They did it where I live. The result is it on average a bit more expensive. Long trips (6-7 hours-ish) is controlled by the state. Prices are about the same as when the railway was owned by the people. But the shorter trips are under the rules of capitalism, and therefore the prices have gone up.
If you only travel from Trondheim to Oslo, you pay the same as before. If you travel only 1-3 stops, or under two hours in total, the prices have increased alot. If you live outside of Oslo, but work in Oslo, your daily expenses have gone up.
Before I could catch a train at a very, very low price and take my bike with me to explore. Now it is almost impossible because it is expensive, and the private companies that runs the different routes do not want you to take anything large with you.
And don’t get me started on trying to navigate between all the companies that run the different routes. It is a cluster fuck compared to when it was all one company owned by us, the citizens of Norway
“by the people” you mean the government they’re not on your side. Also you were paying for it inderectly through the ridiculous taxes without even realising it. And the situation would be better if it wasn’t an overegulated industry
If it was voluntary and a flat amount it would be fair, you might like it because it benefits you but it’s completely ridiculous for a billionaire who doesn’t event want to use these insufficient services
Billionaires have zero income, and they find other ways to not pay taxes. Some even “move” to Switzerland, and only stay there enough to not be forcibly moved out of Switzerland and back here.
They still use our services, though. Roads, trains, ferriesz airports etc
And it should be that way but some people want to change that because they’re selfish. Most billionaires still pay around 1% tax which is way more money than your average person paying 50%. Also it depends on the place but tax heavens like the islands in the Caribbean don’t really have public infrastructure ( since ther’s no tax) so it’s perfectly fair. And if they visit or do business in a high tax country they’re still paying sales tax or inderectly contributing to income tax through creating more/better job opportunities
Yes it is. Luckily we have a system of taxation. By ‘free’ I mean of course ‘at the point of use’.
We could provide 100% subsidies for mass transportation for probably around 100 years before we would approach equity with the subsidies we have given to fossil fuels and private transportation.
The reason people don’t use public transport is because right now it absolutely sucks in most places if you want more people to use them then they need to be privatised so a business that actually has an insentive to provide a good service can take over and make them great ( for example look at Japan). This way you can also lower taxes a bit which is great for the economy
Oh I agree. Use cost is one major problem, quality and non-existence is the other. However privatization is neoliberal bullshit. It doesn’t guarantee quality. It guarantees that profits will be extracted and therefore use cost will increase and/or quality will decrease.
Companies actually have to make their customers happy, if there is adequate competition it will definitely work out, if you look at almost any industry (that isn’t overegulated) the customers are satisfied, companies have real insentives governments don’t.
There is no competition for train lines. That is just stupid. Also multiple competing local bus services is equally stupid. Some services just don’t fit in the neoliberal model.
I’ll try this slowly: it would be idiotic to have multiple rail systems providing the same routes.
Please research ‘natural monopolies’ because that is the history of the unregulated development of the rail industry. If you are going to spout right-libertarian ideology, at least have some understanding of the history of capitalism.
Ther’s nothing wrong with having many rail systems serve the same route but the bureaucracts won’t let it happen, which is exactly how monopolies are formed. If the government only approves one company to build a train somewhere of course it’s going to be a monopoly. Monopolies cannot happen in a completely free market, without artificial boundaries competition will always be able to provide a service more attractive to consumers expect if the established company is providing an excellent service
Ticket prices don’t cover the full costs of train infrastructure and maintenance either. The point is the statement “anyone wealthy enough to buy a car can use it for free” is demonstrably false and using a demonstrably false statement as a counterpoint is…inadvisable.
I should have specified “… can use the infrastructure for free”. The car will cost money, but you can only use it because everyone subsidises roads, bridges, parking and much more.
Car drivers are demonstrably paying taxes for the ability to drive on public roads, they are demonstrably not “using the infrastructure for free”. They pay taxes for every mile they drive on a public road. Gas is taxed and cars have regular registration taxes.
It’s a service that costs money to maintain
Damn, if only we paid taxes that could be used for maintenance.
Yeah but for it to be free they’d have to raise taxes so it’s better to just privatise them which would lower taxes and provide a better service
They did it where I live. The result is it on average a bit more expensive. Long trips (6-7 hours-ish) is controlled by the state. Prices are about the same as when the railway was owned by the people. But the shorter trips are under the rules of capitalism, and therefore the prices have gone up.
If you only travel from Trondheim to Oslo, you pay the same as before. If you travel only 1-3 stops, or under two hours in total, the prices have increased alot. If you live outside of Oslo, but work in Oslo, your daily expenses have gone up.
Before I could catch a train at a very, very low price and take my bike with me to explore. Now it is almost impossible because it is expensive, and the private companies that runs the different routes do not want you to take anything large with you.
And don’t get me started on trying to navigate between all the companies that run the different routes. It is a cluster fuck compared to when it was all one company owned by us, the citizens of Norway
“by the people” you mean the government they’re not on your side. Also you were paying for it inderectly through the ridiculous taxes without even realising it. And the situation would be better if it wasn’t an overegulated industry
We’re not the same culture. The taxes I pay are OK for the services I, and others, get for them
If it was voluntary and a flat amount it would be fair, you might like it because it benefits you but it’s completely ridiculous for a billionaire who doesn’t event want to use these insufficient services
Billionaires have zero income, and they find other ways to not pay taxes. Some even “move” to Switzerland, and only stay there enough to not be forcibly moved out of Switzerland and back here.
They still use our services, though. Roads, trains, ferriesz airports etc
And it should be that way but some people want to change that because they’re selfish. Most billionaires still pay around 1% tax which is way more money than your average person paying 50%. Also it depends on the place but tax heavens like the islands in the Caribbean don’t really have public infrastructure ( since ther’s no tax) so it’s perfectly fair. And if they visit or do business in a high tax country they’re still paying sales tax or inderectly contributing to income tax through creating more/better job opportunities
Yes it is. Luckily we have a system of taxation. By ‘free’ I mean of course ‘at the point of use’. We could provide 100% subsidies for mass transportation for probably around 100 years before we would approach equity with the subsidies we have given to fossil fuels and private transportation.
The reason people don’t use public transport is because right now it absolutely sucks in most places if you want more people to use them then they need to be privatised so a business that actually has an insentive to provide a good service can take over and make them great ( for example look at Japan). This way you can also lower taxes a bit which is great for the economy
Oh I agree. Use cost is one major problem, quality and non-existence is the other. However privatization is neoliberal bullshit. It doesn’t guarantee quality. It guarantees that profits will be extracted and therefore use cost will increase and/or quality will decrease.
Companies actually have to make their customers happy, if there is adequate competition it will definitely work out, if you look at almost any industry (that isn’t overegulated) the customers are satisfied, companies have real insentives governments don’t.
There is no competition for train lines. That is just stupid. Also multiple competing local bus services is equally stupid. Some services just don’t fit in the neoliberal model.
Ther’s no competition if you have a bureaucrats approving only specific train lines if you just live it to the free market it’ll be alright
I’ll try this slowly: it would be idiotic to have multiple rail systems providing the same routes.
Please research ‘natural monopolies’ because that is the history of the unregulated development of the rail industry. If you are going to spout right-libertarian ideology, at least have some understanding of the history of capitalism.
Ther’s nothing wrong with having many rail systems serve the same route but the bureaucracts won’t let it happen, which is exactly how monopolies are formed. If the government only approves one company to build a train somewhere of course it’s going to be a monopoly. Monopolies cannot happen in a completely free market, without artificial boundaries competition will always be able to provide a service more attractive to consumers expect if the established company is providing an excellent service
roads and car infrastructure costs money to maintain, but anyone wealthy enough to buy a car can use it for free
> anyone wealthy enough to buy a car can use it for free
Anyone with a car is paying additional taxes for fuel and car registration.
Those typically don’t cover all of transportation dept budgets, and fuel taxes are on the permanent decline.
Ticket prices don’t cover the full costs of train infrastructure and maintenance either. The point is the statement “anyone wealthy enough to buy a car can use it for free” is demonstrably false and using a demonstrably false statement as a counterpoint is…inadvisable.
Felt there was an implicit understanding that cars need gas, but yeah that’s fair.
I should have specified “… can use the infrastructure for free”. The car will cost money, but you can only use it because everyone subsidises roads, bridges, parking and much more.
Car drivers are demonstrably paying taxes for the ability to drive on public roads, they are demonstrably not “using the infrastructure for free”. They pay taxes for every mile they drive on a public road. Gas is taxed and cars have regular registration taxes.
Not to mention, roads are also used for logistics.
fuel tax in the US is a joke, in Europe it’s higher but still doesn’t cover anywhere near the infrastructure cost.
This video illustrates it nicely.
Ther’s ussually tolls there too