That's hardly universally applicable though - many poorer people can't afford to get an annual railcard. it's more expensive to have an annual railcard if you're only working part time and need it 3 days a week, and it doesn't really take into account one-off or irregular trips.Mellsblue wrote:Similar to the way you get a railcard, I suppose. Bring in proof once a year and get your railcard.Puja wrote:The issue with means testing is that it creates an ungodly amount of bureaucracy to administer, oftimes costing more than just giving a blanket benefit. How would you even run it on the trains - ask people to bring a P60 and passport with them when they buy a train ticket?Mellsblue wrote: I haven’t said there should be no subsidies. I just think if you subsidise something then it should be targeted at those who need the financial help and shouldn’t discriminate due to factors out of people’s control, ie not everyone (with no proof I’d say the majority) can get to work on a train and/or have a job where a car is essential.
I’ve already stated who and what should be encouraged. As I said to Puja, I’m very happy to help subsidise poorer demographics on the trains via means testing. As I said to Diggers, I’m happy for green subsidies but that really should include all green modes of transport, not just those who use trains.
If you think train subsidies should just be applied as blanket coverage in the hope it helps poorer demographics despite predominantly helping the middle classes then fine. Seems odd to me, though.
I feel the same about winter fuel allowance. It’s not just a transport thing.
Actually, that would be on brand for this government...
Puja
Puja