10 ms·

OTOH, it is a nicely hidden subsidy for the train operators. Because for every ticket sold, they get to claim a certain amount from the federal government. Luck

by danrl 4y ago

OTOH, it is a nicely hidden subsidy for the train operators. Because for every ticket sold, they get to claim a certain amount from the federal government. Luckily it is capped (per ticket) otherwise who knows what they would claim Some say it is also most beneficial to richer people as they could afford train tickets but get then for the same low price and government subsidized as everyone else. Not sure I can buy that argument, richer people pay the vast amount of Germany’s federal budget via ridiculously high income tax. From an economic perspective the 9 Euro ticket was a disaster. A popular one, though.

Bakary 4y ago
I don't see how it can be termed a disaster if the end result is that infrastructure companies received more money and the population received a higher (if temporary) standard of living. This also increased the probability of decreased reliance on cars in the future and increased investment in such infrastructure, increased public support for those investments. I mean, we might still die in the climate wars in twenty years, but the 9 euro tickets won't be among the reasons why.
- iggldiggl 4y ago
  > if the end result is that infrastructure companies received more money Ha. If you literally mean infrastructure companies, then no, there wasn't any direct money in it for them. Okay, a few extra trains ran, so the infrastructure operators got to charge for those additional train paths, but in the grand scheme of things that doesn't make much of a difference. And if you actually meant the transport operators actually operating the vehicles – if the federal government mandates massively lower fares in order to score political brownie points, somebody still needs to pay for the operating expenses during that time. If you subtract that loss of income, I doubt that there was that much extra money left over, especially given significant increases on the cost side of things (rising fuel and electricity prices, staff demanding higher wages due to general inflation).
- wh33zle 4y ago
  I guess it depends a lot on what you think a government should spend money on or what its role is. IMO the 9€ ticket was a great idea because it was simple and unconditional. Social security laws and subsidies are usually riddeled with exceptions and rules on when you qualify which require more people (meaning more expenses for the government) to check them. In a society that is constantly chasing for even more convenience, reducing as much friction as possible for taking public transport seems like a good idea and far from a disaster?
jsmith45 4y ago
> From an economic perspective the 9 Euro ticket was a disaster. How so exactly? subsiding public transit is not inherently a bad thing. If done well, the resulting transit can result in more economic growth in the area than would have otherwise occured, with that growth leading an increased tax base that outweighs the expenditure. And even without reaching that point, it is possible that the net value to the people as a whole exceeds the expenditure making it a reasonably good idea, despite being a net drain on budget. (Most government expenditures fall into this category, and the fact that is a subsidy rather than say a social security program is not necessarily especially relevant.) But obviously it is equally possible to create poorly thought out subsidies that don't even come close to producing value equal to the spend. I'm assuming you are asserting this one falls into this later category?
iggldiggl 4y ago
> OTOH, it is a nicely hidden subsidy for the train operators. Because for every ticket sold, they get to claim a certain amount from the federal government. Well, if the government wishes to massively lower existing fares (including refunds for season ticket holders who already bought their tickets), it also needs to pay for it of course. 9 € per month for the whole of Germany is so low a price that additional ticket sales will never make up the loss of the regular fare income during these months, and in the meantime salaries, fuel/electricity and other operating expenses still need to be paid.
morsch 4y ago
It's debatable whether it's a subsidy (many operators claim that to them it was a loss), but if it is a subsidy, it's got to be the most visible subsidy of all time.
PurpleRamen 4y ago
> richer people pay the vast amount of Germany’s federal budget via ridiculously high income tax. It's true that the top 10% are responsible for 50% of the income tax, but income tax itself only brings. ~30% of the budget. So at the end, those rich people's income is responsible for only 15% of the budget.

by danrl 4y ago

Bakary 4y ago

I don't see how it can be termed a disaster if the end result is that infrastructure companies received more money and the population received a higher (if temporary) standard of living. This also increased the probability of decreased reliance on cars in the future and increased investment in such infrastructure, increased public support for those investments. I mean, we might still die in the climate wars in twenty years, but the 9 euro tickets won't be among the reasons why.

iggldiggl 4y ago
> if the end result is that infrastructure companies received more money Ha. If you literally mean infrastructure companies, then no, there wasn't any direct money in it for them. Okay, a few extra trains ran, so the infrastructure operators got to charge for those additional train paths, but in the grand scheme of things that doesn't make much of a difference. And if you actually meant the transport operators actually operating the vehicles – if the federal government mandates massively lower fares in order to score political brownie points, somebody still needs to pay for the operating expenses during that time. If you subtract that loss of income, I doubt that there was that much extra money left over, especially given significant increases on the cost side of things (rising fuel and electricity prices, staff demanding higher wages due to general inflation).
wh33zle 4y ago
I guess it depends a lot on what you think a government should spend money on or what its role is. IMO the 9€ ticket was a great idea because it was simple and unconditional. Social security laws and subsidies are usually riddeled with exceptions and rules on when you qualify which require more people (meaning more expenses for the government) to check them. In a society that is constantly chasing for even more convenience, reducing as much friction as possible for taking public transport seems like a good idea and far from a disaster?

jsmith45 4y ago

> From an economic perspective the 9 Euro ticket was a disaster. How so exactly? subsiding public transit is not inherently a bad thing. If done well, the resulting transit can result in more economic growth in the area than would have otherwise occured, with that growth leading an increased tax base that outweighs the expenditure. And even without reaching that point, it is possible that the net value to the people as a whole exceeds the expenditure making it a reasonably good idea, despite being a net drain on budget. (Most government expenditures fall into this category, and the fact that is a subsidy rather than say a social security program is not necessarily especially relevant.) But obviously it is equally possible to create poorly thought out subsidies that don't even come close to producing value equal to the spend. I'm assuming you are asserting this one falls into this later category?

iggldiggl 4y ago

> OTOH, it is a nicely hidden subsidy for the train operators. Because for every ticket sold, they get to claim a certain amount from the federal government. Well, if the government wishes to massively lower existing fares (including refunds for season ticket holders who already bought their tickets), it also needs to pay for it of course. 9 € per month for the whole of Germany is so low a price that additional ticket sales will never make up the loss of the regular fare income during these months, and in the meantime salaries, fuel/electricity and other operating expenses still need to be paid.

morsch 4y ago

It's debatable whether it's a subsidy (many operators claim that to them it was a loss), but if it is a subsidy, it's got to be the most visible subsidy of all time.

PurpleRamen 4y ago

> richer people pay the vast amount of Germany’s federal budget via ridiculously high income tax. It's true that the top 10% are responsible for 50% of the income tax, but income tax itself only brings. ~30% of the budget. So at the end, those rich people's income is responsible for only 15% of the budget.