Them and us
I never thought I would find myself writing about bus fares, of all things, but I’m going to do so now. The plan to have lower bus fares for residents of Malta (not the same thing as Maltese citizens) is unhelpful and unwise.
This is not because of the financial aspect, given that people on holiday don’t use the buses for prolonged periods and can factor in a few more cents, but because we certainly don’t need to encourage the ‘them and us’ attitude that plagues these islands.
The division of bus-users into two categories that have, essentially, nothing at all to do with bus-use reveals the mental framework of those who are doing the dividing.
It also encourages this kind of illogical and non-commercial thinking in others: residents of Malta get lower prices because, heck, they’re residents of Malta. The rest of you must pay more or Go Back Where You Came From.
If the buses are there to provide a commercial service, then any discounts must be planned along commercial lines. The most obvious of these is the one used almost wherever you will find public transport in the developed world: the frequent-user pass.
This is the round wheel as opposed to the square one called ‘cheaper prices for those who live here even if they don’t use buses that much’.
Let’s get this straight at the outset. The plan is not actually for a two-tier paying system for those who get on the bus and hand over their cash trip by trip. Passengers are not expected to show their identity card on boarding and before handing over their money.
The two-tier price system is for one-week passes: if you’re registered as a resident of Malta, you pay less for your pass.
The thinking behind this decision is obviously not commercial, even though it is being explained away as such. We have been told that those who are not residents of Malta will be charged more so that residents of Malta can be charged less. But customers are customers are customers.
You don’t say to some of your customers: ‘I’m taking more money off you so that I can take less off others’.
Businesses may in fact do this, but the decision is product-based or loyalty-based. For example, those who buy products for very high prices at the more sophisticated end of a company’s range are in effect making it possible for that company to sell some of its other products for less.
Many business operate loyalty schemes, by which they give lower prices to their more frequent and regular customers. But I can’t think of any business which has an official price list with two different prices for the same product or service: one price for those who live in town and another price for those who come in from the sticks.
For years this country has battled against the mentality that tourists are there to be fleeced for what they are worth. At beach bars, bottles of water come with one price if you’re Maltese and another if you’re on holiday.
Taxis? The same. Drinks in bars? Ditto.
If the government gives this kind of thinking the stamp of officialdom with bus fares that are more expensive for bloody foreigners who don’t even live here, it is in effect saying that it’s quite sensible and acceptable to charge tourists more than you do those who live in Malta.
The Ministry for Investment, which has taken this decision, has explained itself by saying that if you lower the fare for one category of person, then you must increase it for another. Well, obviously – nothing new there.
Others have dealt with this long before now, and they haven’t done so by telling visitors to London that they must show their residency papers when presenting themselves for purchase of a one-week pass and then pay more to travel on the underground train if they’re not resident in Britain.
The way it’s usually done is pretty simple. Those who want cheaper fares because they use public transport a lot just buy a one-week or one-month pass. If they pay on a trip by trip basis, then they pay a relatively high fare.
The system rewards those who use public transport on the basis of whether they are frequent customers or not, and not on the basis of where they live or pay tax.
The comparison used by the Ministry for Investment – that non-residents are charged more for their one-week bus passes so that residents can be charged less – is wholly unsatisfactory because it fails to factor in, perhaps deliberately, that most bus-users will not be buying week-passes at all. They will just carry on boarding buses and paying for the trip.
The higher prices charged to non-residents for their passes will in effect subsidise these ad hoc users. But the ad hoc users are the ones who should pay more so that all holders of week-passes, wherever they live, can pay less.
Leaving aside the lack of sound commercial sense in this decision – telling one kind of customer that you’re ripping him off so that you can give another kind of customer an easy ride – it’s the spirit of the thing that is mainly so off-putting.
It is really disingenuous to claim that this does not go against EU rules because the discrimination between customers is made on the basis of residency and not citizenship.
Most residents of Malta are Maltese citizens and most Maltese citizens are residents of Malta. It is very likely that 99.9% of Maltese citizens who use the bus are residents of Malta.
When Malta has such a terrible problem with xenophobia and prejudice against foreigners of all stripes, shades, colours and languages, it is not clever at all to encourage people in this way of thinking, even if this isn’t the actual intention.
That is certainly going to be the result.
This article is published in The Malta Independent on Sunday today.
64 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Point of order: When I went in to a London pub and asked for a pint in an Oxford voice, I was charged 20% more than when I went to the exact same pub but used a cockney accent. Ergo, the brits are no virgins either when it comes to fleecing. (Unless they thought I was an out-of-towner when using Oxford voice).
Still, I’m glad I’m on the right side of the ripoff for the first time in PN history. So far, its always been the taxpayer subsidising/paying for everyone else.
Indeed, as you read here first (as I predicted), we can now confirm the Maltese Taxpayer will be bailing Airmalta out.
But how does the taxpayer come into all this? The plan is to disciminate between residents and non-residents, not between taxpayers and non-taxpayers.
And unless we suddenly have developed ring-fencing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothecation_%28taxation%29) in Malta the term taxpayer includes both the disgruntled water-and-electricity bill paying resident as well as the hotel-tax paying tourist.
Even the plan to “discriminate” between residents and non-residents is downright nonsensical.
The matter is more complex with tourists who are also residents. James Tyrell, a Gozoman, comes to mind.
Fausto, so far it was taxpayers who subsidised public transport, now it will be “non-residents”, ergo, for the first time in PN history, its not the taxpayer carrying the can.
Chris, there’s the rub. “Taxpayer” is not synonymous with “resident”. Everyone pays VAT, resident or not and when it comes to income tax more than a third of the gainfully employed fall in the 0% bracket. While there are compelling reasons for having different rates for students, the elderly and even Gozitans on the Gozo ferry, this one is a case of discrimination which has no grounds of justification.
Naqbel mieghek, Daphne. Din hmerija kbira. Meta ssiefer hadd ma jzommlok aktar tal-ebda servizz. Jien meta smajt li ser isir hekk qbadt nidhaq u ma emmintiex.
That may not be entirely true. Try booking an internal flight in Argentina, for example. I was also discriminated against, for being a non-resident, in other European countries. The application of different pricing does generate a negative feeling, but is not unique to Malta.
For goodness sake woman, stop teasing our ‘taste’ buds. We’re on a pre-xmas diet !
Another excellent issue Daphne, but then what’s new ?
Prosit tassew.
Something similar has already happend in Malta. In Sliema there is a ferry boat very popular for the trips around Malta. (it used to be called the Nescafe ship). Around 8 years ago they charged different fees for tourists and locals. I don’t know if the system is still the same.
I fully agree with you.
Who is going to be paid for the bus ticket? Still the driver?
I’m away from Malta and this issue is completely new to me. I’ve never imagined that the government should make such proposal.
Special prices should be introduced to those who make use of public transport regularly while the rest should pay the same for the bus fare.
“The two-tier price system is for one-week passes: if you’re registered as a resident of Malta, you pay less for your pass.”
Daphne, I thought it read that the daily ticket was going to be cheaper for ID card holders. If you buy this card on boarding then that means showing ID on a daily basis, doesn’t it?
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20101107/local/higher-bus-fares-for-tourists
It says clearly a day ticket is dearer for non-Maltese ID card holders, 2.60 euros instead of 1.50 euros.
Admittedly the matter regarding the difference in fares between Maltese residents and tourists has been bungled. As I have had many occasions to note, all tourists think that the bus fares in Malta are very cheap (and so is the service, says I).
No doubt the idea was that the fares would be kept at an acceptable level so that commuters would not start moaning that the fares have gone up and this seemed to be a solution (not very good thinking though).
What should have been done is that more publicity is given to the purchase of weekly tickets which are really quite reasonable. What I do not like about the outcome of the reform is the fact that people can still purchase tickets from the bus driver.
This should have been eliminated at all costs.
Etil, I travel regularly to England and use the Arriva service. In Derby you can still purchase a ticket on the bus. Most people do I notice.
It would also be much easier from an administrative perspective to have substantially cheaper monthly and quarterly tickets. The ones buying them would be residents by definition.
As you yourself did here Daphne, there is a natural tendency to look at ‘foreign’ examples of how things are done, both when formulating schemes or policies and when judging them postpartum.
I suspect there’s an element here of looking at the wrong foreign examples and/or applying them to the wrong local schemes. In some countries, foreigners are charged higher prices than locals for access to sites of historical or archeological importance – or simply places with high maintenance costs. An obvious example of this is the Taj Mahal in India, entry to which costs foreigners around 12 euros and locals less than 40 cents. Many other sites and attractions around the world – western Europe included – do the same, although mostly to a lesser extent. On the flip side, it’s telling that even in these countries, public transport prices are the same for everyone, local or foreign.
Is it possible that ‘those who are doing the dividing’ are still thinking of public transport as a tourist attraction in itself? And if they want to add a little something to public coffers by discriminating between locals and foreigners, why not try it with our own sites of historical and archeological importance? As far as I can tell, sites like the Hypogeum operate a one-price-fits-all policy…
What’s new?
When I was working as a tourist guide nearly 20 years ago, Maltese had free entrance to all sites, while tourists had to pay LM1 per person for every site they entered without a guide…
Public transport in Malta is hopeless in most respects and this dual-pricing system is another in the long list of the government’s mistakes.
If the transport system is efficient €12 for a 7 day pass is perfectly acceptable. The mistake is not to offer a monthly ticket for – say – €36 and an annual ticket for – say – €360, with an additional discount for students and OAPs. This would put the subsidy where it is needed most.
God alone knows how much the consultants that failed to come up with this extremely simple solution are getting.
And someone said that Daphne NEVER criticizes the PN government.
Most tourists buy weekly tickets so the new price of 12 euros is still the cheapest in Europe.
Cheapest maybe, but Vienna’s weekly tickets, at €14 each, are much much better value for money. They cover a much greater area (422 square kilometres as opposed to Malta’s what – 263?, plus one stop on whatever means of transport outside the 422 sq. km which lie within city limits) and the transport options are more numerous (bus, tram, underground and train) and about a million times more efficient.
A few years ago the Transport Authority had a pre-paid card with which passengers could pay for their ticket without involving the driver; this card could also be topped up at the terminus. The drivers’ look denoting scorn, ignorance at the passenger getting the ticket without money changing hands had to be seen to be believed.
Is the Transport Authority/ Ariva going to reintroduce this prepaid card as part of the reform?
Will Angelo’s Maltese of abroad be paying high bus fares?
The idea of charging non- residents more is disgusting, to say the least. I’d feel ashamed to attempt to give a valid reason to anybody being charged more for the same service/product, even if the amount is a very small.
I totally disagree with those who say that abroad there is no difference in public transport prices for tourists and those for locals. I have been travelling around Europe for the past 6 months and I can assure everyone that in every city I have been, public transport is cheaper for locals in one way or another.
Just to give an example here are the public transport figures for Venice.
Tourist Prices for public transport as follows:
6.50 € – 1-HOUR TRAVELCARD
16,00 € – 12-HOUR TRAVELCARD
18,00 € – 24-HOUR TRAVELCARD
23,00 € – 36-HOUR TRAVELCARD
28,00 € – 48-HOUR TRAVELCARD
33,00 € – 72-HOUR TRAVELCARD
50,00 € – 7 DAYS TRAVELCARD
Locals however can buy the Venice Card valid for 5 years at the cost of 10 EUR ie 2EUR per year. Italians living out of the Veneto region pay 40EUR for the same card.
I used Venice as an example for 2 reasons. First, the extreme difference in the price highlights the point.
Second, Venice, like Malta is a tourist destination where in peak season the public transport is used primarily by tourists and therefore enough money is made on tourist business to subsidise public transport for the locals. I hear you saying that Venetians don’t really have a choice they either use public transport or essentially they would have to walk and swim around the city and therefore they deserve the huge discount. I agree, however it is a good model to follow if we really want to encourage much more public transport usage.
Public transport in Malta is very cheap for a mediocre service. Providing that the new system is the gem that it promises to be, I find the published prices to actually be low and I have no problem with tourists paying a bit more because in the grand scheme over a financial year a typical tourist will use the public transport system for a shorter period than a local will. However. the discount to locals should be given for higher usage over longer periods of time
Why not create a Malta pass which gives locals, residents, and long term visitors discounted rates on public transport as well as entrance to museums and cultural attractions?
I would like to give an idea of the prices of the public transport operating around Rome.
A bus/metro ticket costs 1 euro and is valid for 75 minutes.
1 month bus/metro travel card costs 30 euros.
I happen to have studied the Venice transport system as part of research on sustainable development. The Venice situation is very particular since the resident population amounts to a mere 71,000 while the yearly tourist population amounts to a staggering 17,000,000.
You can clearly understand, therefore, the massive inconvenience tourism causes to Venice residents, who have been steadily moving out of the citta’ storica. In an effort to control the impact, and cover the huge administrative costs that mass tourism imposes on the local administration’s coffers, they have devised various strategic transportation plans to control the overall city population, particularly in peak seasons. One of these is to favour residents over tourists (including Italian ones) in the water bus fares.
Local administration must ensure that Venice does not become a theme park by encouraging residents to stay and others to return.
Malta’s situation is obviously completely different. The message conveyed by a two-tier fare system is that tourists are an inconvenience to locals and should be taxed for using the public transport system or even rent a car!
Bus fares, if used intelligently, can ensure a successful transportation strategy. However, it seems to me that in this case decisions on the fares are being taken independently of the overall strategy. It seems that the overiding objective of the strategy is an operative one: upgrading the buses, improving standards, introducing new routes, etc.
This is not sufficient for a successful outcome. Transport planning should be focused on reducing car dependency. In the nineties we saw various Transport Ministers taking pride in the volume of new cars that were being bought in Malta. It was even considered a sign of wealth and economic growth. Worse still, MEPA imposes fines for new developments that do not provide sufficient off-street parking.
Research has proved, over the past fifty years, that increasing available parking spaces results in increased car use to the detriment of public transport and the environment.
The continued subsidisation of public transport, even after Arriva start operating, comes across as defeatist. There needs to be a plan on a progressive reduction of subsidies coupled by a significant increase in patronage of the transport system.
I also note with great dismay the car scrappage scheme that was introduced in the last budget. The fundamental point behind such schemes is to aid the manufacturing industries in the automotive sector. They are normally the first to be hit in a recession. Governments in most industrialised countries introduce such schemes to encourage consumption and ensure that the impact of a downturn is curtailed so as to minimise layoffs. Malta does not have any such industries, so the only beneficiaries will be foreign manufactures and local importers. If emissions of old cars is a serious concern, then public transport should be the clear solution.
As nonsensical as having different prices on the Gozo ferry.
And the large number of Maltese buying property in Gozo and getting an ID card with a Gozo address to travel by paying cheap fares.
The matter above goes to show that subsidies always distort markets and create new injustices.
How about extending the system of passes so that we will have separate passes for students, employees, pensioners and the like? This should be OK by European standards as it will be based on objective criteria.
Moreover, one could have a system whereby customers travelling between say 6.00am and 8.30am and then between 4.30pm and 7.30pm get reduced fares.
Those are normally peak times for employees (allowing for a Summer working hours adjustment), and I believe tourists do not travel much during those time brackets.
This appears to be another ‘middle-of-the-road’ exercise by the government.
The same system applies to the Gozo ferry with passengers who claim Gozo residency getting preferential fares.
Knowing that quite a chunk of the Maltese population still believe in the Socialist tenet of ‘jew b’xejn jew xejn’, the government is trying (in vain) to appease these clowns who constantly expect hand-outs.
Give it a few (very few) years and the Transport Authority will adopt a one fare system.
R. Camilleri’s comments are absolutely spot on.
The government f**ked this one up.
Non-residents won’t need monthly tickets. So subsidize the monthly ones (the ones most non-residents won’t be using). Jesus Christ, was that so f***ing hard?
It is, because it involves new (well, in Malta) thinking, not new infrastructure.
Vision 2015? Innovation?
It appears that Austin Gatt (The Sunday Times) has quelled any thoughts of revisiting the issue of two-tier bus fares. We have to assume that the new bus company is in complete agreement with the new fare system.
Perhaps Arriva, which operates in many European destinations, can let us know where else a similar system has been adopted and what sort of fares are charged for residents and non-residents.
Common sense of a street boy named Gahan: in no time we will start seeing Maltese ‘entrepreneurship’ at its best with Maltese opportunists selling cheap go-as-you-please tickets intended for locals to tourists for a small profit.
This two-tier ticket system is Austin’s cherry on the cake, probably he carried it with him from the Enemalta confusing billing system: domestic/residential. “Feel at home but you are a foreigner!”
We say “Ghal-habba bzar jitlef il-borma”
The biggest problem with our transport system is the rude attitude of some drivers. Unless we have well-mannered drivers, the system will still be in shambles.
Red nose – I trust that Arriva will select drivers who are suitable for the job and no doubt they can do this whilst interviewing prospective drivers. Also, I suppose that Arriva will have some sort of Customer Care office where they can deal immediately with justified complaints by commuters. I am sure it is not in their interest to have problematic drivers who serve no purpose but to lower the standard of their service
The trick would be to have their HR team go around on the buses now and take note of which of the drivers would be suitable. Interviewing them face to face won’t tell them which are the bad apples!
I am against any type of discrimination so I would not have such system.
But since I do not use public transport and therefore I will not carry the burden of one-level-spread of economic cost, I feel uncomforatabe making judgment call.
Etil – all well and good unless the union (as usual) puts its spokes in the wheels.
In certain circumstances tourists in England, even from the EU pay a different tariff. Here’s the answer I got from the council in Derby:The National Concessionary Travel card is only available to people who are resident in England and can provide proof of residency in the form of a utility bill, driving licence, Council Tax bill etc. As a resident of Malta I regret that you do not qualify for a National Concessionary Travel card.
In England these passengers travel for free, others pay the full fare which ciats more than one sterling, one way only.
Pity we can’t see the back of the bus! Damn – it looks so familiar.
Aren’t we making a mountain out of a molehill? The problem to me is the wording used. I agree with Daphne that we should avoid perpetuating the idea that tourists can and should be charged more than Maltese.
However the system of charging more to non-residents for public transport is in use practically everywhere (as already amply proven in these comments); there is absolutely nothing wrong with it.
However, Austin Gatt’s comment that if they do not adopt the system residents would have to pay more was, to say the least, superfluous and totally unnecessary.
[Daphne ‘The system of charging more to non-residents for public transport is in use practically everywhere’ – apparently not: http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20101116/local/rethink-bus-fares-says-busuttil The examples cited in other comments here do not compare like with like. Malta is a state and must be compared to other states, and not to towns or districts within states. In other words, you have to compare national policy to national policy. You cannot compare Malta to, say, Venice. If a city like Venice charges those who live there less for public transport, that excludes Italians who don’t live in Venice.]
Last summer I heard on the Italian news that a fee was going to be introduced to all visitors who do not reside in Italy who would visit Venice. I don’t know if this system has been implemented. It was said that it is a kind of compensation for all the expenses rendered to maintain the city.
The Maltese government should never follow the strange sytems of other countries as the proposal with the bus ticketing in Malta.
[Daphne – Venice is a city; Malta is a state. You have to compare like with like.]
I disagree with you on this one Daphne. Yes Malta is a state, but it is very similar in many ways to districts or cities.
[Daphne – That’s where you’re wrong. It’s not similar at all. Size has nothing to do with it. Statehood does. Manchester is not a state, nor is Venice. Malta is.]
A person living in Manchester will not commute to London on a daily basis. However, people in Malta commute daily to towns all over the island. So comparing like with like is a bit more complex.
The principle of charging some more than others is not fundamentally wrong. We must remember that market forces are not allowed to work on the bus service. Else, some routes would be more expensive than others and some might be totally scrapped because they are not commercially viable.
The way it was done however is stupid. It will slow down the service and introduce administrative difficulties.
We must admit that if the service turns out to be of good quality, 12 Euros for weekly ticket is peanuts.
@T Westacott: Sorry but Venice was a horrible example. They have tourist fleecing down to an art over there. There are also very few people actually living in Venice and they practically all work in tourism.
I agree. Malta is a state. But it is also a city. It is actually a city-state. I was reading lately that even the EU classifies Malta as a city-state. It uses the concept of ‘Large Urban Zone’ and since the huge majority of most Maltese live in one urban area, Malta is technically a city-state even though it doesn’t define itself as such. So there Malta is a state but also a city.
Another thing. Whether Malta defines itself as a state or a city-state doesn’t really matter. What’s on paper doesn’t really matter. What matters is what’s on the ground. The fact remains that Malta functions as one city; one urban area; a city surrounded by its suburbs. So urbanistically one has to treat it as such.
On to the transport issue. In other countries like the UK they differentiate between inner-city transport network and inter-city transport network. That is, the London transport network is separate than the Manchester transport network or any other city network but the network that joins the cities is common. Malta doesn’t have this distinction. It has one network; an inner-city network, so it has to be compared with such. So yes, one has to compare Malta’s transport network with city networks. Statehood has nothing to do with it.
There is nothing morally or fundamentally wrong with the discriminatory pricing structure proposed for residents and non-residents.
It is true that it sounds unusual to price a service differently between apparently similar consumers. But then, the price of the service is not a market price, based on market forces. It is a price subsidised by our government. The tourist or non-resident would still have to pay more if our government chose not to subsidise the price.
What’s more: our income tax system is structured to favour non-residents even when they earn income here, and discriminates against us as tax payers. Effectively, non-residents pay no or little tax on their income derived here, whereas we pay most of the income tax.
Why doesn’t anybody complain about that?
Therefore, I find no problem to accept the government’s wisdom that our tax-derived subsidies to be paid to the bus service operator should benefit us first. It is not as if the tourist is subsidising the cheaper price for the Maltese commuter, because the bus service operator will still get a government subsidy over and above the higher price paid by non-residents.
Non-residents only do not pay income tax in Malta if they pay income tax somewhere else due to double taxation agreements.
Since you think only tax payers contribute to the subsidy of the tickets, let me ask you this. Do you think that tourists coming here are net contributors, in terms of the tax they pay, to the economy or net beneficiaries, in terms of the subsidiaries they receive? If you can’t see that they are the former you are deluded and if you agree that they are then by your reasoning we should lower the tax burden further on tourists.
Pat, I do not follow exactly your argument that tourists coming here are net contributors in terms of the tax they pay.
If we are talking about income tax, which was the sort of tax I referred to, and also the tax you referred to in your first paragraph, then as far as I am aware, tourists do not normally pay income taxes here. At most they pay VAT and other indirect taxes where they still exist.
Therefore, I do not understand your last point that by my reasoning, we should lower the tax burden further on tourists. If anything, I am suggesting we would need to increase their taxes so that we are not discriminated against. But of course, I am not suggesting anything of that sort.
In terms of your point about tax and double tax treaties, this does not change the substance of the argument that non-residents pay little or no taxes here, since Malta now has double tax treaties with most of our major tourist markets.
Jiena pensioner u meta uzajt il-London buses hallast full fare u z-zija tal-mara li kienet maghna li hi ukoll pensioner hallset fare imnaqqas hafna – anki certu muzewiiet ihallsu inqas u ahna inhallsu full.
Pensioners who live in Malta pay a reduced fare on the buses, and tourists who are pensioners pay the full fare. So may I ask what is your point? I am not a pensioner and when I visit London I pay the same amount as any Londoner.
I wonder whether this system will be acceptable by the EU?
Public transport will be subsidised with taxpayers’ money.
Is there a justification for government to subside RESIDENTS’ use of public transport? YES. The object of the subsidy is to encourage residents to switch from private to public transport. With no subsidy, fares would increase substantially and if this were to happen the use of public transport would probably decrease rather then increase. This would defeat the objectives of the public transport reform namely to decrease the number of cars from the roads and also to reduce our carbon footprint. .
Is there a justification for government to subside NON-RESIDENTS’ use of public transport? NO. The price of a weekly pass will be 12 euros which very reasonable. If, for example, the price were reduced, say to 9 euros, this would not make any difference in the decision of the tourist. Since public transport will be reasonably priced anyway, tourists will decide what transport to use, not on the basis of price but on the basis of what they perceive to be more convenient.
If there were no subsidy, it would be inappropriate to have higher prices for non-residents.
In a context of subsidised public transport, however, higher prices for non-residents are more than justified.
Bi zvista meta irreverejt ghaz zija tal mara insejt nghid li hi residenti l ingilterra .Ghalekk gibt l esempju ta nollijiet differenti
Financing of Political Parties
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20101115/local/the-price-tag-of-democracy
The largest amount of expenditure of both major parties are the media empires (TV/radio/internet/newspapers) which they have built up and which, especially One and Net TV channels, are major loss makers. So is the taxpayer, yes you and me, going to make good for these loss-making ego trips. Why cannot the two parties, PL and PN, agree to let go of NET and ONE TV channels and thus reduce drastically their financial deficits? Why should ALL taxpayers subsidise political parties? With this same arguement why cannot one opt out of subsidising political parties and instead subsidise,say, church schools, children homes,Caritas etc; in Italy you can contribute .1% (one per mille) to the religious entity of your choice on your income tax return and get a tax credit. Financing of political parties should be made transparent but should be limited solely to the party faithful and diehards and, why not, businessmen who pay contributions to BOTH parties as insurance !
Why do we blindly accept that services should be subsidised? Why can’t we think of transport services on commercial lines?
As far as I’m concerned users of buses should pay a higher fare to subsidise students and pensioners (we are all students or pensioners at one point or another). Government should only come in where bus shelters, road structure, bus lanes and bus termini are concerned and nothing more.
Do we really want another debt-ridden service like Enemalta which for years has been subsidising electricity bills while the Maltese citizens were filling up the local restaurants to the hilt and purchasing 300,000 cars? Where are the priorities?
To me this is the equivalent of subsidising hobz, gobon u butir tal-landa.
Rover, I am not in favour of subsidies in general, but there may always be exceptions.
The point here is that government is subsidising PUBLIC transport, which is therefore regarded as a public service, in the same way that government subsidises public libraries, public schools, and the road network.
You probably know quite well that remote and disadvantaged areas would degenerate more unless they have good infrastructure connections on par with the rest.
I think that subsidies to public transport are more like subsidies to Airmalta, rather than subsidies on hobz, gobon and butir tal-landa.
Stuck in petty-mindedness as others race ahead.
http://www.theonion.com/video/obama-replaces-costly-highspeed-rail-plan-with-hig,18473/
… erm … that’s a joke, Leonard.
Love the end news headline: Kirk Douglas named sexiest man barely alive.
The Onion is an endless source of amusement.