The cost of living agenda - how should the railway contribute ?

[Sonic1234]

Although London is an interesting example

London has contactless and Oyster, which breaks the psychological link between travelling and paying for travel, although to a lesser extent than car travel. It's less "shall I pay £3.50 for a round trip on the bus, but is a trip to Tesco worth it?" and more tap the magic card and go. In my opinion, this is what the real reasoning behind Project Oval is: the railway can't make fares attractive, so is trying to hide them from the average user.

 

[styles]

London has contactless and Oyster, which breaks the psychological link between travelling and paying for travel, although to a lesser extent than car travel. It's less "shall I pay £3.50 for a round trip on the bus, but is a trip to Tesco worth it?" and more tap the magic card and go. In my opinion, this is what the real reasoning behind Project Oval is: the railway can't make fares attractive, so is trying to hide them from the average user.

That's quite the conspiracy theory.

TfL bus and tram fares are £1.75, and have been frozen for 7 of the past 10 years. These are cheaper than the governments' bus fare caps which have been recently introduced, raised, lowered.

I much more expect that expanding contactless payment is to improve convenience, rather than hide fares which are already published online.

Owning a car in London is a privilege not everybody can afford. Insurance costs are higher, parking charges are steep, and you can't run an old banger because you'll be paying £12.50 in ULEZ every day, let alone the Congestion Charge. While there's clearly work to do to improve air pollution from the Underground, encouraging people to take public transport is doing a lot for local air quality.

 

[yorksrob]

All else being equal, but all else isn't equal.

If most trip ends are between car dominated suburbs and office/retail parks off motorways then making rail cheap isn't going to increase rail demand. Rail works best when there is a high concentration of knowledge workers that would benefit most from agglomeration where land use prohibits car commuting.

Those are the fundamentals that need to be addressed first. You can't subsidise your way towards parity of outcome.

The existing network outside of the SE serves where it serves. Having affordable/dicounted fares will clearly increase ridership in these markets.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Thursday at 07:28 ==

Owning a car in London is a privilege not everybody can afford. Insurance costs are higher, parking charges are steep, and you can't run an old banger because you'll be paying £12.50 in ULEZ every day, let alone the Congestion Charge. While there's clearly work to do to improve air pollution from the Underground, encouraging people to take public transport is doing a lot for local air quality.

Ditto everywhere else. I couldn't afford to run a car and I live in Yorkshire.

 

[AM9]

The existing network outside of the SE serves where it serves. Having affordable/dicounted fares will clearly increase ridership in these markets.

If by 'affordable fares' you just mean cheaper than they are at present, then that has a direct cost on the national budget. If the introduction of those reduced fares increases patronage by so much that there is a net increase in the railway's income, that's fair and well.
I have no knowledge of whether such a move would achieve that but I can think of a couple of RUK members who might well know of industry assessments of any proposal to reduce their income per fare wth a possibility of a net gain
Only then can the comparison be honestly made between the NSE success and a similar scheme elsewhere.
Your post refers to these 'markets'. That's an acknowledgment that the railway is a commercial undertaking, albeit (soon) a publicly operated one.

 

[Magdalia]

I'm not sure what arguments you've been reading but I've always argued the benefits of having public transport that's consistently competitively priced for the population. I don't understand why a vocal section of this forum consistently argue that working age, working class people should be denied that (for example by arguing against a national railcard, for the removal of off-peak fares etc).

There are people who would be content with the railway being a rich man's toy. I'm not one of them.

My analysis comes from studying economics at University, working in economics for 30 years, and continuing to follow the subject since I retired. That goes back to the time of the Serpell Report and BR sectorisation, key events that have shaped government policy on the the railway ever since.

I go back to my post on Monday, you don't understand why there is opposition to your National Railcard because you misunderstand two key points:

A state run and funded railway has costs that exceed revenue, the difference is funded by taxpayers. The railway is in competition with other public services for funding, and there is no bottomless pit of money to fill the gap between revenue and costs, so the railway still has an obligation to maximise revenue and minimise its financial burden on the taxpayer.

"Fairness" does not enter into it, apart from a few cases, it forms no part of the political imperative of commissioning a state funded railway. The government subsidise the railway because, if it didn't, there would be less economic output and less tax revenue. That applies especially to economic output and tax revenue in London.

The competition that matters for the railway is its competition with other public services for funding. Since Monday I have looked up some numbers on railway industry finance, which are here:

https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/media/ptafpcco/uk-rail-industry-finance-2425.pdf

Rail industry finance (UK) April 2024 to March 2025 25 November 2025 (Updated 27 January 2026 – see page 35) Fares income increased by 8.3% in the latest year (April 2024 to March 2025) to £11.5 billion, reflecting a continued recovery in passenger journeys since the pandemic. Government funding of the operational rail industry reduced by 7.0% to £11.9 billion but continues to fund nearly half of the industry’s costs.

Go to Table 2.1 on page 15 and you will see that funding to passenger operators in 2024/25 was £4.2bn, and £2.7bn higher than 5 years ago. That £4.2bn figure needs to be coming down, not going up. It is taxpayers money going on funding the railway that can be better spent elsewhere, and I'll start from the position of not supporting anything that pushes that £4.2bn up not down.

For a policy objective of public transport that's affordably priced for the population, buses are a far more cost effective way of delivering that objective than trains. In the context of the cost of living crisis, that's been addressed through the £2 fare cap.

 

[yorksrob]

If by 'affordable fares' you just mean cheaper than they are at present, then that has a direct cost on the national budget. If the introduction of those reduced fares increases patronage by so much that there is a net increase in the railway's income, that's fair and well.
I have no knowledge of whether such a move would achieve that but I can think of a couple of RUK members who might well know of industry assessments of any proposal to reduce their income per fare wth a possibility of a net gain
Only then can the comparison be honestly made between the NSE success and a similar scheme elsewhere.
Your post refers to these 'markets'. That's an acknowledgment that the railway is a commercial undertaking, albeit (soon) a publicly operated one.

Of course, there are always passengers to "sell" the service to. However the passenger railway isn't and shouldn't be solely commercially focused.

I don't think we'll get to European cost train travel through things such as Bahn Cards or climate tickets, but as a society we shouldn't be closed off to modest improvements that a national railcard would bring.

The Scottish off-peak fare trial didn't quite cover its costs as much as it was hoped, however there was a political imperative to go ahead with the policy anyway.

 

[NCT]

The Scottish giveaways are hemorrhaging money (hundreds of millions a year). That money would be better spent on enhancements and accelerated decarb.

Average fare paid is already lower outside London & the South East (~15p a passenger km on Northern) than in it (20p a passenger km on a typical London & SE TOC including the Overground). Chucking more taxpayers money when there are fundamental demand weaknesses would be fiscally irresponsible.

 

[yorksrob]

My analysis comes from studying economics at University, working in economics for 30 years, and continuing to follow the subject since I retired. That goes back to the time of the Serpell Report and BR sectorisation, key events that have shaped government policy on the the railway ever since.

I go back to my post on Monday, you don't understand why there is opposition to your National Railcard because you misunderstand two key points:



The competition that matters for the railway is its competition with other public services for funding. Since Monday I have looked up some numbers on railway industry finance, which are here:

https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/media/ptafpcco/uk-rail-industry-finance-2425.pdf

Go to Table 2.1 on page 15 and you will see that funding to passenger operators in 2024/25 was £4.2bn, and £2.7bn higher than 5 years ago. That £4.2bn figure needs to be coming down, not going up. It is taxpayers money going on funding the railway that can be better spent elsewhere, and I'll start from the position of not supporting anything that pushes that £4.2bn up not down.

For a policy objective of public transport that's affordably priced for the population, buses are a far more cost effective way of delivering that objective than trains. In the context of the cost of living crisis, that's been addressed through the £2 fare cap.

@Bald Rick estimated the cost of a national railcard to be around £300m a year (including long distance), and given his position in the industry, I suspect his estimation is as good as you'll get.

That's less than half of the 7% reduction in annual subsidy beetween the last two years from the Government statistics that you yourself have quoted in post 275.

Is it really worth not having a good, easily understandable national discount scheme potentially available to all for the sake of such a small proportion of what we pay already ?

The political benefits, and marketing benefit for the railway long term will outweigh the half a year added time in which to make back that revenue.

 

[NCT]

@Bald Rick estimated the cost of a national railcard to be around £300m a year (including long distance), and given his position in the industry, I suspect his estimation is as good as you'll get.

That's less than half of the 7% reduction in annual subsidy beetween the last two years from the Government statistics that you yourself have quoted in post 275.

Is it really worth not having a good, easily understandable national discount scheme potentially available to all for the sake of such a small proportion of what we pay already ?

The political benefits, and marketing benefit for the railway long term will outweigh the half a year added time in which to make back that revenue.

7% in the wrong direction is a big number.

 

[The exile]

The Scottish giveaways are hemorrhaging money (hundreds of millions a year). That money would be better spent on enhancements and accelerated decarb.

As are Deutschland and Hungary tickets and no doubt Austria’s Klimaticket as well. It’s up to their electorates to decide on their futures but I can’t see them being sustainable long term.

 

[yorksrob]

7% in the wrong direction is a big number.

It's spoiling the railway fares ship for a ha'porth of tar.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Yesterday at 15:01 ==

As are Deutschland and Hungary tickets and no doubt Austria’s Klimaticket as well. It’s up to their electorates to decide on their futures but I can’t see them being sustainable long term.

Their electorates might appreciate the public service, as might ours, given the opportunity.

Of course, a national railcard would be far less ambitious than these.

 

[AM9]

The Scottish giveaways are hemorrhaging money (hundreds of millions a year). That money would be better spent on enhancements and accelerated decarb.

Average fare paid is already lower outside London & the South East (~15p a passenger km on Northern) than in it (20p a passenger km on a typical London & SE TOC including the Overground). Chucking more taxpayers money when there are fundamental demand weaknesses would be fiscally irresponsible.

Maybe us in the south-east should campaign for parity in p/mile for rail travel. It's OK for those on NSE cards, but all those on age, disability or group travel railcards are worse off in the south-east compared to other areas, because we get 33% off ~20p/mile whereas they get 33% off 15p/mile!*

* some railcards have different discounts.

 

[yorksrob]

Maybe us in the south-east should campaign for parity in p/mile for rail travel. It's OK for those on NSE cards, but all those on age, disability or group travel railcards are worse off in the south-east compared to other areas, because we get 33% off ~20p/mile whereas they get 33% off 15p/mile!*

* some railcards have different discounts.

But you'd get a bonus with a national railcard by being able to get a discount outside of the South East area.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

@Bald Rick estimated the cost of a national railcard to be around £300m a year (including long distance), and given his position in the industry, I suspect his estimation is as good as you'll get.

That's less than half of the 7% reduction in annual subsidy beetween the last two years from the Government statistics that you yourself have quoted in post 275.

As are Deutschland and Hungary tickets and no doubt Austria’s Klimaticket as well. It’s up to their electorates to decide on their futures but I can’t see them being sustainable long term.

Of course, a national railcard would be far less ambitious than these.

As I am a kind and generous sort, I have just done the research (above) for the Daily Mail/Telegraph article that would follow the public proposal of this scheme.

I'll be even more generous - I will write the headline for them:

RAIL EXPERTS PROPOSE SPENDING HALF OF ANNUAL SAVINGS ON NATIONAL SCHEME 'FAR LESS AMBITIOUS' THAN HUNGARY'S EQUIVALENT.

 

[The exile]

It's spoiling the railway fares ship for a ha'porth of tar.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Yesterday at 15:01 ==



Their electorates might appreciate the public service, as might ours, given the opportunity.

They almost certainly do / would but are not necessarily willing to cough up the funds needed to sustain it and maintain investment at a level sufficient to keep the network from falling apart.

 

[yorksrob]

As I am a kind and generous sort, I have just done the research (above) for the Daily Mail/Telegraph article that would follow the public proposal of this scheme.

I'll be even more generous - I will write the headline for them:

RAIL EXPERTS PROPOSE SPENDING HALF OF ANNUAL SAVINGS ON NATIONAL SCHEME 'FAR LESS AMBITIOUS' THAN HUNGARY'S EQUIVALENT.

One would expect those organs to find a negative spin on any pro-public transport initiative.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Yesterday at 16:00 ==

They almost certainly do / would but are not necessarily willing to cough up the funds needed to sustain it and maintain investment at a level sufficient to keep the network from falling apart.

Let's see. They haven't stopped yet.

In terms of the network "falling apart" as has been mentioned elsewhere, the likely cost of a national railcard would be orders of magnitude less than the cost of running the railway.

 

[NCT]

Let's see. They haven't stopped yet.

In terms of the network "falling apart" as has been mentioned elsewhere, the likely cost of a national railcard would be orders of magnitude less than the cost of running the railway.

Both Germany and Hungary have significant backlogs of renewals and enhancements.

Revenue funding and 'steady state' renewals and enhancements are pretty similar orders of magnitude. Every little helps, and every little in the wrong direction hurts, and it's not that little.

As a taxpayer and fare payer my personal preference is paying for excellence over subsidised mediocricy.

 

[AM9]

But you'd get a bonus with a national railcard by being able to get a discount outside of the South East area.

 

[AlterEgo]

Both Germany and Hungary have significant backlogs of renewals and enhancements.

Revenue funding and 'steady state' renewals and enhancements are pretty similar orders of magnitude. Every little helps, and every little in the wrong direction hurts, and it's not that little.

As a taxpayer and fare payer my personal preference is paying for excellence over subsidised mediocricy.

Indeed. There's no point going anywhere for a quid if you can't actually get there because the trains are up the spout. Germany's network is in a parlour state to the point it has become an international embarrassment.

 

[yorksrob]

Both Germany and Hungary have significant backlogs of renewals and enhancements.

Revenue funding and 'steady state' renewals and enhancements are pretty similar orders of magnitude. Every little helps, and every little in the wrong direction hurts, and it's not that little.

As a taxpayer and fare payer my personal preference is paying for excellence over subsidised mediocricy.

We have backlogs of maintenance and renewals.

As a taxpayer and farepayer I'd rather pay a little bit more tax for a rail service that is more accessible to people in terms of fares.

" Every little helps" works for passengers budgets as well.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Yesterday at 16:16 ==

Indeed. There's no point going anywhere for a quid if you can't actually get there because the trains are up the spout. Germany's network is in a parlour state to the point it has become an international embarrassment.

Is anyone suggesting being able to go anywhere for a quid ?

The trains are up the spout a fair amount of the time already. Is £300m a year really going to move the dial ?

 

[NCT]

We have backlogs of maintenance and renewals.

As a taxpayer and farepayer I'd rather pay a little bit more tax for a rail service that is more accessible to people in terms of fares.

Good for you. Unfortunately you don't have the political coalition on your side.

If you don't mind paying more taxes anyway, why not just accept paying the equivalent in fares?

 

[stevieinselby]

Other :
If the government get all the fares, prices shouldn't vary from the various TOC or third party, regardless of time (dynamic pricing)

Example Manchester Piccadilly has a Northern ticket machine and Avanti
The following journey as an example

20.46 Manchester To Macclesfield (Northern)
Northern £8.65
Avanti £12.70

Where there is one service that is clearly superior to the other, I don't necessarily object to having differential fares – distinguishing between local and intercity services for short journeys like this can be helpful as it encourages people making short journeys to use the local services rather than taking up space on the premium long-distance services where capacity may be more of an issue. But where services are broadly equivalent (eg Thameslink/Gatwick Express) then I agree that having operator-specific fares is untenable.

 

[AlterEgo]

Is anyone suggesting being able to go anywhere for a quid ?

The trains are up the spout a fair amount of the time already. Is £300m a year really going to move the dial ?

Well no, it was a figure of speech. The point is you can't laud low fares in Germany without acknowledging the system there needs money - and a lot of it - in order to get back to where it was. At the moment it looks like a 20 year job. Like you, I'd prefer to pay more tax to make the railway accessible but we will have to see where the current PM lands on this. I'm sceptical.

 

[The exile]

One would expect those organs to find a negative spin on any pro-public transport initiative.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Yesterday at 16:00 ==



Let's see. They haven't stopped yet.

In terms of the network "falling apart" as has been mentioned elsewhere, the likely cost of a national railcard would be orders of magnitude less than the cost of running the railway.

The network falling apart doesn’t necessarily mean infrastructure. It can also mean authorities slashing the train-kms they’re prepared /able to pay for once /if federal funding is withdrawn.

 

[yorksrob]

Good for you. Unfortunately you don't have the political coalition on your side.

If you don't mind paying more taxes anyway, why not just accept paying the equivalent in fares?

Touché.

Though given the small cost of a national railcard as a proportion of expenditure on the railway, I'd rather it were absorbed into ongoing savings and efficiencies of the railway budget or overall transport budget.

£300m is the sort of cost that can be absorbed without having a major effect on overall taxation.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Yesterday at 16:27 ==

Well no, it was a figure of speech. The point is you can't laud low fares in Germany without acknowledging the system there needs money - and a lot of it - in order to get back to where it was. At the moment it looks like a 20 year job. Like you, I'd prefer to pay more tax to make the railway accessible but we will have to see where the current PM lands on this. I'm sceptical.

All of our railway systems need more money - which is why although I'd love a more all-encompassing climate ticket type offering, I consider myself a realist and recognise that such a thing wouldn't be likely here.

That said, initiatives such as Scotrail abolishing peak fares, or a National railcard in the UK, do have the potential to make real savings for households without being overly expensive.

 

[AM9]

But you'd get a bonus with a national railcard by being able to get a discount outside of the South East area.

... but with an age, disability or group travel Railcard,* your already discounted 'non-South-East' fares would get another third off. So if you made 10 journeys a year in the North, the base cost per mile would be ~10p, whereas my local equivalent would be ~13.3p. That's just as 'unfair'.
For those that don't have any railcards living outside the NSE area, with a National railcard, their cost per mile base is ~10p whereas South-East residents cardholders pay ~13.3p for local travel, and unlike elsewhere, that is constrained by a post 10:00 start rule.
The only way to make it what you describe as 'fair' is to level the base cost of all fares across the UK and scrap the NSE card or introduce your 'National' railcard. Be careful of what you wish for in your crusade for fairness.

*(Assuming that you will get one of the national railcards in the future - say a Senior Railcard)

 

[yorksrob]

The network falling apart doesn’t necessarily mean infrastructure. It can also mean authorities slashing the train-kms they’re prepared /able to pay for once /if federal funding is withdrawn.

Indeed. We don't want the network falling apart at all.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Yesterday at 16:35 ==

... but with an age, disability or group travel Railcard,* your already discounted 'non-South-East' fares would get another third off. So if you made 10 journeys a year in the North, the base cost per mile would be ~10p, whereas my local equivalent would be ~13.3p. That's just as 'unfair'.
For those that don't have any railcards living outside the NSE area, with a National railcard, their cost per mile base is ~10p whereas South-East residents cardholders pay ~13.3p for local travel, and unlike elsewhere, that is constrained by a post 10:00 start rule.
The only way to make it what you describe as 'fair' is to level the base cost of all fares across the UK and scrap the NSE card or introduce your 'National' railcard. Be careful of what you wish for in your crusade for fairness.

*(Assuming that you will get one of the national railcards in the future - say a Senior Railcard)

But outside of the South East, we have lower average wages, so the 3.3p difference is already embedded.

If we were to level fares across the country, we wouldn't be accounting for income differentials, which wouldn't be fair at all.

The concept of a national railcard has benefits nationwide:

- those in the SE who already have the network railcard can go further afield.
- those who don't live in the south east would get a discount they previously weren't entitled to.

 

[NCT]

Touché.

Though given the small cost of a national railcard as a proportion of expenditure on the railway, I'd rather it were absorbed into ongoing savings and efficiencies of the railway budget or overall transport budget.

£300m is the sort of cost that can be absorbed without having a major effect on overall taxation.

That's moving goalposts.

All of our railway systems need more money

Cough up in fares then.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Yesterday at 16:46 ==

Indeed. We don't want the network falling apart at all.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Yesterday at 16:35 ==



But outside of the South East, we have lower average wages, so the 3.3p difference is already embedded.

If we were to level fares across the country, we wouldn't be accounting for income differentials, which wouldn't be fair at all.

The concept of a national railcard has benefits nationwide:

- those in the SE who already have the network railcard can go further afield.
- those who don't live in the south east would get a discount they previously weren't entitled to.

Address income disparity at source, not paper over it with government giveaways.

 

[martin butler]

I think the word "average" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here.

Market segmentation is just an excuse for the country's usual discrimination against those with little alternative. Or do they ? Perhaps I ought to start using the coach more.

The two together card is also a bit stingy when you think about it, only coming into action if the same two people happen to be travelling together.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Jul 2026 ==



Interesting point. In spite of what people try and argue on here, fares aren't considerably cheaper in the sticks. Sometimes they're more expensive.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Jul 2026 ==



Thank goodness. I winder how long that will last if the industry gets its way.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Jul 2026 ==



How about Hastings to Portsmouth, 74 miles by train, yet a bargain day return of £21.20 is available. Only in my wildest dreams could I imagine such a good value fare from Leeds to Whitby (70 miles, £57 return) for example.

My point is that this old canard of the North supposedly always having dirt cheap fares compared to the South East is always trotted out to justify the lack of railcard or even group save availability up north, but it is by no means always true.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Jul 2026 ==



How about Hastings to Portsmouth, 74 miles by train, yet a bargain day return of £21.20 is available. Only in my wildest dreams could I imagine such a good value fare from Leeds to Whitby (70 miles, £57 return) for example.

My point is that this old canard of the North supposedly always having dirt cheap fares compared to the South East is always trotted out to justify the lack of railcard or even group save availability up north, but it is by no means always true.

How long though does Hastings to Portsmouth take, I once did Hastings to Fareham by train, and it took quite a long time, I think the actual journey time for what in miles isn't that far, would put a lot of people off,

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Yesterday at 17:20 ==

If though, we are serious about cost of living, you have to ask what the number one issue people have and that's got to be housing, we don't have enough, and its costs are often too high, for the average person on a low wage,

As i have said my preferred solution is that some low interest home buying schemes set up with government funding, for first time buyers might be the answer, paid back though taxation, over a period of time,

Councils get funding to buy up abandoned houses and turn theses into flats to be let to people on the local council waiting lists, at affordable rents,

These two measures alone should help, and should be revenue neutral possibly making a profit, that can be plowed back into further schemes,

Scrap the National minimum wage, and replace it with a national living wage, that pays a wage that people can live on without the need for state help, help could be given to small businesses to absorb the extra cost, in grants, but only to uk based small businesses,

 

[yorksrob]

[/QUOTE]

How long though does Hastings to Portsmouth take, I once did Hastings to Fareham by train, and it took quite a long time, I think the actual journey time for what in miles isn't that far, would put a lot of people off,

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Yesterday at 17:20 ==

If though, we are serious about cost of living, you have to ask what the number one issue people have and that's got to be housing, we don't have enough, and its costs are often too high, for the average person on a low wage,

As i have said my preferred solution is that some low interest home buying schemes set up with government funding, for first time buyers might be the answer, paid back though taxation, over a period of time,

Councils get funding to buy up abandoned houses and turn theses into flats to be let to people on the local council waiting lists, at affordable rents,

These two measures alone should help, and should be revenue neutral possibly making a profit, that can be plowed back into further schemes,

Scrap the National minimum wage, and replace it with a national living wage, that pays a wage that people can live on without the need for state help, help could be given to small businesses to absorb the extra cost, in grants, but only to uk based small businesses,

It's taken a good couple of hours from my last couple of trips (very pleasurable ones though).

In terms of cost of living, I think it needs to be a range of measures. The bus fare schemes and national railcard have their place. As do long term policies such as housing market improvement, which the PM appears to be instituting as well.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Yesterday at 18:04 ==

That's moving goalposts.



Cough up in fares then.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Yesterday at 16:46 ==



Address income disparity at source, not paper over it with government giveaways.

I don't see what these moving goalposts are ? I'm pretty sure I've been arguing for decent fares on this forum for years.

Affordable rail transport seems to be a decent goal that many European nations seem to manage.

Yes, lets address income disparity at source. I look forward to your balance of payments/wages/prices policy to do so