Tell someone who has been on the phone to Sky mobile or Broadband support that the service is the same as GiffGaff or Plusnet. The services are absolutely not the same. Try being a Sky customer when some spotty kid wonders why they need DNS servers and switches them off. Swap in a BT router for a Sky one and see what happens to your mesh network. They are absolutely not the same service - people can and so switch providers all the time because of it
I'm pointing out the very simple principle that all money cycled through the Exchequer dwindles to zero over time. It is far more efficient for the Exchequer not to receive money and not to spend money than the opposite. The Exchequer isn't frictionless, it can't spend £1.00 for every £1.00 in tax. Every time you cycle money through taxation some "leaks"
Giving a tax break is better than not, but not having the income or expenditure is better.
The taxpayer and the Exchequer can't act like shareholders. What happens when demand for tickets drops? At whose cost is the wages in perpetuity of the unionised staff that refuse to let the owners flex staff with requirements? How does the Exchequer derisk by selling some of its shares in an uncertain industry? When those businesses take the necessary decisions that laypersons rarely understand, which MP falls on their sword? Where is the incentive for the next MP with their head on the block to make those decisions?
I'm not stopping at Economics 101, I'm taking baby steps with you. When you reach 101 then we'll move on to 102, etc.
Clutching at straws. Call centre quality does not equal true competition and you know it! It's like saying selling the same car, with a speed limitor and different call centre for different brands, equals competition. Of course its still the same car.
If the BT owned and run local exchange catches fire - which happened outside my office - all services go down. Sky, Plusnet whoever can not send out their engineers to fix it. They don't have any engineers. Everyone but everyone has to wait for BT to get out there and rewire the box before services resume. Meanwhile BT have no effective competition for this core infrastructure, can take their time sending out someone to fix the exchange,
and they make billions from it.
I appreciate there is some superficial competition. But you wouldn't call it a true free market. And Water is 101% a private monopoly. There is not even superficial competition. What then happens with all these private utility companies is a dance with the regulator, who is invariably a few steps behind the private profiteering company.
Trying to suggest that the Exchequer being a shareholder of say Thames Water or BT is ineffecient because there is some admin costs or whatever is again really stretching the point. Is that the best you could do? Wherever money flows there will costs associated. If government is wasteful (it is) then improve it. Make it less so.
Your questions are all answerable. For something like a Water Utility, demand won't drop! It makes no odds to wages that the Exchhequer is the benifictor, the company can still operate like any private industry (in one model, probably the best model). No MPs fall on their sword, because you would have a CEO running say Thames Water just like you have now. Like the BoE, government should be completely seperate from the external organisation's opperations. An MP has to serve their constituency why would an MP be involved in running a utility company? Suprised that you'd raise all these points when it is obvious they wouldn't impede anything.
If you are interested, the regulatory system that pretends to control these utility companies is inherently dysfunctional. The setup created under Thatcher has a duty to make sure companies have enough money to function, but also that consumers are not exploited. But that is contradictory. The fundamental premise of regulation is flawed therefore. And its ironic that more and more regulation is the supposed answer to utility privitisation. This is supposed to make thigns free of control and let the market decide? The reality is there isn't true competition in these sectors. And evidence from all over the world indicates that risk of delivery has not been passed onto the private sector (eg Thames Water super sewer is being paid for by a levy on Londer's bills). In the main these private companies are cash cows for those who managed to get their hands on the country's assets. Just check this out to listen to how abused the system is, how regulation doesn't work and how profit comes at our expense:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/b0931hl5
Various studies have shown that consumer's bills reduce under state owned utilities with no negative effect on quality. But why not evolve the current setup? With superficial competition where possible but with the Exchequer the passive shareholder of the core monolopy. The CEO and managment of these monolopy companies can still take home bonuses for making more profit, you could also add a metric for customer satisfaction, but the money comes back to us. The cash doesn't leave the contry, and helps to reduce taxes.
We could have an opt out, so people who have ideological problems with such a setup, don't get a tax rebate from such profits. Which would be just like now. What would you choose, to take the tax rebate or decline?
