Thursday, 12 April 2018

Taxing teachers and national defence personnel but subsidising private companies


Recently, it has been announced that teachers will be charged for parking at their place of work (schools) (1) and so will military personnel (2) (3). On the other hand, as I highlighted in a previous post (4), public space has been reserved for parking of privately owned and for-profit operated bike leasing companies.

I found it a bit strange.

Yes there is a move to decrease the number of cars and increasing the use of ‘greener’ transportation methods (electric cars, car-pooling but also bicycles)(5) but is that a reason? Do we want our teachers to cycle to work so they are fitter and set an example for their students and fight obesity in schools? 

Do we think that portly people in military attire are unsightly (6) and aren’t the regular incentivised programs (7) sufficient to tackle the problem?

Even if that was the case, then why, on the other hand, subsidise the commercial profit making businesses that own the bikes and play in the ‘bike-sharing’ space?

I know that for many people the word ‘subsidy’ is quasi-taboo, but I am not using it lightly. In fact, one of the reasons why teachers have to pay for parking at their places of work is precisely to ‘remove the subsidy’ that they had been enjoying:
"Such practices are tantamount to providing hidden subsidies for vehicle parking and are not in line with the requirements laid down in the Government Instruction Manuals," the AGO had said.(8). 

Saying teachers are being taxed therefore is an exaggeration, but to the person having to pay for something they did not have to pay is equivalent to a tax; bottom-line you have less to spend.

As for the military bases, the rule doesn’t apply across the board, but only to specially chosen bases where ““Due to their proximity to public amenities, the car parks in these camps are deemed to have market value,” the ministry said” (9). For teachers it is across the board.

Do I really mean that the money taken from the pockets of teachers and military personnel gets transferred to the pockets of the owners of the for-profit bike-sharing companies? Of course not.

But do I find that the policies, while each standing on their own arguments contradict each other? Yes. And that is my point.

Remember the fish-ball-stick incident? (10) It illustrated the fact that different government agencies were not coordinated and that coordination is now the job of the Municipal Services Office (MSO). 

Actually, interestingly, in one of my previous roles, we had proposed to the government agencies a system that would take the feedback received from the public and automatically distribute it to the right authority or combination of authorities to deal with. But then we were told the MSO was already on the way. (You see, analytics can even help clear fish-ball sticks, just attach a drone haha).

Ahum, so am I saying that this tax and subsidise issue could have been prevented, or at least highlighted to the relevant authorities?

To put it simply, yes. What I did was simple: I realised what the implications of different policies were, what space in economics they occupied, then I saw that their positions were in opposition not to say contradictory. Is it difficult to build a simple analytics based system to do that? No, it is not that complicated and there are quite a few algorithms that can help get the topics, stuff like LDA (11) or LSA (12), or a simple Bayesian classifier (13). Then it’s a question of comparing documents on the same topic.

“Data Science” to the rescue? Anyone in the government would like to know more? :D


3 Actually in the latter case the work places where the payment is being implemented has increased, not a totally new policy
5 Note that companies like grab (and uber) do not make the world greener, on the contrary. The price point of such companies is lower than regular taxis but higher than busses/trains which are more efficient means of transport. SO moving people away from taxis to grab does not make a huge green dent, but moving people from busses/trains to moves people to less green means of transport. That could be the topic of another blogpost... J
8 as (1), AGO means Audit-General’s Office
9 as (2) above, the ministry being the ministry of defence.

No comments:

Post a Comment