The argument against yours is that they are private companies and should stand on their own feet. H&W should have got the money privately.
The history of the UK is one of the profits being privatised and the eventual and inevitable debts socialised. The taxpayer picks up the tab. The railways was the clear example of this. With the railways the real beneficiaries were the land owners the tracks ran through, and around the stations - who tended to be the railway companies, although others gained greatly as well. They creamed it off as land values rose exponentially and they raised rents. Increased values in land is "unearned income". The owner did nothing to create that wealth, the community does it by spending its taxpaying money on infrastructure. In the case of the Victorian railways, the investors,who were promised great profits, which never came. Those who built them did - in increased, untaxed land values.
The values the railways created since nationalisation that soaked into the ground as increased land values were not reclaimed to pay for the mechanism that created the wealth in the first place - the railways. The land owners creamed off the lot. The way the private railways were financed and run was poor and bound to fail. The profits were privatised and the debts socialised. The taxpayer picked up the tabs out of necessity to keep the shambolic, neglected, exploited network operating for the good of the nation.
The owners walked away but still took with them a ton of money on increased land values. Taxpayers money was used to get the networks modernised, yet the real beneficiaries, the landowners, were not taxed.
Fast, efficient railways boost the economy - they lower the price of essential goods. It is reclaiming the values they create to maintain them that needs addressing. One needs the other. In isolation many railways are supposedly uneconomical. In reality, overall to the community they are far from that. They create economic growth. Imagine London without the Underground, or Liverpool without Merseyrail. These cities would be a lot poorer. We have socialised roads, apart from the odd one or two, but people think rail should be private for some very odd reasons.
The best system is:
- Public ownership of rail
- Land Value Taxation to fund the infrastructure.
All then benefit, that is "all", even land owners as the infrastructure will be much superior. Fred Harrison, a top economist, very articulately explains very well how finances and essential infrastructure mesh.
Do we need a large ship building industry for the benefit of the nation as we do railways? Governments have been caught by the short term, wanting to keep jobs. In an economic boom why should they fund lame duck industries, when the employees can be employed elsewhere easily? The money is best used to fund wealth creating infrastructure. In times of depression/recession I can see why, but not in good times and until the world-wide Credit Crunch hit us we only had good times with Blair and Brown.
div>
If taxpayers money is to be used for projects it should be for infrastructure that promotes economic growth: transport, hospitals, schools, etc. Then using Land Value Tax the cost of the infrastructure can be reclaimed. Then private enterprise can run over the rails of publicly funded and run infrastructure.
Bookmarks