Should COE cert follow the owner, not the car?

[KARTer]

If the purpose of the current COE scheme is to control car population, we can make the COE cert follow the owner instead of the car and still achieve this purpose, yes/no?

 

This way, car population is controlled yet when we need to change our car, we need not suffer when the prevailing COE price is sky high.

 

Also, on a slightly separate topic, COE bidders should pay what they bid, and not the cut-off price (which can be much lower than what the bidders actually bid). This way, kia-su bidding will be less rampant and COE prices will be less likely to sky-rocket, making you and I suffer.

 

Please feel free to agree or disagree............ (of course, lta's revenue thru COE may be affected, but their problems is theirs, not ours)

[Dafansu]

then those who have car now will forever be a car owners. Those with no car now forever no need to buy car. Do you think it's logical?

[Haziqko]

If the purpose of the current COE scheme is to control car population, we can make the COE cert follow the owner instead of the car and still achieve this purpose, yes/no?

 

This way, car population is controlled yet when we need to change our car, we need not suffer when the prevailing COE price is sky high.

 

Also, on a slightly separate topic, COE bidders should pay what they bid, and not the cut-off price (which can be much lower than what the bidders actually bid). This way, kia-su bidding will be less rampant and COE prices will be less likely to sky-rocket, making you and I suffer.

 

Please feel free to agree or disagree............ (of course, lta's revenue thru COE may be affected, but their problems is theirs, not ours)

 

 

Frankly... many disagree to even have the "COE" .... Why do we have to pay for a certificate to own a car since we already paying the road tax...???

[Wolfy3769]

u have this idea is because COE is currently on the uptrend..

but what abt when COE is on the downtrend? u will like it to follow the car instead of the owner.

 

the problem with COE follow owner was that there maybe a lot of car without COE in the scrapyard or 2nd hand resellers cause i think we like to change car quite often.. either due to backside itchy or due to car giving owner big headache.

 

from the environmental point of view, this will be a waste. Of course this is the planet problem... not ours.

[Kiatemail]

If the purpose of the current COE scheme is to control car population, we can make the COE cert follow the owner instead of the car and still achieve this purpose, yes/no?

 

This way, car population is controlled yet when we need to change our car, we need not suffer when the prevailing COE price is sky high.

 

Also, on a slightly separate topic, COE bidders should pay what they bid, and not the cut-off price (which can be much lower than what the bidders actually bid). This way, kia-su bidding will be less rampant and COE prices will be less likely to sky-rocket, making you and I suffer.

 

Please feel free to agree or disagree............ (of course, lta's revenue thru COE may be affected, but their problems is theirs, not ours)

 

 

I would feel one household shld be allowed to have 1 car. Any addition should be tax heavily. This way is a much more effective way to control cars on road.

[Silver_blade]

then those who have car now will forever be a car owners. Those with no car now forever no need to buy car. Do you think it's logical?

I share your sentiment. And how about those car owner who wants to give up driving completely? They have to return it to gov or sell in the open market? It just doesn't make any sense at all.

[Little_prince]

If the purpose of the current COE scheme is to control car population, we can make the COE cert follow the owner instead of the car and still achieve this purpose, yes/no?

 

This way, car population is controlled yet when we need to change our car, we need not suffer when the prevailing COE price is sky high.

 

Also, on a slightly separate topic, COE bidders should pay what they bid, and not the cut-off price (which can be much lower than what the bidders actually bid). This way, kia-su bidding will be less rampant and COE prices will be less likely to sky-rocket, making you and I suffer.

 

Please feel free to agree or disagree............ (of course, lta's revenue thru COE may be affected, but their problems is theirs, not ours)

 

then you need to pay a 60k COE when you buy 2nd hand car lor

 

 

[Vextan]

yet another brainless and shallow minded soul hoping for the system to tailor suit for his benefits and nothing else.

Edited December 9, 2010 by Vextan

[Csnewbie]

Frankly i believe if we manage population properly,we would have a lesser problem of COE.

 

Its all a population issue.

 

Thing is security.

[Celicar]

I would feel one household shld be allowed to have 1 car. Any addition should be tax heavily. This way is a much more effective way to control cars on road.

 

I was thinking of something similar. Rather than a straight prohibition, it should be a tiered system of COE, that is to say a household (identified by address, rather than name of family member) that registers a second or more COE has to pay, say 1.5 times of the applicable COE before it can get a second COE, 2.5 times of the applicable COE before it can get the third COE, etc.

 

Another possibility is a modification of what TS has suggested - that the COE of any car that changes owners to be thrown back into the pool for bidding again, thus increasing the COE supply. That means even second hand car owners will have to go for bidding. I know, the COE is for 10 years and thus the second hand car may stay in Singapore for more than 10 years, but I don't see any issue with that, cars can last for more than 10 years. The good thing about this is that COEs that are currently attached to cars that are sitting in second hand car shops will be freed up.

 

Otherwise, we will be caught in this vicious circle for quite a while more, unless there is a change in policy such as to give strong incentives for cars to be scraped or exported, otherwise it is very hard for COE supply to increase.

 

 

[Yeshe]

I would feel one household shld be allowed to have 1 car. Any addition should be tax heavily. This way is a much more effective way to control cars on road.

 

cannot offend the rich, if they run road how?

[Avant_stealth]

I was thinking of something similar. Rather than a straight prohibition, it should be a tiered system of COE, that is to say a household (identified by address, rather than name of family member) that registers a second or more COE has to pay, say 1.5 times of the applicable COE before it can get a second COE, 2.5 times of the applicable COE before it can get the third COE, etc.

 

Another possibility is a modification of what TS has suggested - that the COE of any car that changes owners to be thrown back into the pool for bidding again, thus increasing the COE supply. That means even second hand car owners will have to go for bidding. I know, the COE is for 10 years and thus the second hand car may stay in Singapore for more than 10 years, but I don't see any issue with that, cars can last for more than 10 years. The good thing about this is that COEs that are currently attached to cars that are sitting in second hand car shops will be freed up.

 

Otherwise, we will be caught in this vicious circle for quite a while more, unless there is a change in policy such as to give strong incentives for cars to be scraped or exported, otherwise it is very hard for COE supply to increase.

 

 

i agree with this and Kiatemail . Mayb it should be a given for every family to own at least 1 car per household (stay in, nt investment hse). Then no such thing as bidding war for coe. No discrimination.

 

[GLZT]

I would feel one household shld be allowed to have 1 car. Any addition should be tax heavily. This way is a much more effective way to control cars on road.

 

Its not fair at all, what if a household is full bachelor and bachelorette, all of them are rich and successful, you expect them to share one car?

 

PS: Its not easy to calculate household, as there are many individuals that are possibly not living with their family or they are all alone, unless you calculate by the units of houses, which then again lead back up to ONE of the possibility of the top. Its just one example, there are alot more.

Edited December 9, 2010 by GLZT

[Celicar]

Its not fair at all, what if a household is full bachelor and bachelorette, all of them are rich and successful, you expect them to share one car?

 

Kiatemail said "Any addition should be tax heavily", didn't say definitely cannot. In your scenario, they are "rich and successful", so they can afford to pay more or even live in different houses.

[Eyke]

(of course, lta's revenue thru COE may be affected, but their problems is theirs, not ours)

 

the answer to your question is this question:

 

r u in control of the COE system or are they?

[DarrenR10]

I was thinking of something similar. Rather than a straight prohibition, it should be a tiered system of COE, that is to say a household (identified by address, rather than name of family member) that registers a second or more COE has to pay, say 1.5 times of the applicable COE before it can get a second COE, 2.5 times of the applicable COE before it can get the third COE, etc.

 

Another possibility is a modification of what TS has suggested - that the COE of any car that changes owners to be thrown back into the pool for bidding again, thus increasing the COE supply. That means even second hand car owners will have to go for bidding. I know, the COE is for 10 years and thus the second hand car may stay in Singapore for more than 10 years, but I don't see any issue with that, cars can last for more than 10 years. The good thing about this is that COEs that are currently attached to cars that are sitting in second hand car shops will be freed up.

 

Otherwise, we will be caught in this vicious circle for quite a while more, unless there is a change in policy such as to give strong incentives for cars to be scraped or exported, otherwise it is very hard for COE supply to increase.

 

 

 

From what i see, usually those household who owns more than 1 car are mostly quite well to do, so it will be back to the same arguement of the rich pushing up the price cos they can afford it. If they really want to control .. why not make it .. COE is not refundable when u selling ur car, like a one time payment and u can drive the car as long as the car can operate. Or dealers shld not be allow to bid for COE. They just sell cars, buyer will bid their own COE on their own after they booked a car. This will clearly show the demand and supply situation.

[Kezg1]

If the purpose of the current COE scheme is to control car population, we can make the COE cert follow the owner instead of the car and still achieve this purpose, yes/no?

 

This way, car population is controlled yet when we need to change our car, we need not suffer when the prevailing COE price is sky high.

 

Also, on a slightly separate topic, COE bidders should pay what they bid, and not the cut-off price (which can be much lower than what the bidders actually bid). This way, kia-su bidding will be less rampant and COE prices will be less likely to sky-rocket, making you and I suffer.

 

Please feel free to agree or disagree............ (of course, lta's revenue thru COE may be affected, but their problems is theirs, not ours)

 

 

We shldn't even have a COE in the 1st place......name me how many country in this world have this regulation....sigh

[Mrlau]

Its not fair at all, what if a household is full bachelor and bachelorette, all of them are rich and successful, you expect them to share one car?

 

Some people are like that, they successful already not allow others to be successful.