Poorly conceived policy leading to messy implementaion

[Baal]

I believe the Dyno may serve another strategic purpose. To catch mods done that are not clearly/easily visible to the naked eye.

 

So if car at crank based on manufacturer's spec is 150hp, but the car on dyno measures 150whp.......= zoom in & investigate, ....or even lim kopi.

[Furrynadz]

I believe the Dyno may serve another strategic purpose. To catch mods done that are not clearly/easily visible to the naked eye.

 

So if car at crank based on manufacturer's spec is 150hp, but the car on dyno measures 150whp.......= zoom in & investigate, ....or even lim kopi.

 

 

mods visible to naked eye = usually poorly done on jap cars which dont improve much power, or those on conti cars which have so many diff types of stage 2 add ons which are impossible for the folks at inspection centre to monitor

[Celicar]

I really wonder why my mummy used to tell force me to study hard and become a "scholar" when those richest old men around me who owned multiple properties are sam-seng who spoke halting English but fluent hokkien.

Because she cares about you and your long-term education. She wants you to have as many options as possible and the best possible chance to succeed. Wake up and be grateful.

[Baal]

My impression of "scholars" or straight As students in uni really isn't that good when I entered the workforce. They are seriously 0ver-hyped. I really wonder why my mummy used to tell force me to study hard and become a "scholar" when those richest old men around me who owned multiple properties are sam-seng who spoke halting English but fluent hokkien

 

Who the hell voted in these smart scholars whose brains are in their ass? Please raise your hands.

 

Certification , degree is but a passport to be gainfully employed. Whether can climb or not is a separate matter. I believe she at the very least wanted you to have a safety net & had ur interest at heart.

 

As for the samseng(s), its not rare that some made their first pot, from no so clean origins. From that 1st pot, they expand along cleaner routes. But for a start they need to be business smart.

 

However, for an honest to goodness person, O level starting pay $1400. Poly Dip $1800, Gen Deg $2200. (Safety Net). Though I would deem such rates as being underemployed, the reason stems from elsewhere. Parents only have good intentions.

[Hydrocarbon]

Best is still cat by physical size. Sounds like I am playing old record.

 

Like that MPV will get penalised and cars like Lotus Elise type will get lower rates? Can't be what.. OMV still the best, IMHO...

 

actually, a guy I know from insurance told me that red car's premium usually slightly higher....

 

dictate color ? White color car ARF 50% disc. Blue color car +50% ARF

 

Then import in white, wrap blue? Haha.. Penalised?

[Kangadrool]

what penalised?

 

Bigger = bigger footprint OTR = less agile = more congestion = pay more.

 

 

Like that MPV will get penalised and cars like Lotus Elise type will get lower rates? Can't be what.. OMV still the best, IMHO...

 

 

Then import in white, wrap blue? Haha.. Penalised?

 

[Acemundo]

 

I actually don't think the COE changes were populist. In fact, this government is very afraid to be seen as populist, and will do things that avoid being so. What would have been really populist would have been to peg COE categories to OMV, thus making it obvious that they're targeting the rich. They zealously wanted to avoid sending this message to the rich, that's how they came up with this dumb 130bhp rule.

in general, the COE policies were not populist.

 

however, the last one about limiting Cat A to 130bhp, is. it started with too many branded cars like mercs, bmw, audi, vw and Volvo having significant number of cars registered in Cat A. their ultimate aim is to allow more B&B cars like altis to be registered in this category. B&B cars are deemed more affordable by masses and hence this is the populist part about it.

 

what I don't agree is :- once you started differentiating car ownership by $, you are essentially allowing more wealthy people to own car. but to come up with an policy to restrict Cat A to B&B cars, just doesn't cut it. people that buy B&B cars are not poor anyway. and what is the point about addressing equality in Cat A when the bigger scheme is about money can buy car ownership.

[Baal]

 

Like that MPV will get penalised and cars like Lotus Elise type will get lower rates? Can't be what.. OMV still the best, IMHO...

 

 

Then import in white, wrap blue? Haha.. Penalised?

Dimensions decide road tax while omv decides cat?

 

Or apply to both rt & cat. ? 50% weightage each (dimensions/omv)

 

[Hydrocarbon]

what penalised?

 

Bigger = bigger footprint OTR = less agile = more congestion = pay more.

 

True, but then one MPV can sit a family of 5-7, and a sports coupe (2 seater) seats two.

[Kangadrool]

Then, tax by another factor lor, by # of seats.

Example lah.......

MPV = $1,000 + ($100x7) = $1,700

Lotus = $700 + ($100x2) = $900

 

True, but then one MPV can sit a family of 5-7, and a sports coupe (2 seater) seats two.

 

[1fast1]

Then, tax by another factor lor, by # of seats.

Example lah.......

MPV = $1,000 + ($100x7) = $1,700

Lotus = $700 + ($100x2) = $900

 

 

I was thinking of that, but shouldn't it be the other way around - that is, if you can seat more, you should be penalised less? If you're carrying more at a time, you're utilising road space more efficiently (of course, whether you're actually using that capacity cannot be predicted).

 

So I think longest exterior dimension divided by (manufacturer)-claimed seating capacity should be the metric to determine all the relevant taxes.

Edited June 30, 2014 by Turboflat4

[Hydrocarbon]

Then, tax by another factor lor, by # of seats.

Example lah.......

MPV = $1,000 + ($100x7) = $1,700

Lotus = $700 + ($100x2) = $900

 

Families will complain.. Say use MPV send grandma grandpa etc etc, why pay more tax than one rich man driving a sports car? Haha..

 

Personally, I would prefer OMV tax.. Like ARF..

 

@Baal , you should talk to @turboflat4 haha.. Same idea...

[Kangadrool]

Just an example lah. Final implementation, we leave it to gahment ministars lor (whether want to penalize more seats or less seats).

 

But, I reckon tax by another factor for phyical size is enough, don't need to add another layer - by # of seats.

 

Like what you mentioned the other way round method, both MPV and Lotus coupe will come back about the same tax amount to pay 'cos smaller size pays less, but pay more for less seats. Bigger size pays more, but concession for more seats.

 

 

I was thinking of that, but shouldn't it be the other way around - that is, if you can seat more, you should be penalised less? If you're carrying more at a time, you're utilising road space more efficiently (of course, whether you're actually using that capacity cannot be predicted).

 

So I think longest exterior dimension divided by (manufacturer)-claimed seating capacity should be the metric to determine all the relevant taxes.

 

[Ryu]

There will be people complaining big cars but empty seats most of the time, end up take up more road space but pay lesser tax.

 

Neverending debate.

[Kangadrool]

Tax by OMV is bad! It's penalising those ADs that bring in better specced cars.

 

 

Families will complain.. Say use MPV send grandma grandpa etc etc, why pay more tax than one rich man driving a sports car? Haha..

 

Personally, I would prefer OMV tax.. Like ARF..

 

@Baal , you should talk to @turboflat4 haha.. Same idea...

 

Yup, so just go by physical size will do. Don't need to add another layre, i.e. by # of seats.

 

Afterall, whether it's fully seated or not, it's still occupying the same road space.

 

There will be people complaining big cars but empty seats most of the time, end up take up more road space but pay lesser tax.

 

Neverending debate.

 

[1fast1]

Like what you mentioned the other way round method, both MPV and Lotus coupe will come back about the same tax amount to pay 'cos smaller size pays less, but pay more for less seats. Bigger size pays more, but concession for more seats.

 

 

 

But that does sound like a fairer system. Why should the Lotus be taxed lower than a B&B MPV which can ferry a bigger family to boot?

 

Also, if they really wanted to be populist, they can also offer incentives to large families to buy "people carriers" - e.g. create a separate COE category for MPVs, and offer a rebate for any family with, say 4 or more members living under one roof with no other cars. Of course, if they decide to buy another car later, they'll have to "give back" the rebate, albeit prorated. Additional rebates/incentives can be considered for those with medical needs (disability, need for dialysis, etc.)

 

Not thought through this deeply enough, just throwing ideas out there. For all I know this could be decried as a dumb "scholar-worthy" idea.

[1fast1]

Tax by OMV is bad! It's penalising those ADs that bring in better specced cars.

 

It's worse than that. Adding airbags adds to safety but also OMV. Which is why you used to see the situation where some Jap car ADs would bring in cars with fewer airbags than the flagship model with 5-star Euro NCAP ratings, but proudly (and misleadingly) advertise those safety ratings.

 

The main reason for their bringing in the lower-specced model was to cut the OMV to make the car saleable in Singapore, but I think you'd agree that safety is something that just shouldn't be compromised.

[Ryu]

 

But that does sound like a fairer system. Why should the Lotus be taxed lower than a B&B MPV which can ferry a bigger family to boot?

 

Also, if they really wanted to be populist, they can also offer incentives to large families to buy "people carriers" - e.g. create a separate COE category for MPVs, and offer a rebate for any family with, say 4 or more members living under one roof with no other cars. Of course, if they decide to buy another car later, they'll have to "give back" the rebate, albeit prorated. Additional rebates/incentives can be considered for those with medical needs (disability, need for dialysis, etc.)

 

Not thought through this deeply enough, just throwing ideas out there. For all I know this could be decried as a dumb "scholar-worthy" idea.

 

So COE category based on number of seats? i.e. Cat A = More than 4 seats, Cat B = 4 seats, Cat C = Less than 4 seats, etc.