and they're both going to hell, which they think is funny given I'm the atheist. I'll add that MY wife was recently working for the US government on anti-terror projects (I think she still is.. the fuck do I know), previously she'd worked for Lockheed, the guys who manufacture nuclear missiles for the American military.

 

See when the four of us are in a room together, guess who's the one sitting staring off into the middle distance like a drooling retard.

 

So, yeah, Kelt's not going to be putting rockets into space any time soon, but if you need someone to pin you down and fart in your face, I've become pretty proficient at that as the father of a five year old loon.

 

All the machines and scientific instruments they would need would be built by the other people in the initiative. There would be people in charge of power generation, and mass transport. Then there would be less gifted cunts who cooked their, and everyone else's meals, people who washed their clothes, right down to landscape gardeners that cut the grass. Everyone will be inter-dependent on one another but in a good way. There would be no marriage either, everyone could have a go on everyone else. Individualism and isolationism would be strictly discouraged. Decision making would be guided by what is best for the collective.

 

A place for everyone and everyone in their place. It has sinister connotations, but it does sound kinda like you're describing Anarcho-syndicalism of a sort. while it has an appeal, I have huge problems with it too... which I may or may not bother my arse getting into.

 

Ask yourself why it is that us hard working cunts even bother to get out of bed in the morning to go to work, to graft our bollocks off, to try and earn vast sums of money in the first place. It's so that we can put ourselves in the best possible position to propagate our DNA and continue the species. That's a pretty pointless goal if you ask me, perpetuation for perpetuation's sake, but, if we all pulled together as a species we could do it a hell of a lot better...

 

We might even have fun along the way.

 

p.s. I blame Margaret Thatcher for the current mess we are in.

 

I think a revamp of socio-political methodology is in order. Capitalism is doomed, even if you're one of the elite... maybe even especially if you're one of the elite. Ask the elite from history, like the French and Russian monarchies, if the concentration of vast wealth is a great idea in the end.

 

A system of non-payment, but basic living stanards, is probably a good starting point.

[DD1903]

No i'm still moving through, but there's been a slight change of plan with regards the job description.

 

I'll be mainly doing appeal work for my first year or two (the court of criminal appeal only sits in Edinburgh). So i'll be based in Glasgow but traipsing my arse through to Edinburgh whenever required, which should be about 3/4 days a week.

 

Bit of a ball ache seeing as I'm living in Ed now, but hey ho...

 

Ouch!

[BrianFaePerth]

Caught news of the train fare hike last night.

 

It's the sort of feel-good story that makes the rest of my day, bit like the final bill for the Olympics.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Suckers.

[fatshaft]

It's not live and let live.

 

Say everyone works the same hours a week, but some have a higher % tax. This means they spend more of their time working for the common good. Some do nothing for the common good, some actively just take from it. Now I'm restricting this to talking about completely able people here. Would it not be fair if we all gave the same time to the state regardless of our jobs (and their associated cash value).

 

Change to a flat-tax system and it's equal*.

 

*as a principle at least...

Bollocks. Let's take solicitors for example, earn on the whole pretty enormous salaries, but what good do they do? What do they provide? Fuck all. Let's take a Doctor for instance, what do they do? Well a bloody whole lot more than solicitors, and usually, though still on great bloody heaps of money, a lot less than solicitors. Then take paramedics, again a whole lot of good and no bad, but paid a heap less than both.

 

So not everyone that works is working for the common good, some, like solicitors for example, are nothing but leeches who provide no service that we actually need, just a service that is self-fulfilling, fuck em.