Maybe so, but that cannot be separated from the project as a whole, as there is no point to it if it did not go there.

I'm an income tax payer in the UK and don't mind a reasonable percentage of that going to infrastructure. I've suffered being stuffed sardine style into the central line often enough to think Crossrail makes sense. Also with interest rates close to zero it makes financial sense for the government to borrow to build this sort of stuff. (The interest rate on 15 year bonds is 0.86% per year currently).

That said I can see the argument for a property improvement tax but it would be messy to figure out - London projects effect huge swathes of property in differing ways.

Those who benefit most from Crossrail will be those who will ride it every day. Increased property values around the route is just the visible effect of the benefit of being able to ride it.

Secondary benefits will also fall on riders of other lines and street transportation that become less congested by riders diverted to the new Crossrail route.

You know that taxation from London supports the regions along with EU money which is ironic considering that areas that are net beneficiaries from the EU (and have less immigrants) voted leave.

> Income tax payers have had enough and don't want to pay for infrastructure that benefits others

Had enough? What does that mean exactly?

The people who will benefit from crossrail the most are the main income tax payers who go to work every day on the tube. Salaries in London are 2-3x higher than outside and income tax gets disproportionately higher the more you earn.

Can you imagine if the tube was never built because it would benefit rich landowners in London more than other people?

Large parts of the Tube and UK rail network were built privately before the 20th century. Most of them lost money and consolidated before nationalisation.

Quite. The metropolitan railway was funded buy buying cheap land, building rail to it, then profiting from the increase in that value.

That no longer happens.

I can imagine if rich landowners in London had to pay for the society that gives their assets value.

if you bother to look at the funding you'll see something like 40% comes from increased business rates in the areas expected to benefit, plus loans which will be repaid from ticket revenues from the new line

> If the price increases -- the portion solely due to crossrail -- was taxed at 42% like income,

Not 42%, but most properties will attract capital gains tax when sold.

You only pay CGT on a house if it's not your main residence - that is, if it's an investment rather than a home. There certainly are plenty of landlords in London, but i suspect that in the areas where Crossrail is increasing prices, it's mostly homeowners.

Won't they be paying Stamp Duty?

You pay stamp duty land tax (SDLT) on the purchase of land or property, not sale.

But for every sale there is going to be a purchaser so the tax is going to get paid whether it is the seller or purchaser paying.

Sure, but arguably thats penalising the wrong party. Also depends on who purchases, if you're a first time buyer you get significantly reduced stamp duty for example.