Call for public feedback on COE

[Latio2005A]

  On 6/8/2013 at 3:24 PM, Civic6228 said:

I have always said ..... there is a choice of a re-sale car. Why must "die die" talk about COE and new car ? If a new car is out of reach, go buy something within your reach. Go sg carmart and key in 40k to 50k, I am sure that there is a pretty decent selection. There is nothing wrong with the present COE classification. The german manufacturer are being penalised for their better, more advance technology. They were able to "super/turbo" charged their engine to improve their performance while the Japs has not advance much in term of technology. A Toyota Camry is still using a 4 speed gearbox whereas the entry BMW is using a 8 speed gearbox. I do not have statistic but I do know that a lot of potential Camry, Mazda 6, Accord etc buyers have switch to entry level Germans.

 

B and B car ???? What is B and B car ? Car is never a need in Singapore why is a need to talk about B and B car ? IMO, can afford buy, cannot afford ... there is option in 2nd hand car.

 

The current COE classification is not fair ........ Life is never fair ... if someone believe that life is fair, IMO, the person is pretty na

Edited June 9, 2013 by Latio2005A

[Wind30]

  On 6/9/2013 at 12:14 AM, Turboflat4 said:

There is a vast difference between a tiered income tax structure (which is an entrenched practice in many countries), and differential pricing for the same commodity in a single jurisdiction (which, if Singapore implements this jackass scheme, would be a world first). The ostensible reason for the govt asking for feedback is to improve "social equity". I put it to you that making different people pay different amounts for the same thing is the height of social inequity.

 

This is a factual mistake. I googled "help families to own cars" and below is one of the links I have found. Seriously, people pay different prices for different things EVERYWHERE.... Ultimately, you have to argue based on the merit of the measure we are talking about, ie the cost of funding the program vs the benefits it will bring. Sweeping statements like everyone must pay the same amount for a thing, or asking people to earn more is just pointless.

 

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1435

 

  On 6/9/2013 at 12:14 AM, Turboflat4 said:

Your arguments are as puerile as your sentiments toward those (you think of as) more well-off than you. I could easily turn your arguments backward and level them against you - "if you can't own even a single car without the govt giving you a handout (which is what this amounts to), then you don't deserve a car. Why don't you get off your lazy ass and work harder for that car, instead of asking the gahmen to get the rich to subsidise your want (not need)? Grow up!"

 

duh.... did you follow the thread? That was the argument given by fastfive5.... That was NOT my argument by any stretch of imagingation...

 

  On 6/9/2013 at 12:14 AM, Turboflat4 said:

Remember: a car is not a need in Singapore, it's a want. All the b-------t rationalisations that people have come up with in the popular media to justify why they need a car despite being (at best) marginal owners are just that: rationalisations (and flimsy ones, too). Even the most dire needs (e.g. regular dialysis - one of those "needs" mentioned before, I think) can easily be met with the plethora of private ambulance services in our tiny island.

 

If you can't comfortably afford a car in Singapore, go without. Don't try to screw other people who can afford a car (or even more).

 

I hear this need vs want argument many times. Frankly, it is not as clear cut as you think. Take housing for example. Everyone needs a house. Does one need a landed houses? How about five room flat? What constitutes a need and when does it becomes a want? Someone can define need as a roof over their heads, which could mean squeezing a family of 7 into a one room flat. (I have done before as a child). For others it could mean decent living in a 4 room flat for a family of four. If you look at housing policies, there are subsidies for up to EC level. Is EC a need or a want?

 

The same argument can be applied for cars. Transportation at some form is needed by everyone. Different people have different perceptions of whether a car is needed so it is kind of pointless to argue it this way.

 

The root of the discussion should be how much the policy will cost and what benefits it will bring, like all decisions should be based on.

 

For me, the falling birth rate is Singapore's biggest issue. We can do nothing and complain forever that there are more and more FT or really have a concerted series of pro-family measures. You can argue until the cow go home about "individual responsibility" and how singaporeans should stop relying on government for everything, but the sad fact is if the government do nothing, do you think our fertility rate will rise by itself?

 

To me since they are reviewing housing and transport issue, now it the TIME to craft a series of pro family measures.

 

We should craft the policies in such a way that for families with children (2 or 3), the car and housing should be cheaper.

Edited June 9, 2013 by Wind30

[Wt_know]

ok ok ... everyone should stop whining and start winning ... whatever they want ... go figure

 

  On 6/8/2013 at 1:04 PM, Wind30 said:

err... using your argument..

 

if they have a high paying job, then they can afford to pay the surcharge to own 2 or more cars right??? If they cannot afford the surcharge, then STOP WHINING and get a higher paying job. Grow up people.

Edited June 9, 2013 by Wt_know

[Dna_engine]

  On 6/8/2013 at 2:55 PM, 5936 said:

Since COE is to "not about making profit", it should be based on chance to secure a COE, base on lucky draw. There should not be base on highest range of moneys offered.

No dealers please.

No need to split them into different categories.Simple numbers of COE to be drawn and awarded to the equal numbers of bidders.They can use to register any type of cars they chooses.

 

100% Agree. One Cat and let the market decide. If the market drives the prices of cars out of reach then I will take public transport. If we start tweaking and fail, everyone will start complaining again.

Edited June 9, 2013 by Dna_engine

[Gitanic]

  On 6/9/2013 at 2:50 AM, Dna_engine said:

100% Agree. One Cat and let the market decide. If the market drives the prices of cars out of reach then I will take public transport. If we start tweaking and fail, everyone will start complaining again.

Another cat for commercial vehicles.

 

Currently the turnover scheme is but silly.

Edited June 9, 2013 by Gitanic

[Benarsenal]

My thoughts:

 

My family has three cars. All cheapo second hand cars. We need it cos got 3 working adults who travel for work. Are we or will we be penalised for that? We buy second hand so never use up COE quota. I don't get why Govt always assume people must pay through their nose to buy new things. And I don't even want to go into the debate of why got three working adults in the household. That's an entirely separate debate already.

 

I personally think we must improve public transport VASTLY first before we talk about penalising car owners. As it is public transport is not a viable alternative for a good percentage of the population.

[Gendut]

Still, people don't learn, do they?

 

After all the consultation, feedback, ideas, suggestions.........they will come up with whatever they thought of in the begining and use the sessions as tools that "See, we adopted the people's ideas!".

 

I'm not going to waste time on this feedback mechanism. I'll use the best feedback mechanism democracy has built-in to the system. And that is your vote.

 

They screw it up, me, my family, my friends, my colleagues, my neighbours, my barber, my doctor....basically everyone I meet will get an education of how they've screwed it up.

 

Its a capitalist market. You want that million dollars salary, you'd better do the job or we WILL get someone else to do it. :angry:

[Wt_know]

will you give up your car once transportation is VASTLY improved?

once a person had tasted a car ... it's hard to give up ... die die must buy ... even paying through their nose ...

 

  On 6/9/2013 at 3:11 AM, Benarsenal said:

My thoughts:

 

My family has three cars. All cheapo second hand cars. We need it cos got 3 working adults who travel for work. Are we or will we be penalised for that? We buy second hand so never use up COE quota. I don't get why Govt always assume people must pay through their nose to buy new things. And I don't even want to go into the debate of why got three working adults in the household. That's an entirely separate debate already.

 

I personally think we must improve public transport VASTLY first before we talk about penalising car owners. As it is public transport is not a viable alternative for a good percentage of the population.

Edited June 9, 2013 by Wt_know

[Benarsenal]

  On 6/9/2013 at 3:48 AM, Wt_know said:

will you give up your car once transportation is VASTLY improved?

once a person had tasted a car ... it's hard to give up ... die die must buy ... even paying through their nose ...

 

Yes.

 

I've travelled to many countries where their public transport system is extensive, fast, reliable, reasonably priced, not extremely overcrowded, and has great reach to many places. I'll gladly not drive if that was the case in Singapore.

[macrosszero]

Those people who own 2006-2009 cars can see the COE expiry on their horizon and a large chunk ARE thinking, "die liao, how to change car? I cannot afford COE! Better complain/feedback/suggest "changes" to the existing COE structure so I have a better chance to buy my next car......"

 

That's why there's a "conversation". There's quite a lot of these people... you have to wonder, how many truly have "need" for a car.

 

To penalize individuals for owning more than one car is stupid. Its like penalizing someone for being smarter/more hardworking/savvy (which in this case is true, in order to own more than one car). It does not bring down the number of cars on the road because a multiple car owner can only drive one car at a time (maybe his spouse/brother/brother-in-law/son can, but how many multigeneration families do we have living under the same roof, statistically?)

 

Penalizing households on the other hand may make sense such that only the most needy member of the family gets to own a car and he/she has to think about how to efficiently use it to serve the rest of the nuclear family's need.

 

The former will not resolve congestion. The latter will.

 

What the marginal car owners are asking for, once you strip away the veneer of "needs" is for COE to be allocated away from people who can afford it, to people who *can't* afford it. Do you think that will solve congestion? If it doesn't, what's the point of doing it in the first place?

 

Give *you* the option to own a car, but put it on road conditions like KL or Bangkok, you want or not?

[Mockngbrd]

Then when these ppl finally hav car, they will kpkb erp too expensive, have different price for them

[Benarsenal]

  On 6/9/2013 at 4:16 AM, Macrosszero said:

Those people who own 2006-2009 cars can see the COE expiry on their horizon and a large chunk ARE thinking, "die liao, how to change car? I cannot afford COE! Better complain/feedback/suggest "changes" to the existing COE structure so I have a better chance to buy my next car......"

 

That's why there's a "conversation". There's quite a lot of these people... you have to wonder, how many truly have "need" for a car.

 

To penalize individuals for owning more than one car is stupid. Its like penalizing someone for being smarter/more hardworking/savvy (which in this case is true, in order to own more than one car). It does not bring down the number of cars on the road because a multiple car owner can only drive one car at a time (maybe his spouse/brother/brother-in-law/son can, but how many multigeneration families do we have living under the same roof, statistically?)

 

Penalizing households on the other hand may make sense such that only the most needy member of the family gets to own a car and he/she has to think about how to efficiently use it to serve the rest of the nuclear family's need.

 

The former will not resolve congestion. The latter will.

 

What the marginal car owners are asking for, once you strip away the veneer of "needs" is for COE to be allocated away from people who can afford it, to people who *can't* afford it. Do you think that will solve congestion? If it doesn't, what's the point of doing it in the first place?

 

Give *you* the option to own a car, but put it on road conditions like KL or Bangkok, you want or not?

 

You'll probably be very surprised at how many. Isn't that what Govt is encouraging?

 

Is not like many people now can afford to move out and have their own place anyway.

[Perseus76]

remove the 10 yr scrap rule....nowadays, cars can be so well maintained and technology has made cars to be clean efficient.

 

so if every one can drive beyond 10yrs, I am sure many people will continue to maintain their car well, and whole onto the car longer.

 

 

[Wt_know]

wow ... the greatest idea i ever heard

 

opps ... say bye bye to your idea ... i think you know why .... no $$$ no talk

 

  On 6/9/2013 at 7:06 AM, Perseus76 said:

remove the 10 yr scrap rule....nowadays, cars can be so well maintained and technology has made cars to be clean efficient.

 

so if every one can drive beyond 10yrs, I am sure many people will continue to maintain their car well, and whole onto the car longer.

Edited June 9, 2013 by Wt_know

[Busybody]

just keep releasing more COEs to keep costs low.

Jam up the roads and carparks.

naturally, nobody will wanna drive anymore.

Faster to ride bike to cycle to work

 

[Dna_engine]

  On 6/9/2013 at 2:55 AM, Gitanic said:

Another cat for commercial vehicles.

 

Currently the turnover scheme is but silly.

 

Was referring to just the private car category. Commercial vehicles and motorcycles should be the other 2 cats.

 

Well, the next thing that needs to be done is revamp the road tax system. Currently, its based on capacity. The right way should be based on emissions like in UK, at least for the new cars.

[Hydrocarbon]

  On 6/9/2013 at 12:26 AM, Latio2005A said:

Got money, buy rolls royce.

No money, buy B&B secondhand car.

Live within our means. SUPER AGREE!

 

Agreed with the sentiments of your statement, but no money, take public transport.

 

  On 6/9/2013 at 3:48 AM, Wt_know said:

will you give up your car once transportation is VASTLY improved?

once a person had tasted a car ... it's hard to give up ... die die must buy ... even paying through their nose ...

 

Not always true, while it's hard to give up the convenience, I've had friends who did, just because the price of maintaining a car isn't worth it anymore, or they changed jobs and didn't require the car any more.

 

I think the current system is ok, but can be improved. Maybe instead of the capacity of the engine, COE can be categorised by the OMV instead. This will differentiate between BnB cars and luxury cars. If the dealers want to strip down the car, by all means, then people would start seeing the old luxury cars as BnB cars already, so the luxury cachet will be lost.

 

Besides, from the list of new cars sold in 2012, BMW and Merc seems to be the best sellers, so luxury is already becoming common place.

[Mllcg]

  On 6/9/2013 at 3:48 AM, Wt_know said:

will you give up your car once transportation is VASTLY improved?

once a person had tasted a car ... it's hard to give up ... die die must buy ... even paying through their nose ...

 

japan standard then i will