Singapore ‘open to’ idea of one-off rise in vehicle population

[tjyand]

How are they going to make it up to existing car owners who bought COEs on the basis of no-distance charging? 

[Invigorated]

Lta may notify these owners that it was announced in 2016 of such a possibility..

 

[Raychay]

pay coe, pay road tax, pay distance-based road pricing....what else can be used to squeeze car owners?

If I drive less & get taxed more then even I go across the street to buy food will also drive.

If usage-based costs impacts PHVs, then driving more passengers will cover the expenses. If not rent PHV park at home?

[jcmm]

On 3/6/2024 at 12:54 PM, Tianmo said:

Next please follow up with, "needs more careful studies", "continue to carefully study"  and "we have carefully study the situation, and have decided to set up a panel of specialists to look into the situation". 

The next 3 quotes to be continue.

 

Si beh ho delay.... hopefully my boss allows these excuses to delay my work 1, 2 yrs or even longer while I collect my monthly salary, bonuses and most importantly, self praise to the max.  

[t0y0ta]

On 3/6/2024 at 2:44 PM, Kar_lover said:

Doesn't sound very logical. U will be rewarding them for driving MORE thereby increasing congestion. Eg, i already reach middle tier rate, if i drive another xxxkm, i will hit the highest tier. So even for small reason i will just drive since it will now cost me less to do so. Instead it should be like income tax, the more u "earn" (drive), the more u pay cos u utilise the road more and benefited more. If drive less people pay more, then they are subsidising those who drive more but pay less. 

Don't mean to sound condescending, but less well off can take public transport and only pay for private transport when need arises. Why is there this persistent entitled mentality to have private vehicle?

that joker talking about lower rate for high usage is prob a PHV driver

[curtisK]

showing good history of cash register machine👍

[Kar_lover]

On 3/6/2024 at 2:45 PM, tjyand said:

How are they going to make it up to existing car owners who bought COEs on the basis of no-distance charging? 

Why would they be owed compensation? If distance based charging entitles him to compensation, then the "cut and fill" that was implemented several months ago that caused COEs to fall from the "historic highs" should also entitle the earlier buyers to compensation, no? And what if there were new policies that have the opposite effect  (i.e. less favourable) - would earlier buyers then have to "top up" their COEs because they were not penalised by the new, less favourable policies?

At the end of the day, when a buyer decides to buy a car, he accepts the prevailing COE at that point of time and knows that COEs can go up or down subsequently for whatever reason. This is part and parcel of the "COE gamble" and sometimes u win, sometimes u lose. 

[macrosszero]

On 3/6/2024 at 6:58 PM, t0y0ta said:

that joker talking about lower rate for high usage is prob a PHV driver

People are going to suggest “improvements” to the policy based on their own situation; if they have kids or/and old folk at home, rebates for those. If they are PHV or do a lot of driving - less taxation for more usage. Etc. All self-serving suggestions.

[tjyand]

On 3/6/2024 at 7:38 PM, Kar_lover said:

Why would they be owed compensation? If distance based charging entitles him to compensation, then the "cut and fill" that was implemented several months ago that caused COEs to fall from the "historic highs" should also entitle the earlier buyers to compensation, no? And what if there were new policies that have the opposite effect  (i.e. less favourable) - would earlier buyers then have to "top up" their COEs because they were not penalised by the new, less favourable policies?

At the end of the day, when a buyer decides to buy a car, he accepts the prevailing COE at that point of time and knows that COEs can go up or down subsequently for whatever reason. This is part and parcel of the "COE gamble" and sometimes u win, sometimes u lose. 

I’m not sure if the comparison is correct. Cut and fill affects COE supply and consequently prices (hence the “coe gamble”) but the terms of use are the same I.e. once you pay for coe, the coe covers usage and you don’t get hit with distance based charging. 
 

adding usage based costs to existing COEs that were issued on the non usage cost basis “nerfs” the existing COEs and is in effect adding another term of use to an already issued COE. 
 

put it another way- you paid to park for an hour, and halfway through, you are informed that additional charges are going to be added on to your original parking charges- would you be happy? 

[Benarsenal]

Usage based cost won't be related to COE. It will be related to ERP.

[tjyand]

On 3/6/2024 at 9:26 PM, Benarsenal said:

Usage based cost won't be related to COE. It will be related to ERP.

If it’s not related to coe, then why would it be mentioned as a trade-off to allow the one-off increase in COE? 

[Mockngbrd]

On 3/6/2024 at 2:45 PM, tjyand said:

How are they going to make it up to existing car owners who bought COEs on the basis of no-distance charging? 

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaaa

[Sturtles]

On 3/6/2024 at 9:34 PM, tjyand said:

If it’s not related to coe, then why would it be mentioned as a trade-off to allow the one-off increase in COE? 

Since COE and IU are exclusive to that car,

The scholar could set a proportional distance charging factor.

IE. if u pay 150k for COE, u can drive anywhere anytime for minimal charges

if you contribute too little through COE, eg. 20k, the system will deduct $20 every time the engine is started, and charged at $0.50 per KM

Averaging 20,000km per year, each year this sucker pays $10,000 pa, and $100,000 over 10 years

I shall gift this idea to MOT so GST can remain at 9%

 

[Benarsenal]

On 3/6/2024 at 9:34 PM, tjyand said:

If it’s not related to coe, then why would it be mentioned as a trade-off to allow the one-off increase in COE? 

Aiya so simple logic.

They allow more cars -> need something to control population, hence usage-based cost (via ERP).

[inlinesix]

On 3/6/2024 at 9:53 PM, Benarsenal said:

Aiya so simple logic.

They allow more cars -> need something to control population, hence usage-based cost (via ERP).

Isn’t COE control the population?

[Vratenza]

On 3/6/2024 at 9:18 PM, tjyand said:

I’m not sure if the comparison is correct. Cut and fill affects COE supply and consequently prices (hence the “coe gamble”) but the terms of use are the same I.e. once you pay for coe, the coe covers usage and you don’t get hit with distance based charging. 
 

adding usage based costs to existing COEs that were issued on the non usage cost basis “nerfs” the existing COEs and is in effect adding another term of use to an already issued COE. 
 

put it another way- you paid to park for an hour, and halfway through, you are informed that additional charges are going to be added on to your original parking charges- would you be happy? 

The govt don't owe anyone explanation or owe anyone compensation for any change in direction of their policy ... Take reference of parliamemt sessions.

Just look at most recent change: removal of CPF SA account and SA shielding.

Welcome to Singapore. 

 

 

[Benarsenal]

On 3/6/2024 at 10:10 PM, inlinesix said:

Isn’t COE control the population?

Sorry I should be clearer.

COE control actual vehicle population

Usage-based cost control road population.

[yishunite]

I thot inlinesix was gonna pin his flag to the no more car population stand. Now his gahmen master say can consider when for months inline6 said cannot plus insist i dont understand his airtight logic why cannot change now he must be damn pek cek 🤣