Rejecting statistics that you don't like while pushing those that you do is a case of selection bias, the extension of which is the infamous "the election was rigged" trope.
It's easy to select a subset of trains to make the statistic of this subset look bad. Take a single train that was canceled. In that subset, the "on time" statistic is 0%. Really bad, eh? Or take one that was on time. 100%. Great, eh? Well, not useful, just like all other anecdotes.
So, yes, sure, we can all pick the subset for which the statistic suits our narrative and then keep disagreeing about the facts. It's not a useful way of debating though and only suits lobbys in pushing their agenda.
(Or we take the facts as they are.)
P.S.: Even the 80.6% that you quote are not "really bad". Ever been in North America? No train traffic at all sounds worse than 80.6% to me. The German train system has its issues, but it's by far not as bad as the public perception seems to believe.
P.P.S.: Check out the German "Staustatistik" some time. Over a thousand every day. Of course nobody who wants to make trains look bad and implicitly push the car as the better alternative talks about this.
Perhaps because people realized that the pixel inflation is at some point counterproductive. If you can't distinguish pixels, what difference does it make?
It's also a great example because the public perception is heavily biased. If you look at the statistics, the vast majority of trains come on time. And have working AC. And are actually quite pleasant to travel with. It's fantastic how much train connectivity exists in Germany.
But a few cases of delayed or canceled trains, pushed in the media since it's easy to beat that horse, thankfully picked up by opposition-party-of-the-day (often those that were in government just a few years prior), and everybody talks as if no train is ever on time. And you can expect that car industry lobbies like that development too, without starting conspiracy theories here. (Tbh, if I was PR responsible for a car company, that's where I'd direct some funds..)
> If getting a company car, you are in for some real tax hell.
Only if you want to make use of tax incentives for company cars. It's easy to complain about the downsides and ignore the upside. You can just not put it into your tax declaration, then you don't have trouble. Oh then you don't get the money?
> Meanwhile, when I talk to my friends in Spain they pay less than 1.000€/year for accounting for an LLC (S.L.) with not even close the bureaucracy.
Their cost of living is likely also a fraction of where you lived in Germany. (I'm guessing a larger city with high cost of living.)
> Unfortunately these are the exact people that Germany wants moving into their country - because they're the one's who pay the high taxes.
Not sure about that. The ideal immigrant to a country is young and well educated. Through labour, they will contribute immensely to society and pay top income tax.
In constrast, some rich people who park their wealth in offshore tax heavens and live off passive income don't contribute much, beyond rising real estate prices.
> As an immigrant (and a very well paid one paying obnoxiously high taxes),
Public services cost money. Relative to contributions to society (if you compare to the lady in the supermarket or the immigrant guy cleaning the toilets), SWE pay is what is obnoxiously high.
Sure the paperwork and bureaucracy is annoying. But India isn't exactly known for shining in this regard. At least the corruption in the public sector is magnitudes less in Germany compared to India. Things may be slow, but not because you didn't pay up, but because they are just ... slow.
The slowness has advantages too. The right wing guys will have a harder time taking over because everything is so slow. (Fingers crossed)
> German exam: 5 months. What, you want the results for your exam also? Better wait another year then. Honestly Germany is a shit show,
It's a "shit show" because you need to wait for a while for your language exam results? Your priorities are odd. There are a few thousand things higher up on my personal priority list. What about corruption? Environment? Safety? Health care? Pension? Child care? Just sitting in a street café having a latte, reading a book, watching birds sing and kids play near by, all in central Berlin, all while being safe, breathing clean air and not hearing a 7-lane highway?
> But the worst part of all this is - the vast majority of Germans think this is all acceptable and okay.
So, why is this bad then? A society that is happy with how things work, that's the dream state, right? If you immigrated there and don't like it, well, you seem to be in the minority. Perhaps choose a place that's more to your liking then.
(I'm neither a citizen nor a resident in Germany.)
It's easy to select a subset of trains to make the statistic of this subset look bad. Take a single train that was canceled. In that subset, the "on time" statistic is 0%. Really bad, eh? Or take one that was on time. 100%. Great, eh? Well, not useful, just like all other anecdotes.
So, yes, sure, we can all pick the subset for which the statistic suits our narrative and then keep disagreeing about the facts. It's not a useful way of debating though and only suits lobbys in pushing their agenda.
(Or we take the facts as they are.)
P.S.: Even the 80.6% that you quote are not "really bad". Ever been in North America? No train traffic at all sounds worse than 80.6% to me. The German train system has its issues, but it's by far not as bad as the public perception seems to believe.
P.P.S.: Check out the German "Staustatistik" some time. Over a thousand every day. Of course nobody who wants to make trains look bad and implicitly push the car as the better alternative talks about this.