Poorly conceived policy leading to messy implementaion

[Darryn]

 

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?

Rather than OMV I would prefer selling price - OMV is more open to manipulation than selling price.

 

Just declare selling price and tax based on this, with a progressive tax that kicks in the higher the selling price is.

The only problem with this - it continues to squeeze those at the bottom of the market out - but what to do?

UNLESS - you let people claim the ARF back against income tax

[Darryn]

 

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.

It's also why many options are added locally - things like leather seats, reverse cameras and sensors, navigation systems etc etc

[Hydrocarbon]

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.

 

Please don't kill Lotus, I love the Elise and would want one in future. But I think people who buy those cars should be taxed more.

 

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.

 

Yeah, that's the sad thing. If based on OMV, safety might be compromised, if not, BHP numbers also can be massaged. The safety part didn't cross my mind til you mentioned it. =X

[Darryn]

 

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.

On the other hand - the single person (or the gay ) will argue -

Why should I get penalised for not having a fambly?

 

Then what about cars like the Exiga GT? Or the RS6 Avante?

I like the policy you are suggesting - but I do think fair implementation is going to be hard. And at the end of the day - the enforcement costs may well outweigh the benefits

[Darryn]

 

Please don't kill Lotus, I love the Elise and would want one in future. But I think people who buy those cars should be taxed more.

 

 

Yeah, that's the sad thing. If based on OMV, safety might be compromised, if not, BHP numbers also can be massaged. The safety part didn't cross my mind til you mentioned it. =X

I like the Exige better - but yeah LOTUS ROCKS!!

[Baal]

 

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...

 

I kana from TBF4 previously......

 

have a matrix? omv decide cat a or b. arf leave as it is. road tax by physical dimension.

And of course the price diff between a & b must be eflective of the omv differences, else it becomes cut , paste to offset. What the Dealers are doing when they bid, from the way I see it, its not very unlike what bookies do. Football matches.

 

mpv logic is that, only get it if truly need it rather than I want to be in a big car. Also 1 x larger mpv would have less road tax vs 2 x mid size sedan? So in this sense would be an incentive to keep it to 1 car. Eg, 1 x Wish instead of (1x Altis + 1 x Vios)

 

I follow your logic on the rich man with small dimensions sports car, but problem is that Sg not enough space.

[L23]

Actually COE start off in a very basic and simple objective - to control the number of car on the road..

Why can't these authorities just go back to basics leh....

Just don't link it to $$ if you really want to make Singapore a better place to live in lo..

You need a car, just ballot for it lo..

No one will complain that the car is only for the wealthy, unless the authorities are thinking otherwise la..

Is money really the only source of solution to all these issues?

 

They are simply making all these policies (just like CPF) more complicated so that we, the simple-minded citizen, don't understand the policies and just pay and pay...

 

[Hydrocarbon]

I like the Exige better - but yeah LOTUS ROCKS!!

 

I want the Elise SC. Loads of headroom (with the roof off, haha)

 

I kana from TBF4 previously......

 

have a matrix? omv decide cat a or b. arf leave as it is. road tax by physical dimension.

And of course the price diff between a & b must be eflective of the omv differences, else it becomes cut , paste to offset. What the Dealers are doing when they bid, from the way I see it, its not very unlike what bookies do. Football matches.

 

mpv logic is that, only get it if truly need it rather than I want to be in a big car. Also 1 x larger mpv would have less road tax vs 2 x mid size sedan? So in this sense would be an incentive to keep it to 1 car. Eg, 1 x Wish instead of (1x Altis + 1 x Vios)

 

I follow your logic on the rich man with small dimensions sports car, but problem is that Sg not enough space.

 

Haha..

 

There's logic to what you say, the 1xWish instead of Altis+Vios type. Then again, I don't think many families will buy Altis + Vios type combo, as in, not many will get two sedans instead of one MPV, so people might KPKB at the logic again, and still, the Lotus type will be cheaper..

[Darryn]

Actually COE start off in a very basic and simple objective - to control the number of car on the road..

Why can't these authorities just go back to basics leh....

Just don't link it to $$ if you really want to make Singapore a better place to live in lo..

You need a car, just ballot for it lo..

No one will complain that the car is only for the wealthy, unless the authorities are thinking otherwise la..

Is money really the only source of solution to all these issues?

 

They are simply making all these policies (just like CPF) more complicated so that we, the simple-minded citizen, don't understand the policies and just pay and pay...

 

Balloting would be a really really bad way to manage - it would just turn it into a bimonthly lottery.

[L23]

Balloting would be a really really bad way to manage - it would just turn it into a bimonthly lottery.

At least everyone is on a FAIR PLAYING GROUND...

Hiya, as long as you link anything to $$, the whole policy go haywire liao..

 

Of course, if you wanna allocate some COEs to those wealthy or ppl who 'contribute' to Singapore, you can always do something special for them..

[Darryn]

At least everyone is on a FAIR PLAYING GROUND...

Hiya, as long as you link anything to $$, the whole policy go haywire liao..

 

Of course, if you wanna allocate some COEs to those wealthy or ppl who 'contribute' to Singapore, you can always do something special for them..

Problem is -

 

If you make it balloting - you will just make it MORE inequitable not less.

 

"The rich" will have the resources to "get" people to ballot for them, to pay cash to successful winners that cannot buy a car, to pressure people in other ways etc etc -

 

What you will be doing will be to collect less money, with a greater proportion of the COE going to "the most well off".

[Myxilplix]

I brought up the balloting thing in the past. With enough forethought before implementation, most of the loopholes can be closed. I bet weekly brainstorming sessions amongst MCF members can identify and overcome most of these loopholes and identify a viable system within a few months.

 

Balloting is not an unknown system, look at HDB.

 

But the problem is the "forethought before implementation" part, something that is obviously lacking at the LTA and various other branches of our government.

 

Of course the biggest reason it won't happen is the revenue. You know, I know, the uncle at the coffeeshop downstairs my house knows. But LTA will never acknowledge that reason.

[Darryn]

I brought up the balloting thing in the past. With enough forethought before implementation, most of the loopholes can be closed. I bet weekly brainstorming sessions amongst MCF members can identify and overcome most of these loopholes and identify a viable system within a few months.

 

Balloting is not an unknown system, look at HDB.

 

But the problem is the "forethought before implementation" part, something that is obviously lacking at the LTA and various other branches of our government.

 

Of course the biggest reason it won't happen is the revenue. You know, I know, the uncle at the coffeeshop downstairs my house knows. But LTA will never acknowledge that reason.

Yeah - but the major difference between car and house is that a car is portable - and a house is not.

 

With a car - you just need to pass over the keys - and you're done. Who is to know where a car is parked, who drives it or how it is used? A house is a bit different in that sense.

 

I do agree that "many" (probably even most) of the loopholes could be closed - especially given how "controlled" we are here - but the key thing would be

a) At what monetary cost? Is the cost of enforcement going to be "worth-it"?

b) At what cost to our "freedom" - most think we are already too tightly controlled - to be able to implement the sort of system that would be needed would require even more state control over our actions and movements - something that is not very palatable

[Fuelsaver]

so moving on, can bring back more coe categorization e.g. below 1.2l, 1.2 to < 1.5l, 1.5 to < 1.8l, 1.8 to < 2l, 2l & beyond?

 

impose surcharge on SC / TC variants?

[1fast1]

I brought up the balloting thing in the past. With enough forethought before implementation, most of the loopholes can be closed. I bet weekly brainstorming sessions amongst MCF members can identify and overcome most of these loopholes and identify a viable system within a few months.

 

Balloting is not an unknown system, look at HDB.

 

But the problem is the "forethought before implementation" part, something that is obviously lacking at the LTA and various other branches of our government.

 

Of course the biggest reason it won't happen is the revenue. You know, I know, the uncle at the coffeeshop downstairs my house knows. But LTA will never acknowledge that reason.

 

You're so right. It seems common sense is common everywhere except within the corridors of power.

 

If they're ever reckless enough to hold a public conversation before implementing this dumbass dyno-testing idea, I *will* definitely go. And try to drum up a team of like-minded enthusiasts from here and other forums (oh, you're definitely going to be on the list ). But I'm wondering whether organising a contingent of like-minded individuals to go and contest the gahmen's policies would be considered "inciting disaffection against the gahmen" or something under the sedition act?

[1fast1]

On the other hand - the single person (or the gay ) will argue -

Why should I get penalised for not having a fambly?

 

Then what about cars like the Exiga GT? Or the RS6 Avante?

I like the policy you are suggesting - but I do think fair implementation is going to be hard. And at the end of the day - the enforcement costs may well outweigh the benefits

 

With reference to the bolded parts - OK, what? It's for the family man who wants to get his large family places *really fast* (at least in the latter example). I sarpork that wholeheartedly.

 

As a general rule, I think we should support faster cars, because if more people drove them (competently), average traffic speeds would be increased and there's less chance of congestion. I don't think this is a populist opinion, or even likely to be a popular one (outside of MCF, that is).

[1fast1]

 

I kana from TBF4 previously......

 

When you kena from me? I don't remember that, bro. I tend not to tekan people who talk sense and your posts are pretty much always quite well thought-out.

[Darryn]

 

With reference to the bolded parts - OK, what? It's for the family man who wants to get his large family places *really fast* (at least in the latter example). I sarpork that wholeheartedly.

 

As a general rule, I think we should support faster cars, because if more people drove them (competently), average traffic speeds would be increased and there's less chance of congestion. I don't think this is a populist opinion, or even likely to be a popular one (outside of MCF, that is).

 

I sappork this idea!!