Why is the taxpayer paying for HS2?

fluxo

As per the thread title: why is the taxpayer paying for HS2?

HS2 is a line that will specifically benefit private train operators. Unlike the roads, the railway network is not something an ordinary member of the public can put a vehicle on and use. Why aren't the train operators paying for HS2, when they will be major beneficiaries of it? Why should taxpayers, many of whom will not even be able to afford tickets to use the line, being asked to stump up about a thousand quid each?

And while we're at it: why are taxpayers subsidising nuclear power stations and fast broadband when these industries - power generation and telecoms - were supposed to have been privatised?

Sonic67

I think with nuclear power there will always be some government control.

EarthRod

Because it is much easier for the public to pay for large private enterprise projects - maximise the profit and minimise the risk.

Big business is happy and the current government is happy.

fluxo

Do you think that government subsidies of this sort inevitably end up sustaining inefficient business models?

The way I thought it was supposed to happen is that the customer drives investment by choosing the best private provider. That is, it is the decisions of millions of members of the public that steers private companies in a direction that suits those people. With these taxpayer subsidies it is the government and civil servants who make the choices and we seem to end up with a hybrid public/private system where the public pays private companies but the public does not get to choose directly which private companies benefit. That's a dysfunctional market to my mind.

And there's every incentive for private companies to plead for public investment that, actually, they could make themselves, thereby extorting money from the taxpayer. If private companies want the profit from investment, they should find the investment capital themselves from their reserves or the finance market like any normal private company would have to do. If they can't do that it implies that the business model in question is not sustainable.

DandyAndy

Yes we are the main course of the banquet; we are very succulent and swallowed with ease.  

BDUK does make me giggle, but I’m a net benefactor of the scheme for now and the BT group is desperate to slow a very fast developing industry and it all makes BT shareholders happy. I would not class Mobile operators of Internet of slurping up our adipose.

For Nuclear, the calling water which ends up in natural lakes, grows bigger than normal trout, It did back in the day at Trawsfynydd any way, that can only be good, for me.

There is something of a deep wrong needing to be correceted with the Conservatives and railways, Baron Beeching etc..

Sonic67

We invented trains. Meanwhile in Japan.

Lucky riders whoosh along at 500 kph on maglev test run for the public - AJW by The Asahi Shimbun

311mph.

domtheone

So by 2027 the Japanese will be flying along at 300mph while we'll still be arguing about how many tunnels to build under the chilterns

fluxo

Why is the taxpayer paying for HS2?

Because the company that builds and maintains the track is a government owned company?

fluxo

And that company should be asking the train operators to pay for HS2. If they (the operators) want a faster line, if they think their customers want it, then they should pay for it. They can't reasonably expect to generate profits from stuff given to them for free.

Moreover, the government has no money to pay for this. The taxpayer should not feel obliged to borrow vast amounts, about £1000 per person in the UK, to further subsidise the train operators. The deficit will never be tackled if the government is constantly finding new ways to spend our money and simultaneously reducing taxes.

fluxo

Nonsense. You talk about reasonable, but how on earth do you think it is reasonable to expect customers to directly fund and run infrastructure projects for their suppliers? Can you name any other industry where this happens?