Call for public feedback on COE

[Bystander50]

I thought MBT is a mixed bag. He has some good policies like ERP and COE I think. I think both ERP and COE are sound policies in principle but was implemented wrongly by his successors.

 

The BTO policy he started was a huge mistake though.... on hindsight now, it is obvious that BTO is one of the reasons why HDB is unable to react to sudden demand spikes.

 

COE may be a good way to control vehicle growth. But how is the quota derived?

There wasn't much control on the COEs, allowing the ADs and other car dealers to manipulate the prices.

 

ERP I believe is more successful in generating revenue. It may be one of the contributing factors for the overcrowding of our public transport.

Before ERP, there was the Restricted Zone scheme. This scheme provides an incentive for drivers to enter the CBD free if their vehicles are filled with 3 or 4 passengers. Carpool pickup points were designated and drivers can drive over to pick up people going to the same destination. 1 such location I remembered is along Marine Parade Road, in front of Blk 57. This arrangement does help as it maximises the road space usage. Look at the car next to you on your way to work next time, most of them are empty, except for the driver. But the car still take up the same road space. The only thing I can see from the removal of car-pooling is revenue generated for both public transport and ERP charges. It simplifies the adjustment of tolls and extension of operating hours. You no longer depend on the Cisco warden sitting in the little booth.

 

The project only goes ahead when there are a certain number of buyers under BTO. I doubt HDB is indeed in the "red" with all the unsold flats under the previous scheme. HDB does not sell these unsold flats at the same price or the same 99 year lease a few years later. Does HDB do periodic maintenance on these unsold flats to add on the "loss"? The new selling price would already have covered the "loss" including interests and other markups. Unless 50% of the units are left unsold. Didn't MBT's successor at MOT once said it's cheaper to build early than later on the construction of some MRT stations? Seems like all the contridicting statements from people in the same party. There were 2 BTO projects at Punggol and Sembawang that were cancelled in 2003 due to poor takeup rates. During that few years, HDB also stopped building and concentrated in selling all leftover units, leaving no buffer stocks. The rest is history.

 

 

 

[Fastfive1]

LOL! It's really funny how people seem to suggest all kinds of crap when it comes to COE. Car prices here are high and will always be high. For those of you who like to use property for comparison with cars, property prices will continue to go up and won't come down by very much. Wanna do a comparison with prices overseas, go become a citizen there. The COE system is good. What made it inefficient was the 100% financing. There wasn't this nonsense before the 100% financing. I don't think there is a need for a re-categorization of COE. If luxury brands are able to enter CAT A, then it just goes to show that the koreans and the japanese need to be more innovative in selling their cars. No point saying oh its unfair that Mercs and BMWs are entering CAT A. Suck it up, get a higher paying job then get a car! If one is utterly stupid with no skills whatsoever, then don't buy a car. Equality? Who gives a damn! If that's the case even a road sweeper can earn as much as a lawyer. Is life fair? It sure as hell ain't. There is a need for social distinction. People who study sociology would know about this. As far as I'm concerned, there is nothing wrong with a person having more than 1 car, let alone 10 cars in his garage. Of course this is where green eyed monsters will come in and say that these people shouldn't be wasteful. It's their money and it's their damn prerogative how they wanna spend their money. We're not living in a communist country so why are we requesting for things that will make us one? Grow up people!

[Macrosszero]

A rich person with five cars under his name is unlikely to be able to put all five cars on the road at the same time. Five persons each with one car are more likely to be using the roads and contributing to congestion at any given time.

 

If the intent is to solve road congestion should we not be looking at usage rather than car ownership?

 

To "limit" ownership of more than one car, if implemented, is just a populist measure.

[Wt_know]

yes, it is indeed a populist measure to appease the people

just like 140% and 180% ARF ... does it reduce traffic congestion ... does it make the coe allocation fairer?

no, it is to tax the rich ... rob peter to pay paul

 

A rich person with five cars under his name is unlikely to be able to put all five cars on the road at the same time. Five persons each with one car are more likely to be using the roads and contributing to congestion at any given time.

 

If the intent is to solve road congestion should we not be looking at usage rather than car ownership?

 

To "limit" ownership of more than one car, if implemented, is just a populist measure.

Edited June 8, 2013 by Wt_know

[Jwee85]

I wish they remove the ARF based on OMV.

So that all car buyers can get the real value of the car based on full safety specs. Not some stripped down bare bone car, just so to reduce the OMV to reduce the tax quantum.

 

COE can remains, ERP can be more expensive.

 

Just make owning a full specs car for even the average buyers.

 

[Tjkbeluga]

I went for a few sg conversations. Conclusion I think it is wayang. Why?

 

1) The participants (normal singaporeans) does not have enough information to make sound conclusion. a lot of stupid ideas like removing land cost for HDB pricing...

 

2) the organisers are not interested in actually getting feedback, (see point 1). It is just a PR session. There are nobody from the policy makers to give reasons why the policies are the way they are. All they say is "ya, ya, we will think about it." no matter how stupid the suggestions....

 

3) bottomline, is they choose scenarios where there is no one good answer so they always say, see policies is very difficult as people want different things.

Thanks for sharing. If you out it this way, at least it is understandable, rather than a one word sweeping statement...

[Mockngbrd]

LOL! It's really funny how people seem to suggest all kinds of crap when it comes to COE. Car prices here are high and will always be high. For those of you who like to use property for comparison with cars, property prices will continue to go up and won't come down by very much. Wanna do a comparison with prices overseas, go become a citizen there. The COE system is good. What made it inefficient was the 100% financing. There wasn't this nonsense before the 100% financing. I don't think there is a need for a re-categorization of COE. If luxury brands are able to enter CAT A, then it just goes to show that the koreans and the japanese need to be more innovative in selling their cars. No point saying oh its unfair that Mercs and BMWs are entering CAT A. Suck it up, get a higher paying job then get a car! If one is utterly stupid with no skills whatsoever, then don't buy a car. Equality? Who gives a damn! If that's the case even a road sweeper can earn as much as a lawyer. Is life fair? It sure as hell ain't. There is a need for social distinction. People who study sociology would know about this. As far as I'm concerned, there is nothing wrong with a person having more than 1 car, let alone 10 cars in his garage. Of course this is where green eyed monsters will come in and say that these people shouldn't be wasteful. It's their money and it's their damn prerogative how they wanna spend their money. We're not living in a communist country so why are we requesting for things that will make us one? Grow up people!

I agree. .

[1fast1]

Feedback given! I basically told them to stop pandering to the unwashed masses. Someone's going to get a kick out of my responses.

[Wind30]

LOL! It's really funny how people seem to suggest all kinds of crap when it comes to COE. Car prices here are high and will always be high. For those of you who like to use property for comparison with cars, property prices will continue to go up and won't come down by very much. Wanna do a comparison with prices overseas, go become a citizen there. The COE system is good. What made it inefficient was the 100% financing. There wasn't this nonsense before the 100% financing. I don't think there is a need for a re-categorization of COE. If luxury brands are able to enter CAT A, then it just goes to show that the koreans and the japanese need to be more innovative in selling their cars. No point saying oh its unfair that Mercs and BMWs are entering CAT A. Suck it up, get a higher paying job then get a car! If one is utterly stupid with no skills whatsoever, then don't buy a car. Equality? Who gives a damn! If that's the case even a road sweeper can earn as much as a lawyer. Is life fair? It sure as hell ain't. There is a need for social distinction. People who study sociology would know about this. As far as I'm concerned, there is nothing wrong with a person having more than 1 car, let alone 10 cars in his garage. Of course this is where green eyed monsters will come in and say that these people shouldn't be wasteful. It's their money and it's their damn prerogative how they wanna spend their money. We're not living in a communist country so why are we requesting for things that will make us one? Grow up people!

 

err... using your argument..

 

if they have a high paying job, then they can afford to pay the surcharge to own 2 or more cars right??? If they cannot afford the surcharge, then STOP WHINING and get a higher paying job. Grow up people.

[Macrosszero]

err... using your argument..

 

if they have a high paying job, then they can afford to pay the surcharge to own 2 or more cars right??? If they cannot afford the surcharge, then STOP WHINING and get a higher paying job. Grow up people.

 

Rich towkay can afford to wear diamond-studded Rolex. Salaryman wears a Casio.

 

Both can tell the time.

 

Rich towkay can afford to have a five-car garage. Salaryman take public transport.

 

Both are means of getting around.

 

Cheap cars during the 06-09 era have given people the idea that a personal vehicle is some kind of birthright. It isn't. Work hard/grit your teeth to afford your car, not try to talk prices down.

[Simpleonly]

they just want to ensure scholar's idea different from general public

 

I would.say that lta will push the ball back to the public when the new implementation does.not.work out... and this new implementation might be along the.scholar idea.. When it kana back fire the will say we give u what u want meh.. Dun blame me

[5936]

Since COE is to "not about making profit", it should be based on chance to secure a COE, base on lucky draw. There should not be base on highest range of moneys offered.

No dealers please.

No need to split them into different categories.Simple numbers of COE to be drawn and awarded to the equal numbers of bidders.They can use to register any type of cars they chooses.

 

 

[Civic6228]

Rich towkay can afford to wear diamond-studded Rolex. Salaryman wears a Casio.

 

Both can tell the time.

 

Rich towkay can afford to have a five-car garage. Salaryman take public transport.

 

Both are means of getting around.

 

Cheap cars during the 06-09 era have given people the idea that a personal vehicle is some kind of birthright. It isn't. Work hard/grit your teeth to afford your car, not try to talk prices down.

 

I have always said ..... there is a choice of a re-sale car. Why must "die die" talk about COE and new car ? If a new car is out of reach, go buy something within your reach. Go sg carmart and key in 40k to 50k, I am sure that there is a pretty decent selection. There is nothing wrong with the present COE classification. The german manufacturer are being penalised for their better, more advance technology. They were able to "super/turbo" charged their engine to improve their performance while the Japs has not advance much in term of technology. A Toyota Camry is still using a 4 speed gearbox whereas the entry BMW is using a 8 speed gearbox. I do not have statistic but I do know that a lot of potential Camry, Mazda 6, Accord etc buyers have switch to entry level Germans.

 

B and B car ???? What is B and B car ? Car is never a need in Singapore why is a need to talk about B and B car ? IMO, can afford buy, cannot afford ... there is option in 2nd hand car.

 

The current COE classification is not fair ........ Life is never fair ... if someone believe that life is fair, IMO, the person is pretty na

Edited June 8, 2013 by Civic6228

[Proton]

err... using your argument..

 

if they have a high paying job, then they can afford to pay the surcharge to own 2 or more cars right??? If they cannot afford the surcharge, then STOP WHINING and get a higher paying job. Grow up people.

 

 

Not all pple as smart as u ma..

[Member69]

foolproof way for COE is to remove bidding by dealer.

 

but cannot like this you know..if become owner self bid..who in the right mind would bid 90k?!??!

if COE drops to the low level of 10k+...each year gahmen would have lose few hundreds millions of extra income and possibly even more..

now COE high...bank happy,dealer happy,gahmen happy,new car owner also happy!

if COE low..bank not happy,dealer not happy,gahmen also not happy,only new car owner happy!

 

like that it's not right.

 

 

[Fastfive1]

err... using your argument..

 

if they have a high paying job, then they can afford to pay the surcharge to own 2 or more cars right??? If they cannot afford the surcharge, then STOP WHINING and get a higher paying job. Grow up people.

 

The point here is that the government should not penalize people for being able to afford more than 1 car. These people already pay more road tax for having more than 1 car and probably pay more income tax than an average joe due to their higher earning power. It's not a matter whether they can afford the surcharge, its a matter of whether paying that extra is justified. I'm sure these people who own more than one car should have no issue paying the additional surcharge since they can already afford one car.

 

You're probably one of those who only has 1 car. It's alright to be green eyed. I pardon your ignorance.

[Wind30]

The point here is that the government should not penalize people for being able to afford more than 1 car. These people already pay more road tax for having more than 1 car and probably pay more income tax than an average joe due to their higher earning power. It's not a matter whether they can afford the surcharge, its a matter of whether paying that extra is justified. I'm sure these people who own more than one car should have no issue paying the additional surcharge since they can already afford one car.

 

You're probably one of those who only has 1 car. It's alright to be green eyed. I pardon your ignorance.

 

?? Since you want to be personal :)

 

from the look of your arguments, I think you probably can never even own a single car...

 

you have not given is single logical argument why government should not penalise people for owning 2 cars. All you said (using many many words) was basically everyone should be treated equally which is just plain stupid. In the very next post, you say the high earners is paying more income tax than the low earners.... duh.... shouldn't you be arguing everyone should pay the same income tax then???

 

Grow up, there is a reason why the rich get taxed more...

[1fast1]

?? Since you want to be personal :)

 

from the look of your arguments, I think you probably can never even own a single car...

 

you have not given is single logical argument why government should not penalise people for owning 2 cars. All you said (using many many words) was basically everyone should be treated equally which is just plain stupid. In the very next post, you say the high earners is paying more income tax than the low earners.... duh.... shouldn't you be arguing everyone should pay the same income tax then???

 

Grow up, there is a reason why the rich get taxed more...

 

There is a vast difference between a tiered income tax structure (which is an entrenched practice in many countries), and differential pricing for the same commodity in a single jurisdiction (which, if Singapore implements this jackass scheme, would be a world first). The ostensible reason for the govt asking for feedback is to improve "social equity". I put it to you that making different people pay different amounts for the same thing is the height of social inequity.

 

Your arguments are as puerile as your sentiments toward those (you think of as) more well-off than you. I could easily turn your arguments backward and level them against you - "if you can't own even a single car without the govt giving you a handout (which is what this amounts to), then you don't deserve a car. Why don't you get off your lazy ass and work harder for that car, instead of asking the gahmen to get the rich to subsidise your want (not need)? Grow up!"

 

Remember: a car is not a need in Singapore, it's a want. All the b-------t rationalisations that people have come up with in the popular media to justify why they need a car despite being (at best) marginal owners are just that: rationalisations (and flimsy ones, too). Even the most dire needs (e.g. regular dialysis - one of those "needs" mentioned before, I think) can easily be met with the plethora of private ambulance services in our tiny island.

 

If you can't comfortably afford a car in Singapore, go without. Don't try to screw other people who can afford a car (or even more).