Surcharge for Those Who Own More than 1 car

[Felipe]

it's actually quite a good idea so i'm surprised the number of negative replies to this. maybe 500% surcharge is too much. i suppose a good enough penalty would be omv and coe double. As our roads have too many cars, an extra surcharge is a good deterrent. But this cannot be the only way. there needs to be a combination of measures. The new reduction coe system would not really work as it's based on cars taken off the road. So there's no real reduction. We can only see reduction when the number of cars taken off are more than new coes issued.

 

i read in another thread coe has failed to reduce cars so lets scrap it. That's not true. it's the implementation of the coe system that has failed, not coe itself. when we were getting congestion, there were still large numbers of coe being issued. LTA has made grave mistakes and whoever made those decisions, he should probably get a pay cut.

[Nmnhnlm]

the idea is to tax the rich more ? so, who are the richie rich ..... businessman, towkay, banker, high position management, CEO who takes millions in bonuses, etc ?

 

the more you tax the rich, the more they want to earn like more bonuses, higher salary, higher profit margin in their businesses, etc. the easy excuse for them is high operating cost !

 

so, in the end who suffer ? you think about it. someone has to pay a high price for items and this is definitely not paid by the richie rich ... look at the richie rich in arabs, who pay for their skyrocketed oil price ? you and me who rant in the forum.

 

Don't ask me. Its created by the Brits. If I recalled correctly, highest is around 55%. Over 2x that of SG.

 

[Felipe]

If thats the case, then I think govt is making a big mistake by reducing the no. of COEs. Its not going to limit car usage at all. Those who already own cars and willing to spend the extra on higher COE can use the car 24/7.

 

How about more ERPs and higher petrol prices instead? There is also the pay as you drive thing...

 

would u want to pay loads of money for a car and limit yourself to use it? The govt is not making a mistake in reducing COE. it's making a mistake in not reducing even further! more ERPs and higher petrol won't solve the problem as those who've already spend loads of money will want to use the car.

 

if you really want to enjoy your car, certainly it's better to pay for that amount rather than have all the running costs thrown at you later on. and more ERPs won't solve weekend congestion in the city as those who already have cars won't mind spending that few dollars to enter ERP on weekends. So where does that leave us? Clearly, ERP and high petrol, limiting usage will not ease congestion fully. It may ease congestion on certain days but you'll still get mad house traffic in City Hall, Orchard and the likes on weekends.

[The_Bear]

would u want to pay loads of money for a car and limit yourself to use it? The govt is not making a mistake in reducing COE. it's making a mistake in not reducing even further! more ERPs and higher petrol won't solve the problem as those who've already spend loads of money will want to use the car.

 

if you really want to enjoy your car, certainly it's better to pay for that amount rather than have all the running costs thrown at you later on. and more ERPs won't solve weekend congestion in the city as those who already have cars won't mind spending that few dollars to enter ERP on weekends. So where does that leave us? Clearly, ERP and high petrol, limiting usage will not ease congestion fully. It may ease congestion on certain days but you'll still get mad house traffic in City Hall, Orchard and the likes on weekends.

 

If you have not noticed, watever LTA is doing is working very fine as it is. See Bangkok, Jakarta and KL. Less wealth, more cars, more jams.

 

Wat if ERPs are $10 or $12 or $20? There is always a price level to bring usage down to manageable level.

 

[Felipe]

well, but don't forget those places have other drivable places to go to and furthermore, it's not the entire city that's having jams. the thing is even for us, almost anywhere and anytime during the day can have a jam. that's a very bad situation.

[Sony]

yah lor....a 'poor mofo'...yes, I am elitist so what

 

 

eh... can i ask you what is mofo?

[RadX]

eh... can i ask you what is mofo?

 

 

you too young for this...pls go to Flowerpod.com

[Relagsingh]

Blame HWZ and its notorious SERVER BUSY.....

 

good excuse.

 

try harder.

[Sony]

you too young for this...pls go to Flowerpod.com

 

 

you bully me.......

 

 

(running to mummy now)

[RadX]

you bully me.......

 

 

(running to mummy now)

 

 

now now...skool hols here...next week you go bak to skool k

[Joseph22]

now now...skool hols here...next week you go bak to skool k

 

skools or nursery

[Xeryh]

Oh well, guess not everyone can see the big picture. Here's a bar tax theory for your reading pleasure:

 

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

 

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay $1.

The sixth would pay $3.

The seventh would pay $7.

The eighth would pay $12.

The ninth would pay $18.

The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

 

So, that's what they decided to do.

 

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20."Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

 

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'

 

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

 

And so:

 

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).

The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).

The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).

The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).

The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).

The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

 

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free.

 

But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

 

"I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man.

 

He pointed to the tenth man," but he got $10!"

 

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man.

 

"I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"

 

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

 

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

 

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

 

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

[Darthkk]

wow that's a good one.

 

You explain the tax system better than any Taxman or minister man!

[Theludicrous]

Oh well, guess not everyone can see the big picture. Here's a bar tax theory for your reading pleasure:

 

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

 

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay $1.

The sixth would pay $3.

The seventh would pay $7.

The eighth would pay $12.

The ninth would pay $18.

The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

 

So, that's what they decided to do.

 

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20."Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

 

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'

 

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

 

And so:

 

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).

The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).

The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).

The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).

The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).

The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

 

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free.

 

But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

 

"I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man.

 

He pointed to the tenth man," but he got $10!"

 

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man.

 

"I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"

 

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

 

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

 

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

 

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

 

somehow, this makes quite a bit of sense.

[Nostalgia]

 

If you're not an educator, you've missed your calling

[Drumstick]

Public transport like bus and taxi got jam due to traffic conditions.

So if no. of cars on the road is reduced to like off-peak hours condition, when traffic condition is smooth, they will reach their destination faster. And also reduce pile up.

 

Finding ways to reduce traffic on the road is 1 thing but they will also need to look into improving public transport so that it will attract people to use public transport again.

 

Gahment will not reduce cars ownership as it triggers good $$ for them.

 

Actually the off peak scheme is a good ideal to control traffic during peak periods. Those who wanna use, pay more.

Maybe change all private car scheme similar to off peak scheme.

Abolish COE.

Road tax at $1 per cc liter

Vehicle quota fix to 2000 a mth through balloting and only for first car registered under individual name and non-transferable. ( Cos a lot of people registered it under parents name to enjoy cheaper insurance )

Then those who wanna use during day time pay $50 coupon per day.

 

This will be good for MIW as it increase car ownership. Cheaper to buy and generate more $$ from usage.

And also reduce those petrol guzzling vehicle and save the environment.

This is still acceptable for me...but not sure about others.

 

[Joseph22]

Public transport like bus and taxi got jam due to traffic conditions.

So if no. of cars on the road is reduced to like off-peak hours condition, when traffic condition is smooth, they will reach their destination faster. And also reduce pile up.

 

Finding ways to reduce traffic on the road is 1 thing but they will also need to look into improving public transport so that it will attract people to use public transport again.

 

Gahment will not reduce cars ownership as it triggers good $$ for them.

 

Actually the off peak scheme is a good ideal to control traffic during peak periods. Those who wanna use, pay more.

Maybe change all private car scheme similar to off peak scheme.

Abolish COE.

Road tax at $1 per cc liter

Vehicle quota fix to 2000 a mth through balloting and only for first car registered under individual name and non-transferable. ( Cos a lot of people registered it under parents name to enjoy cheaper insurance )

Then those who wanna use during day time pay $50 coupon per day.

 

This will be good for MIW as it increase car ownership. Cheaper to buy and generate more $$ from usage.

And also reduce those petrol guzzling vehicle and save the environment.

This is still acceptable for me...but not sure about others.

 

then how about those whose car COE is due?? how do they renew? or those who got lemon car and need to change fast? how do they renew?

[Sony]

now now...skool hols here...next week you go bak to skool k

 

 

it's actually infant care