Does this also apply to public train companies? Would you prefer everyone just drive everywhere?
No. If they were really public, it wouldn’t be measured as a loss. Like my city’s free buses aren’t losing money, they are providing a necessary service.
It’s still a fare they could have charged, calling it something different doesn’t change the fact that someone has to pay to keep the trains running. Why should the taxpayer be the one on the hook? If it’s such an important service the people who use it would be willing to pay for it.
Yeah!
Why should I pay for schools, I don’t have kids? It’s not like it benefits our entire country’s future.
Why should I pay for hospitals, I’m not sick. Not like my taxes are being used to help people who really really need it, and whose families are devastated
I don’t have access to a railway station either, should I pay for quieter, safer roads and communities, and making life easier for my fellow citizens?
You sound like a yank
Because it incentivizes the most pro social option, especially in regards to land use. When more people use trains less roads are needed, less parking space is needed, and less traffic occurs. Subsidizing trains as a driver is significantly more sensible to me than the fact that my taxes pay for meat subsidies despite me being a vegetarian for example.