Jump to content
Ct3833

Why more people are renewing COE?

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Dark said:

Not only that but your parf will be gone too.

If got coe refund will become a major loophole to bail out of high coe.

PARF remains till the car turns 10years old.

↡ Advertisement
  • Praise 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

actually LTA should do away with 5 years renewed coe vehicle must die die scrap by expiry date. people should have the option to choose to renew further after 5 yrs is up.

this rule doesnt makes sense at all. what is the diff when you renew 5 yrs or 10 yrs. still paying COE wat.

  • Praise 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, StreamRSZ said:

actually LTA should do away with 5 years renewed coe vehicle must die die scrap by expiry date. people should have the option to choose to renew further after 5 yrs is up.

this rule doesnt makes sense at all. what is the diff when you renew 5 yrs or 10 yrs. still paying COE wat.

is all about $$$, LTA encourage owner to renew 10 years instead of 5 years so that they have more $$$ to spend first.

  • Praise 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, tonychuacl said:

is all about $$$, LTA encourage owner to renew 10 years instead of 5 years so that they have more $$$ to spend first.

thats why this rule doesnt make sense. people should have a choice to choose. not all people is rich enough to pay off 10 yr coe or ready to take up 10 yrs coe loan to tied them down. this policy should be flexible to us as a consumer.

Edited by StreamRSZ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, StreamRSZ said:

actually LTA should do away with 5 years renewed coe vehicle must die die scrap by expiry date. people should have the option to choose to renew further after 5 yrs is up.

this rule doesnt makes sense at all. what is the diff when you renew 5 yrs or 10 yrs. still paying COE wat.

If you look at the stats, many many more renew for 5years vs 10, despite being unable to further renew after 5years. 
the PARF is then amortized over the shorter 5years thus making the depreciation per year higher. 
ultimately it is still the absolute quantum that matters, people want to own cars but can not afford the lump sum. 
it’s one reason why PHVs are so popular. A rental car model Without much upfront cost and yet able to make some to cover the cost. 

↡ Advertisement
  • Praise 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Mkl22 said:

If you look at the stats, many many more renew for 5years vs 10, despite being unable to further renew after 5years. 
the PARF is then amortized over the shorter 5years thus making the depreciation per year higher. 
ultimately it is still the absolute quantum that matters, people want to own cars but can not afford the lump sum. 
it’s one reason why PHVs are so popular. A rental car model Without much upfront cost and yet able to make some to cover the cost. 

PHV have to pay rental also per week. the cost will be much higher also compared to owning one COE car.  ultimately this rule should be flexible to all. Not just limitting to 5 yrs must complusary to scrap the car putting aside people want to own cars but cannot afford lump sum and we cannot assume all people cannot afford. 

People might have money but doesnt want to pay in one lump sum. They take loan instead so that no heart pain to see the lump sum money goes out of pocket in one go. We cannot assume people cannot afford to buy car.

So it still goes down to policy to be flexible in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, StreamRSZ said:

PHV have to pay rental also per week. the cost will be much higher also compared to owning one COE car.  ultimately this rule should be flexible to all. Not just limitting to 5 yrs must complusary to scrap the car putting aside people want to own cars but cannot afford lump sum and we cannot assume all people cannot afford. 

People might have money but doesnt want to pay in one lump sum. They take loan instead so that no heart pain to see the lump sum money goes out of pocket in one go. We cannot assume people cannot afford to buy car.

So it still goes down to policy to be flexible in my opinion.

Sigh you still don’t get it. Never mind.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As of Sept 2019 YTD, there are close to 41,000 cars got their COE revalidated, this is much higher than the  32,000 units in whole year of 2018. The  number of more than 10 year old cars are about 20% of  total cars population, that means 1 in every 5 cars is a COE car, this situation is very different  from many years ago that SGP has got the highest % of new car on the road because of the COE system.  

Interestingly, if assuming 15% of the newer cars are PHV, plus the 20% of >10, year old cars,  that means only 65% of the less than 10 year old cars are real owners, are we poorer than before ? 

 

 

Edited by Ct3833
  • Praise 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ct3833 said:

, are we poorer than before ? 

 

 

Bo lah! we are smarter than before! A car is built to last 20 years easily! we tired of stupid ruling lah..

I hope they change the 5 year COE ruling as I have one on hand! whahahahahhaha.. mileage still below 90K at 11 years old loh.. dealer renewed 5 years to make it more "AFFORDABLE" and previous owner bite..

  • Praise 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, StreamRSZ said:

PHV have to pay rental also per week. the cost will be much higher also compared to owning one COE car.  ultimately this rule should be flexible to all. Not just limitting to 5 yrs must complusary to scrap the car putting aside people want to own cars but cannot afford lump sum and we cannot assume all people cannot afford. 

People might have money but doesnt want to pay in one lump sum. They take loan instead so that no heart pain to see the lump sum money goes out of pocket in one go. We cannot assume people cannot afford to buy car.

So it still goes down to policy to be flexible in my opinion.

The point is, the policymakers don't want to be flexible because it would be contrary to the car-lite policy, of which the objective is to have lesser cars on the roads progressively. Making the means of enabling car ownership or prolonging the lifespan of an existing car 'easier' for the masses is henceforth not the priority. In short, if anyone wants to own a car,  be it new or extending its COE, one has no choice but to just suck it up and either bear with the high upfront costs / extended interest / loans / foregoing of PARF.  If there's any flexibility or advantages, it would be for the benefit of the policymakers, not the consumer.

Edited by Ronkovic
  • Praise 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, StreamRSZ said:

thats why this rule doesnt make sense. people should have a choice to choose. not all people is rich enough to pay off 10 yr coe or ready to take up 10 yrs coe loan to tied them down. this policy should be flexible to us as a consumer.

Bro, since when did our gov offer policies that benefited the poor? They really do not see the need to so called help the marginal people to continue owning a car. Those people are big drag to the society. 

Extending beyond 10 yrs is already a bad idea for the SG economy. Think about it, instead of paying 130k for a new decent car, you get to drive your old clunker beat up car for another 10 yrs by paying what less than 40K regarding of Cat A or B. Yes you loose your PARF and your road tax goes up every year till +50%. But does these penalties even come close to you spending that 130 to 150k for a new SUV or car? Its a bad deal for our gov

And with lesser new cars sold, our economy also got affected since consumer spending drops significantly also. And it gives our gov lesser bragging rights that we have the youngest average vehicle population in the world despite having the highest car prices in the world too. 

AD biz drops significantly and some may go under as a result. Only independent automotive svcs shops outside stands to gain. But how much can they contribute to our economy?  

  • Praise 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Ody_2004 said:

Bo lah! we are smarter than before! A car is built to last 20 years easily! we tired of stupid ruling lah..

I hope they change the 5 year COE ruling as I have one on hand! whahahahahhaha.. mileage still below 90K at 11 years old loh.. dealer renewed 5 years to make it more "AFFORDABLE" and previous owner bite..

Haha thanks for enlightening, so I am a poor smart guy, not a smart poor guy. 

  • Haha! 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ody_2004 said:

Bo lah! we are smarter than before! A car is built to last 20 years easily! we tired of stupid ruling lah..

I hope they change the 5 year COE ruling as I have one on hand! whahahahahhaha.. mileage still below 90K at 11 years old loh.. dealer renewed 5 years to make it more "AFFORDABLE" and previous owner bite..

 I remember that is your 2nd car. The parf write off  of a cat A car should be about 8k a year, so if you shorten it to 5 years,  your write off is $800 more a year compare to 10years , works out to be $65 more a month only, no big deal. Moreover, by then your boy would probably get a new car, so no worries.

  • Praise 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well today parf value is 50%. can you gaurantee that with new system coming ahead there is any more parf value for cars next time? maybe it could be reduced further.

Hybrid cars is already very pathetic when it comes to scrap value. policy is designed by people. Just cant understand why they have to be so regid on this.

 

Edited by StreamRSZ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Mkl22 said:

Sigh you still don’t get it. Never mind.....

please enlighten me. maybe i miss out or misunderstood your meaning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, StreamRSZ said:

PHV have to pay rental also per week. the cost will be much higher also compared to owning one COE car.  ultimately this rule should be flexible to all. Not just limitting to 5 yrs must complusary to scrap the car putting aside people want to own cars but cannot afford lump sum and we cannot assume all people cannot afford. 

People might have money but doesnt want to pay in one lump sum. They take loan instead so that no heart pain to see the lump sum money goes out of pocket in one go. We cannot assume people cannot afford to buy car.

So it still goes down to policy to be flexible in my opinion.

G will say if cannot afford renew COE 10 years or buy new car after 5 years COE is up, pls take public transport.

Those peoples who have the money would rather 1 shot pay the COE or buy new car instead take loan to renew COE. Those renew COE loan package are targeted at owners with tight budget & they earn by adding in interest which owner will pay higher amount.

I support this rule for compulsory scrap car after their 5 years COE is up, this will filter out those owners to get into bigger debts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Cheefarn said:

Bro, since when did our gov offer policies that benefited the poor? They really do not see the need to so called help the marginal people to continue owning a car. Those people are big drag to the society. 

Extending beyond 10 yrs is already a bad idea for the SG economy. Think about it, instead of paying 130k for a new decent car, you get to drive your old clunker beat up car for another 10 yrs by paying what less than 40K regarding of Cat A or B. Yes you loose your PARF and your road tax goes up every year till +50%. But does these penalties even come close to you spending that 130 to 150k for a new SUV or car? Its a bad deal for our gov

And with lesser new cars sold, our economy also got affected since consumer spending drops significantly also. And it gives our gov lesser bragging rights that we have the youngest average vehicle population in the world despite having the highest car prices in the world too. 

AD biz drops significantly and some may go under as a result. Only independent automotive svcs shops outside stands to gain. But how much can they contribute to our economy?  

Yes this I agree. 
have mentioned before that things can only get worse when the 5k ARF paid cars reaches 10years old. Many more will renew as the loss of parf is only 2.5k. A dumb policy that LTA shoots themselves in the foot. Have said in the past when PARF was 11.2k, 29k and 43k for the different engine capacities. Very very few cars were used beyond 10years.But when it came down to omv/ARF paid PARF system with 80% to the now 50%,  Many more were renewed. 

By renewing govt loses money and growth. Money made from coe is the same. What cannot be fully recovered is the ARF paid for a new car, 7% gst, 20% custom duties and dealer profits which can be multiplied in the economy. 

↡ Advertisement
  • Praise 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×