COE refinements to be finalised in next few weeks

[Baal]

Wait $1M/year father give money to son who earning less than $50k/year to buy...but i get where you are coming from. Sounds like HDB flat - use income ceiling as criteria. May not be a bad idea other than the example i cited earlier. In any case they already need income documents to apply loan so from there can already pre-(dis)qualify buyers. Then those with ego problem will purposely bring their $100k per annum income statement to showroom and try to buy Cat A car so that salesman can tell him "but sir/madam, your income too high!!"

 

Haha, like that no only Iras but also need cpib also come in to check where the son got the money. And if can trace back.......talk about extreme.... But I like the part u mention on ego problem. Very possible leh. especially if they just want the "test drive" of a BnB car to be an ego trip

 

[Kb27]

wow.. 101 pages.

s'porean really love car

 

If only public transport is up to scratch, many people will give up cars.

 

Instead, every time they only talk about increasing fares and more profits for the operators.

[Baal]

Social equity doesn't mean rich exploit the poor - that is a different matter. In every society there are the rich and poor. Naturally, based purely on economic power, those who are rich (nothing against them) will dominate the poor when there is scarcity. Hence govt needs to step in to try to level out the playing field - to try to manage the rich-poor gap. It's nothing personal against the rich. And it's not to penalise the rich either. Although strictly speaking, as cars are not a necessity (esp Singapore being so small) there should not be a need for govt to manage social equity here. But then again Singaporeans are very passionate (i use this term loosely) about cars. Somehow ppl badly want it. Hence when a commodity being so strongly desired by society, even if it is a luxury good, but to the psyche of the masses it is almost a necessity and causes much unhappiness, govt needs to do something lest they be accused of allowing public feedback to fall on deaf ears.

 

sorry, wrong quote.

Edited September 18, 2013 by Baal

[Baal]

If only public transport is up to scratch, many people will give up cars.

 

Instead, every time they only talk about increasing fares and more profits for the operators.

 

 

I know I sound clich

[inlinesix]

The problem (for the govt) is that the more efficient technological advanced cars are usually more expensive. The continental small engine turbos are all above $20k omv. The jap hybrids like Prius (excluding Prius C) and Insight (let alone CT200) are also not cheap when compared to the "normal" jap cars. The reason for this COE refinement (much as i also disagree) is to restore some degree of social equity - all the expensive conti cars are pushing out the BB cars and with them the BB buyers. With the change they are expecting the rich buyers NOT to buy normal boring BB cars so that the less well off can compete among themselves to get their fair share of cars albeit inefficient ones. With the less well off competing with each other, Cat A price is expected to fall. Now it's like a royal rumble match with all the heavyweights in the same ring as the lightweights - all the lightweights get thrown out of the ring. This refinement is to sieve out all the heavy wieghts so that the lightweights can fight among themselves on a more level playing field.

 

If for example, to promote technological advancement and engine efficiency as advocated by Bosch and Mr Hri Kumar, the govt used a power-to-engine capacity ratio as a means to measure engine efficiency, the winners will again be the small conti turbos (and maybe a few koreans) and we might as well just stick to the old system as it will be a change without a change. Technology isn't cheap. Bosch and Hri Kumar is missing the objective of the change. It was never about efficiency.

Current measurement is counterproductive in social equality. Juz change the COE bidding rule can liao. All bid must be via SingPass except Open Cat.

[Mockngbrd]

Also to prevent market spoilers, Cat A restricted to loan applicants income to 50k

Cat B 100k

Cat C Beyond

[Baal]

 

 

Yes, I know, its basically just wishful thinking....

 

besides, they already said that the car issue is not like essentials such as housing. Hence, I would assume that greater effort was put in comparative to the coe issue.

However.....if I use the effectiveness of the housing cooling measures in making homes affordable as an indicator, then taking into account that Cars are not an essential.......I can make a calculated guess at the effectiveness of the "coe cooling measures"

[Simplecar]

I am in no way advocating communism. However, I feel that it should not be at the other end of the spectrum. Eg, huge income gap, Stagnant wages/wage increase unable to exceed or even keep up with rising cost. 1 win = 1 lose, or both win but 1 wins more. Its human nature to always want more. Hence, I feel onus is on regulators to moderate. For starters, can refer to other 1st world nations. End of the day, we are suppose to be a country, not a business where it subscribes to the laws of the jungle.

Huge income gap is something else. Our successful people are earning lots more money. The poorer folks' pay are stagnating. That has to do with people taking their jobs, and doing a better job at it. Hence the govt is helping the poorer folks in various ways.

 

Getting a COE/car is beyond basic needs. Penalising the successful in this area seems disingenious as they pay proportionately more income taxes, and consume more, (pay more in gst) A large proportion of singaporeans are not paying income taxes.

 

Back to topic - I dont advocate changing the COE rules as it is unfair to those who got their COE based on the rules. Want to penalise the rich? tax them more. Dont restrict them from consumption.

 

Back to topic.

 

[Simplecar]

I know I sound clich

[Princey_anne]

Huge income gap is something else. Our successful people are earning lots more money. The poorer folks' pay are stagnating. That has to do with people taking their jobs, and doing a better job at it. Hence the govt is helping the poorer folks in various ways.

 

Getting a COE/car is beyond basic needs. Penalising the successful in this area seems disingenious as they pay proportionately more income taxes, and consume more, (pay more in gst) A large proportion of singaporeans are not paying income taxes.

 

Back to topic - I dont advocate changing the COE rules as it is unfair to those who got their COE based on the rules. Want to penalise the rich? tax them more. Dont restrict them from consumption.

 

Back to topic.

[Simplecar]

Social equity doesn't mean rich exploit the poor - that is a different matter. In every society there are the rich and poor. Naturally, based purely on economic power, those who are rich (nothing against them) will dominate the poor when there is scarcity. Hence govt needs to step in to try to level out the playing field - to try to manage the rich-poor gap. It's nothing personal against the rich. And it's not to penalise the rich either. Although strictly speaking, as cars are not a necessity (esp Singapore being so small) there should not be a need for govt to manage social equity here. But then again Singaporeans are very passionate (i use this term loosely) about cars. Somehow ppl badly want it. Hence when a commodity being so strongly desired by society, even if it is a luxury good, but to the psyche of the masses it is almost a necessity and causes much unhappiness, govt needs to do something lest they be accused of allowing public feedback to fall on deaf ears.

When we talk about 'levelling', its either to bring the rich lower, bring the poor higher, or do both. I would advocate the 2nd. discouraging the first group (more successful) will discourage innovation, risk-taking etc.

 

We are created differently. Some are more intelligent, more talented, more artistic, hardworking etc. Let them flourish in their own ways. As a society, we help each other so that we have basic need, at the least. Thats what the govt is doing, IMO.

 

There is no such thing as social equity when it comes to a car.

 

The people have to tamper, moderate their expectations when it comes to car. Some will never be able to afford one. They should look at public transport and do some additional walking. No choice.

 

[Nzy]

He already said in the first sentence - for social equity. Don't forget the rich get to become rich because of the less rich.

 

But since the car isn't a essential thing, isn't it correct that the COE should be given out based on meritocracy. The rich got the money to bid as high as they want for the COE. The less rich can just work harder to be richer and compete with these people.

Edited September 18, 2013 by Nzy

[Baal]

But since the car isn't a essential thing, isn't it correct that the COE should be given out based on meritocracy. The rich got the money to bid as high as they want for the COE. The less rich can just work harder to be richer and compete with these people.

 

But I think its also a need vs want issue. I have come across a fair share of folks w young kids who cant afford a car & their solution for their needs?

 

1) Drive Taxi single driver but with split shift. ( Don't have co driver)

2) Be a Van driver whom can also drive the Van home. (don't get caught by tp/lta for too many at the front!)

3) Be a Mini school Bus driver whom can also drive the bus home. (somewhat mpv?)

 

Don't think many aspire to be the above. But the rational is that basic 1.5-1.6k (option 2 & 3), consider that u got 4 wheels with all assc cost borne by the coy ( which easily cost 1k+ a mth all in if purchased a Jap 1.3 ) Its like a 2.5k ++ job.

That's the desperation of those in need for 4 wheels.

 

Unless of course the above is the "unofficial" way out that the auth have acknowleged and have indirectly nodded that that's the way out for those under the "need" category.

[Mustank]

But I think its also a need vs want issue. I have come across a fair share of folks w young kids who cant afford a car & their solution for their needs?

 

1) Drive Taxi single driver but with split shift. ( Don't have co driver)

2) Be a Van driver whom can also drive the Van home. (don't get caught by tp/lta for too many at the front!)

3) Be a Mini school Bus driver whom can also drive the bus home. (somewhat mpv?)

 

Don't think many aspire to be the above. But the rational is that basic 1.5-1.6k (option 2 & 3), consider that u got 4 wheels with all assc cost borne by the coy ( which easily cost 1k+ a mth all in if purchased a Jap 1.3 ) Its like a 2.5k ++ job.

That's the desperation of those in need for 4 wheels.

 

Unless of course the above is the "unofficial" way out that the auth have acknowleged and have indirectly nodded that that's the way out for those under the "need" category.

 

like this?

 

 

[ShepherdPie]

But I think its also a need vs want issue. I have come across a fair share of folks w young kids who cant afford a car & their solution for their needs?

 

1) Drive Taxi single driver but with split shift. ( Don't have co driver)

2) Be a Van driver whom can also drive the Van home. (don't get caught by tp/lta for too many at the front!)

3) Be a Mini school Bus driver whom can also drive the bus home. (somewhat mpv?)

 

Don't think many aspire to be the above. But the rational is that basic 1.5-1.6k (option 2 & 3), consider that u got 4 wheels with all assc cost borne by the coy ( which easily cost 1k+ a mth all in if purchased a Jap 1.3 ) Its like a 2.5k ++ job.

That's the desperation of those in need for 4 wheels.

 

Unless of course the above is the "unofficial" way out that the auth have acknowleged and have indirectly nodded that that's the way out for those under the "need" category.

 

Spot on...

The problem is our public transport is not up to scatch..

[Kiadaw]

If people have lower income, isn't it better NOT to buy cars? Just a thought.

[Kangadrool]

If people have lower income, isn't it better NOT to buy cars? Just a thought.

 

People thinking here is, buy sartki car in order elevate social status and help to raise confidence, leading to career progression and more $$$$ Never mind if car uses up 70% of your take home pay.

[Nzy]

Spot on...

The problem is our public transport is not up to scatch..

 

Why is it not good enough? Its definitely not without any problems but then its still very good compared to many other places right?