The second is wrong on both sides: rail users are on average net contributors to the exchequer, many having well paid jobs paying much income tax; and lots of money is spent on motoring not by the DfT.
The figures don't support you.
This article from 2012 showed that to be a net contributor to the Exchequer you had to be earning almost £40k
New analysis from a political think-tank makes uncomfortable reading for many in the 'squeezed middle' who assume that it is they who have been forced to bear the burden of balancing the nation's finances.
www.thisismoney.co.uk
That £39k of 2011 is the equivalent of £57k today
This inflation calculator uses the official UK consumer price index. An inflation rate of 3.31% per year means £39,642 in 2011 is worth £60,549.81 in 2024.
www.in2013dollars.com
The average salary in the UK is about £38k.
Pre Covid the high number of London commuters would have meant more of those would have been using the train, but with commuting patterns changed since Covud and the move to leisure travel, this won't be the case.
Commuters paid high prices, leisure travellers tend not to. So if you try to shift people out of cars and onto trains you need to have price as a factor and low price = high subsidy. Unless you propose to increase motoring costs still further which will be unpopular when we have a "cost of living crisis" and will lead to the claims of people (like essential workers) beimg "priced off the roads". That's before you address the drop in Treasury revenue if people stop using cars.
