Surcharge for Those Who Own More than 1 car

[Byond]

i tot COE, ERP, ROAD TAX, Parking charges are sufficient to deter or make one consider carefully on the possibility of buying a car?

 

Do note that not all pple buy car for leisure purposes..

some pple buy car due to no choice, job requirements stated need to have a car, esp sales / service pple...

 

[The_Bear]

i tot COE, ERP, ROAD TAX, Parking charges are sufficient to deter or make one consider carefully on the possibility of buying a car?

 

Do note that not all pple buy car for leisure purposes..

some pple buy car due to no choice, job requirements stated need to have a car, esp sales / service pple...

 

Well, some people actually think they own a car. They usually own Mercedes C180, BMW 320i and Kia Forte Koup.

 

Imaginery cars do not cause traffic jams.

 

 

[S2077s]

It is definitely usage that causes congestion which needs to be managed, not ownership. I can't drive both cars to work or to the mall in the weekends. However, i would definitely need 2 parking lots to park my cars. Since i am already paying road taxes and COEs for both the cars, there really shouldn't be any more surcharges. This is a free economy, you are free to spend $10 for a new pair of sneakers or you can spend $100. Likewise, you may also decide if you wanna buy 10pairs of $10 sneakers for the $100 you were willing to spend to begin with. To house 10 pairs of sneakers, of course, you need to buy a bigger shoe cabinet, costs 10X more if you send your shoes for cleaning. But at the end of the day, you still wear that 1 pair of sneakers whenever you go out.

 

On the contrary, perhaps what no one has explored is whether we can reward those whom actually give up ownership and thus usage. The reward for non-usage are already in place, although they are largely a form of deterrence rather than reward in nature. ERP, parking costs, petrol taxes. I am sure these factors have to a minimal effect, curbed usage frequency for some people.

 

To take this step a little further, what if you are rewarded like a few thousand dollars to give up driving rights for a stipulated amount of time? Everyone has a price. For a motorhead like me, a year's non-driving is probably say.... worth 80-100K. To avoid system abuse like saving that 100K and plouging it right back into a shiny new car the following year, perhaps the 100K should go only into CPF under special account or something.

 

This is hypothetical of course, and i am no statistical expert to suggest how this calculation should work. But if say 20K were to be awarded to any current active car owner/users to give up ownership/driving rights for a lifetime, how many people out there do you think will take up this offer? System management is a different issue of course, just like how crimes are lawfully illegal but never subject to exhaustive means to deter them 100%. I guess its controversial, the details definitely needs fine tuning. Loop holes surely abound. But this could be an idea that should be further considered.

 

So, what would be your price? No shortcuts, no recourse, just plain honestly and integrity to give up driving for a year, 10 years, or even a lifetime?

[Drumstick]

then how about those whose car COE is due?? how do they renew? or those who got lemon car and need to change fast? how do they renew?

 

For COE car...follow the same as new car to ballot for it lor...

 

Lemon car...use existing balloted chip and continue with it.

 

Only way to reduce car on road...is to make it ultimate luxury...

but that is gonna pissed off alot of people... lolz..

[Kr_toy]

would u want to pay loads of money for a car and limit yourself to use it? The govt is not making a mistake in reducing COE. it's making a mistake in not reducing even further! more ERPs and higher petrol won't solve the problem as those who've already spend loads of money will want to use the car.

 

if you really want to enjoy your car, certainly it's better to pay for that amount rather than have all the running costs thrown at you later on. and more ERPs won't solve weekend congestion in the city as those who already have cars won't mind spending that few dollars to enter ERP on weekends. So where does that leave us? Clearly, ERP and high petrol, limiting usage will not ease congestion fully. It may ease congestion on certain days but you'll still get mad house traffic in City Hall, Orchard and the likes on weekends.

 

Put 7 days 10 dollar/gantry ERP and we will see the car disappear very fast

 

[Gearoil]

All I can sense is...TS is on sch holiday and have harboured strong anti-elite feelings.

 

Seeing that he is not given the wants, like that of those who have rich papas and mamas...

 

He cries out for vengence for rules to 'make the lives of the elite harder'..

 

 

[Theludicrous]

like i read somewhere before, govt. could imply better rebates for public transport or even better for OPC plates.

[Extramint]

All I can sense is...TS is on sch holiday and have harboured strong anti-elite feelings.

Seeing that he is not given the wants, like that of those who have rich papas and mamas...

 

He cries out for vengence for rules to 'make the lives of the elite harder'..

 

lol quoted for truth.

[Relagsingh]

Oh well, guess not everyone can see the big picture. Here's a bar tax theory for your reading pleasure:

 

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

 

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay $1.

The sixth would pay $3.

The seventh would pay $7.

The eighth would pay $12.

The ninth would pay $18.

The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

 

So, that's what they decided to do.

 

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20."Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

 

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'

 

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

 

And so:

 

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).

The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).

The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).

The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).

The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).

The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

 

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free.

 

But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

 

"I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man.

 

He pointed to the tenth man," but he got $10!"

 

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man.

 

"I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"

 

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

 

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

 

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

 

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

 

u've summed it up quite nicely.

 

 

[Nmnhnlm]

All I can sense is...TS is on sch holiday and have harboured strong anti-elite feelings.

 

Seeing that he is not given the wants, like that of those who have rich papas and mamas...

 

He cries out for vengence for rules to 'make the lives of the elite harder'..

 

Amaze to see you pple still bother to post in the thread.....

[Felipe]

Put 7 days 10 dollar/gantry ERP and we will see the car disappear very fast

 

don't think LTA will do that, don't wana kill the business in the city area.

[Relagsingh]

Amaze to see you pple still bother to post in the thread.....

 

amazed to still see u here. HWZ server still down?

Edited March 16, 2010 by Relagsingh

[Kr_toy]

don't think LTA will do that, don't wana kill the business in the city area.

 

 

LTA is not interested on building more gantries, but will charge based on the GPS tracking that is the equipment will be paid directly by car owner and they can automatically collect money wherever you go.

Coming soon dude!

[Benarsenal]

It is definitely usage that causes congestion which needs to be managed, not ownership. I can't drive both cars to work or to the mall in the weekends. However, i would definitely need 2 parking lots to park my cars. Since i am already paying road taxes and COEs for both the cars, there really shouldn't be any more surcharges. This is a free economy, you are free to spend $10 for a new pair of sneakers or you can spend $100. Likewise, you may also decide if you wanna buy 10pairs of $10 sneakers for the $100 you were willing to spend to begin with. To house 10 pairs of sneakers, of course, you need to buy a bigger shoe cabinet, costs 10X more if you send your shoes for cleaning. But at the end of the day, you still wear that 1 pair of sneakers whenever you go out.

 

On the contrary, perhaps what no one has explored is whether we can reward those whom actually give up ownership and thus usage. The reward for non-usage are already in place, although they are largely a form of deterrence rather than reward in nature. ERP, parking costs, petrol taxes. I am sure these factors have to a minimal effect, curbed usage frequency for some people.

 

To take this step a little further, what if you are rewarded like a few thousand dollars to give up driving rights for a stipulated amount of time? Everyone has a price. For a motorhead like me, a year's non-driving is probably say.... worth 80-100K. To avoid system abuse like saving that 100K and plouging it right back into a shiny new car the following year, perhaps the 100K should go only into CPF under special account or something.

 

This is hypothetical of course, and i am no statistical expert to suggest how this calculation should work. But if say 20K were to be awarded to any current active car owner/users to give up ownership/driving rights for a lifetime, how many people out there do you think will take up this offer? System management is a different issue of course, just like how crimes are lawfully illegal but never subject to exhaustive means to deter them 100%. I guess its controversial, the details definitely needs fine tuning. Loop holes surely abound. But this could be an idea that should be further considered.

 

So, what would be your price? No shortcuts, no recourse, just plain honestly and integrity to give up driving for a year, 10 years, or even a lifetime?

 

To me, no amount of money can make me give up driving. Driving is a lot more than convenience. To me it signifies freedom. I like being in control of the car, being able to decide where to go, how I go, when I go. That is something public transport can NEVER give, no matter how good it may be.

 

[Nmnhnlm]

To me, no amount of money can make me give up driving. Driving is a lot more than convenience. To me it signifies freedom. I like being in control of the car, being able to decide where to go, how I go, when I go. That is something public transport can NEVER give, no matter how good it may be.

 

Yeah man! thats the spirit! Should drive thsoe elites and lesser mortalas out of the road!

[Pisces69]

Oh well, guess not everyone can see the big picture. Here's a bar tax theory for your reading pleasure:

 

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

 

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay $1.

The sixth would pay $3.

The seventh would pay $7.

The eighth would pay $12.

The ninth would pay $18.

The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

 

So, that's what they decided to do.

 

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20."Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

 

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'

 

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

 

And so:

 

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).

The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).

The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).

The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).

The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).

The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

 

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free.

 

But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

 

"I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man.

 

He pointed to the tenth man," but he got $10!"

 

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man.

 

"I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"

 

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

 

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

 

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

 

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

=================

 

A very interesting tale but in taxes in SG, everybody pays GST & GST affects the poor more than the rich.

 

We also have many types of "indirect" taxes in the form of fees, levies, surcharges etc which affect the lower income more as it makes up a larger % of their income.

 

$50 to someone earning $10K is small change but to someone earning $800, it is quite a lot.

 

Even Msia has decided to delay imposing a GST type tax as they admit it affects the lower income more than the higher income & they r afraid of losing the support (and votes) of the lower income if GST is implemented.

 

It wil only b implemented after their elections.

 

[Pisces69]

wow that's a good one.

 

You explain the tax system better than any Taxman or minister man!

==============

 

It has been "bent" cos we have GST which we all pay.

 

His 4 men who dont pay taxes dont exist in SG society.

[S2077s]

Yeah man! thats the spirit! Should drive thsoe elites and lesser mortalas out of the road!

 

Everyone has a price. No matter how much freedom driving gives, you still cant drive into a park, or restricted, area, private land, or when there are simply no roads. 1 million dollars on the table. Or make it 10. Think seriously, for 10 mil i would give up driving in Singapore for a lifetime.

 

But of course, the plan is to reduce congestion, not annihilate them completely and create another monster altogether. So with a price tag, we can further deter thru rewards.