Why COE system is outdated??

[Timbuktu]

COE should b paid based on incone wen buying a car..high pay=big car=higher COE..tis system should b fair so its purely based on affordability..

Fair to who? You?

So that you could get to buy a car more easily?

 

Like any commodity, there is a prevailing market price.

The market price will apply, if you wish to purchase any commodity - whether you are rich, or poor!

 

By your logic, gold, diamonds, or prime condos should be priced lower for the poor, "purely based on affordability"?

Stoopidest thing I've heard of late!

[Nav14]

That idea was dropped because the govt realized the insufficiency of parking spaces and it would be counter productive to build even more MSCPs, when it runs against the grain of URA's long-term strategy to reduce the number of car parks in the city considerably.

As it is, Raffles Place workers just lost one huge MSCP at Robinson Road.

Many are faced with stiff increase of season parking elsewhere, or can't even secure one.

Many have opted to take public transport to work.

There is no point driving to work, when you don't even have a place to park!

 

In fact it is a good idea to reduce the car park spaces in CBD, as it will help to control traffic on roads. Furthermore CBD is easily accessible by MRT. Surely they would have no problem building taller MSCPs or allowing condos to have more basements of carparks or extending the park & ride scheme. The issue is allowing one the oppurtunity to own a car but not necessarily driving to workplaces which are easily accesible by MRT.

[Timbuktu]

Do THEY know how many middle n low income Citizen are suffering??

How does not being able to afford a car equate to "suffering"?

A car is a want / desire, never a need.

Take taxi lah ... chauffeured around some more!

[Timbuktu]

In fact it is a good idea to reduce the car park spaces in CBD, as it will help to control traffic on roads. Furthermore CBD is easily accessible by MRT. Surely they would have no problem building taller MSCPs or allowing condos to have more basements of carparks or extending the park & ride scheme. The issue is allowing one the oppurtunity to own a car but not necessarily driving to workplaces which are easily accesible by MRT.

Why must the govt even spend more money to build more/taller MSCPs just to let all you buggers park your car and not use it?

The more effective and direct solution is to control COEs right. It's revenue-generating somemore!

It kills 2 birds with 1 stone. QED!

[Timbuktu]

so how bout me? i need run several projects yet dont have director's pay?

Interestingly, in your view, how would you define "director's pay"?

(1) $10,000 p.m.

(2) $15,000

(3) $20,000

(4) $30,000

(5) $50,000

(6) More than the above

 

[Timbuktu]

Too bad the policy here support the rich only. If you have the money you are able to get what you want.

Even the current policies in communist China support the rich.

Tell me which country's policies support only the poor and denies the rich?

 

[Timbuktu]

Parking fees fluctuate with market demand on locality, and owner must have proof of reserved parking space to buy a car or renew road tax. I believe this is already practiced in Japan for many years.

Yes, that concept could work here too.

But since parking space is going to be more scarce, when more people buy cars and/or more cars with the abolishment of COE, it could lead to the bidding of season car park spaces, or outright purchase of a slot - as in Australian cities.

So bid $10K for a parking slot for a year, or $100K for 10 years.

It will end up as COE-equivalent prices today - still out of reach for the marginalised.

To purchase one? It would be based on the same $psf as the property that houses the carpark, thus district dependent. In D.9, the going rate would be >$3,000 psf?

 

Bottom line: Singapore is land constrained, and money still talks. If one cannot afford a car under the high-COE system, he would probably not be able to afford a car under any fair, free-market system.

 

Footnote: No carpark proprietor (including the HDB) would apply a balloting system, cos most business models would have revenue maximization as their primary objective.

Edited August 1, 2012 by Timbuktu

[Kar_lover]

Yes, that concept could work here too.

But since parking space is going to be more scarce, when more people buy cars and/or more cars with the abolishment of COE, it could lead to the bidding of season car park spaces, or outright purchase of a slot - as in Australian cities.

So bid $10K for a parking slot for a year, or $100K for 10 years.

It will end up as COE-equivalent prices today - still out of reach for the marginalised.

To purchase one? It would be based on the same $psf as the property that houses the carpark, thus district dependent. In D.9, the going rate would be >$3,000 psf?

 

Bottom line: Singapore is land constrained, and money still talks. If one cannot afford a car under the high-COE system, he would probably not be able to afford a car under any fair, free-market system.

 

Footnote: No carpark proprietor (including the HDB) would apply a balloting system, cos most business models would have revenue maximization as their primary objective.

 

Totally agree - it would just be replacing one type of pre-qualifier with another type.

[Gendut]

You're not very clever are you?

If COE is abolished, car prices will immediately drop by $60-90K.

Then every Tom, Dick & Harry family will want to buy a car, or a few cars, but not necessarily drive them daily, due to very high ERP charges.

 

Then they all park where?

As it is, HDB and private estate car parks are always full.

There will be fist fights just to buy season parking.

 

Maybe so.

 

But you're the fool to think that the govt bothers whether you have a space to park or not. Try to think harder if you can identify other reasons?

 

I will enjoy the day to see ERP at $150 so that the real rich can use the roads unimpeded. Hope to see you on the expressways then.

[Bluecollar]

this so-called "journalist" is rubbish. she doesn't know her stuff and often copies ideas/material.

 

1) Favours the wealthy

She already said cars are a luxury in Singapore. It's not a need. In many other large cities, vehicle ownership is also confined to the mid to higher income residents -- Shanghai, Tokyo, London, Hong Kong, Taipei, NYC. In other countries, they do not pay COE, but have to pay high/exorbitant parking charges, which also means that only the "wealthy" can afford cars.

 

2) No segregation of user groups

Yea, so how are you going to separate MB/Audi/BMW/Lexus from Hyundai/Toyota? Allocating COEs based on brand will introduce anti-competition into the picture. What more? If the "wealthy" sees that Korean/Japanese brands are significantly cheaper, they will still target this market and leave the "not so wealthy" with the same scenario.

 

3) No redistribution of resources

The writer is obviously too young to remember how there was a mushrooming of Light Goods Vehicles, LGVs, in the 1990s when COEs were sky rocketing. People started to abuse the cheaper COEs and tax structures for LGVs, and turned to these as daily transports. This is perhaps happening now as demand for Cat C COEs are increasing.

 

4) May lead to bad driving behaviour

Is this really an argument? Bad driving behavior is caused by the lack of policing. Taxi drivers don't have to pay COEs, but they drive badly.

 

5) Drastic changes in COE prices every fortnight cause instability

The writer obviously hasn't taken Economics classes? Or was she asleep? It's called supply and demand. Low supply, high demand, prices go up! People need to register cars and taking COEs monthly longer will introduce even more opacity and maybe even send prices up even more because people and car companies are desperate to buy/sell.

 

6) No vintage car scene in Singapore

A "vintage car" is one that is built between 1919 and 1930. I don't believe that any cars were under the COE system at that time. There are vintage/classic car schemes available and both the vintage and classic cars scenes are very vibrant in Singapore.

 

Some of her suggestions are nothing new (again, copied from other people)

-Segregating COE categories according to income brackets and/or household needs

Seriously? There are so many loopholes to this. Just look at handicap parking labels, or how hawkers/tutors avoid taxes...

 

- Balloting

Again... seriously? This may prompt people who really don't need or can't afford a car to jump at the opportunity just because he/she was "lucky" and "won" the ballot.

 

- Queueing system

Hur? Some car companies will go bust because queues at other brands are longer and get to sell more. Again, anti-competition.

 

- Pay-as-you-bid model where successful bidders pay the same figure they bid rather than pay the highest figure of all the bidders

This can lead to colluding and that means everyone will bid $1. DUH!!!!

 

She obviously doesn't THINK or UNDERSTAND the issues completely.

 

My 2 cents is that on top of limiting vehicle population, there should also be usage charges. This would allow more COEs to be released -- at a lower price -- but owners are charged as they use their cars. Meaning, a family that doesn't need to use their OPC car as much as a towkay in his 7-Series will pay less in usage charges. It's definitely not a new idea, but I think it would alleviate road congestion in certain areas and also allow more people to own cars on a "need to" basis.

 

 

Personally, I agree with all the points you've made however would like all to consider "Pay as you bid model".

Firstly, it will not be easy to find the other maybe 20000 or 30000 maybe more potential interested car buyer to collude $1.00 COE.

Secondly, as we all agree COE system favors the rich, I am not sure if these rich will want to collude as he or she does not really care anyway as they can definitely afford.

 

Advantages of "Pay as you bid model" ensures that potential car buyer do not simply put the highest bid just to kill competition. (of course they can still do that)

All I am saying is some rich car buyer will want to put a realistic market rate to pay for and this can go both ways for the not so rich.

Hopefully this levels the play field, just my thoughts.............

 

[Sabian]

You're not very clever are you?

If COE is abolished, car prices will immediately drop by $60-90K.

Then every Tom, Dick & Harry family will want to buy a car, or a few cars, but not necessarily drive them daily, due to very high ERP charges.

 

Then they all park where?

As it is, HDB and private estate car parks are always full.

There will be fist fights just to buy season parking.

Isn't that good? The roads will be empty.

[Sabian]

Actually, what is LTA original purpose for having a Cat A and Cat B?

[Timbuktu]

Maybe so.

 

But you're the fool to think that the govt bothers whether you have a space to park or not. Try to think harder if you can identify other reasons?

 

I will enjoy the day to see ERP at $150 so that the real rich can use the roads unimpeded. Hope to see you on the expressways then.

I am sure, when cars start parking alongside Oxley Rd, Second Avenue, or Leedon Park (the houses with Ghurka sentry posts outside) the govt WILL be bothered!

Edited August 1, 2012 by Timbuktu

[Gendut]

I am sure, when cars start parking alongside Oxley Rd, Second Avenue, or Leedon Park (the houses with Ghurka sentry posts outside) the govt WILL be bothered!

 

 

Govt bothered or you bothered?

 

Sounds like you're the one who is worried that ERP @ $150 a pop. I will await and cherish the day that happens and we can see who are the real rich in Singapore.

 

Please please LTY grow some balls and install ERP gantries EVERYWHERE!!!! I want clear roads and I don't want COEs.

 

Charge ERPs at $500 for all I care. If I need to use it I will pay.

[Hi_torq]

It seems that there is some confusion on the COE bidding. Correct me if I am wrong.

 

The COE amount is decided by the lowest bidder of the successful lots. That is there is 100 cars in quota and there are total of 99 bids received. If 98 bidders have bid S1 million and 1 fellow has bid $1, then the COE will settle at $1.

 

The COE is going up because people are willing to pay as banks are ready to finance. It is good for banks (more investment, more returns, more profit). Dealers are more interested in their sale projection as they can crack better deals with makers with cars sales projection. Hence indirectly, they would like to secure COE (though they give rebate/discounts to meet the sales figure). You can correct me, if I am wrong.

 

When the govt. reduced the quota, the CAT A dealers panicked as taxi will be biting into their piece of cake (which as already reduced). The taxi guys will secure CAT A COE, but will buy open category cars, thus benefitting open category car sales (this has been happening all the time). Hence this time govt put taxi in open category.

[Kar_lover]

It seems that there is some confusion on the COE bidding. Correct me if I am wrong.

 

The COE amount is decided by the lowest bidder of the successful lots. That is there is 100 cars in quota and there are total of 99 bids received. If 98 bidders have bid S1 million and 1 fellow has bid $1, then the COE will settle at $1.

 

The COE is going up because people are willing to pay as banks are ready to finance. It is good for banks (more investment, more returns, more profit). Dealers are more interested in their sale projection as they can crack better deals with makers with cars sales projection. Hence indirectly, they would like to secure COE (though they give rebate/discounts to meet the sales figure). You can correct me, if I am wrong.

 

When the govt. reduced the quota, the CAT A dealers panicked as taxi will be biting into their piece of cake (which as already reduced). The taxi guys will secure CAT A COE, but will buy open category cars, thus benefitting open category car sales (this has been happening all the time). Hence this time govt put taxi in open category.

 

Second para totally correct, no argument.

 

Third para is partly true, COE is going up because the supply is going down. High demand, low supply = high price. Yes, buyers willign to pay more cos Singapore is affluent and interest rates are quite low now. Whether good for banks, it depends. While each car loan they give out now are likely higher than before but there are also less number of car loans now due to lesser cars being bought due to lesser COEs being available. The part about the dealers I am not sure what you mean. Are you saying in the past they are less interested? I think dealers always want sales, now more than ever due to the lesser amount of cars that can be sold.

 

Fourth para i also don't understand. Even before the govt reduced the quota, taxi were already in Cat A. Even if Taxi get Cat A but buy big cars, we don't know if taxis buy from AD or PI or directly import themselves. If they buy from AD or PI, most ADs and PIs have a range of small and big cars to sell to them so i don't think there is a problem there.

 

Lastly, this thread is supposed to be about why COE is outdated....but i am not sure what is the point you're trying to make....

 

[Kar_lover]

I am sure, when cars start parking alongside Oxley Rd, Second Avenue, or Leedon Park (the houses with Ghurka sentry posts outside) the govt WILL be bothered!

 

 

I suggest you ignore him lah...he is sucking you into his nonsensical posts....

[Darthrevan]

i do hope that GPS-based ERP system comes sooner..it might heavily discourage frivolous trips, unplanned journeys and impromptu drives