Survey on car mileage-based tax

[Ben5266]

$50 at some WS can lower your usage tax by several folds.

 

Anyway, some could travel 50k km a year but 80% up north while another clock 30k km in mostly congested central area, it doesn't make sense to replace ERP with this, ERP is more effective in curbing congestion.

The IU with A-GPS can tell if we are on chargeable road or free road.

But then there will be shortages of carpark lot. Everyone in hdb own 2 or more cars. Sekali on weekend they all drive out their cars, GG.

 

 

Moreover there are many loopholes example like tampering the mileage. So as a gahmen, they would prefer a hard cool cash upfront which is COE

Mileage calculation will be done by the IU. Not easy to tamper.

Our scholar quite smart one.

[Ben5266]

No need to buy simi gps blocker lah.

Just take a used 4inch speaker magnet can liao.

Many moons ago my ex coy install those gps tracking stuffs.

And it did block out the signals....

 

Anyway, if they wanna implement, they will lah. And they can do it simply by enforcing all cars to be fitted with a sim card. (Yes, the data network can trace routes travelled be it underground. Thats wwhy we have those 'find my phone apps')

 

Since when we are heard? They wanna start, they just start.

 

Then many cars will suddently becum opc and many opc will suddently becum normal car.

I pity those commercial cars that uses the car for work purposes.

Or worst still, those with private cars have to drive often.

Eg: users like me. On a busy day, i can clocked 500km in sg!

 

Jit bai sii liao arh...

Bingo!

[Darky8888]

 

Is that why I noted that there are gantries at the beginning and exit (even when its no where near CBD) ? Looks like its going to be a hybid system. When implemented, coe goes down for a while, then can take credit & say, GPS satellite charging help u own cars.

 

Recalled that during (iirc 2005) when evening ERP started, coe started tapering down ?

 

But of course most would know the eventual outcome. After a few years, COE back to 'normal;' levels, + ERP + GPS + Road Tax. If extremely lucky, the GPS would replace road tax. But again maybe not coz if so, people would chiong big CC cars, unless the GPS charging is also tiered accd to cc.

 

That's what business management modules teach. The sweet spot is to squeeze employees as much as possible, then back down 1-2 notches from the beaking point where employees would resign..... In this case, drivers resigning from car ownership.

as the saying goes..

Dont kill the goose that lays the golden egg...

[Darky8888]

yup.. me too depends alot on my car coz of family...

 

if they are going implement this mileage tax, then it is as good as telling us commoners to think twice before family planning...

 

coz u will not have the means to drive your preg wifey to gyne or send your child to school anymore...

[Darky8888]

think u If we keep pouring cold water on alternate new proposals to replace/ improve the current systems, at the end of the day, we will still be having the same system that we are unhappy about.

 

Unless you propose/ suggest a better solution to the current problem, complaining/ criticizing will not solve anything.

 

HAVE THEY EVER LISTEN???

i.e. the most recent regulation on 130bhp??

 

after much fan fare survey, and the outcome is this regulation?? what a joke...

and now still darn to ask us for another survey and later claim this is what the "people" wants??

 

if they cant change their mindset, the prob will always remains...

take away the $$ factor, u will have lotz of ideas which is not difficult to come up with in the beginning....

[Solar]

yup.. me too depends alot on my car coz of family...

 

if they are going implement this mileage tax, then it is as good as telling us commoners to think twice before family planning...

 

coz u will not have the means to drive your preg wifey to gyne or send your child to school anymore...

They already got solution for us ungratefuls who don't wanna have more kids... New Citizens.

[Carnoob]

HAVE THEY EVER LISTEN???

i.e. the most recent regulation on 130bhp??

 

after much fan fare survey, and the outcome is this regulation?? what a joke...

and now still darn to ask us for another survey and later claim this is what the "people" wants??

 

if they cant change their mindset, the prob will always remains...

take away the $$ factor, u will have lotz of ideas which is not difficult to come up with in the beginning....

Chill bro, we know they never listen, not just on COE 130bhp... it has become a joke...

 

They didn't even listen about nationalizing Public Transport, when in fact tender out "bus services" is as good as nationalizing.

[weixiaowei2525]

 

Part of a letter to the Minister of Transport in the middle of 2013:

------------------------------

The recent property cooling measures, in particular the TDSR policy change, have started working to curtail run-away property prices.

However car prices remain high and this keeps inflation numbers up. One main reason for this is the high COE prices.

Although the changes to car loan tenures and quantums have been effected a few months ago, we can see from recent COE biddings that liquidity remains strong in the system and consumer fears of further COE cost increases are driving the bidding amounts up.

Given that COE prices are artificially pushing car prices higher as a result of strong liquidity and fear factors, high inflation numbers cannot be avoided as long as car prices include COEs.

I would like to propose replacing the COE system with an alternative. Before I come to that, I would like to share my perspectives on car-ownership and car-utilisation.

The emphasis by policy-makers has always been to limit car ownership. This is based on the seemingly direct relationship between car-ownership and the volume of traffic in the road network. The more cars being owned, the higher the volume of traffic on the roads.

Cars are always in demand here. They form an integral part of the Singapore dream - car ownership is a mark of "success" for the individual and his family. Much as we may want to change that, the perception is something fostered over many decades and cannot be changed overnight.

As long as this perception remains, regardless of how efficient public transport becomes, many will continue to aspire to own cars.

This aspiration is also fueled by fears that cars may become unaffordable one day. This translates to higher and higher COE prices in spite of cooling measures implemented to help borrowers avoid excessive borrowing.

Thus, it is likely that no matter how many rounds of tweaks are done to the regulations and guidelines pertaining car loans, people will continue to rush for the finite supply of COEs and pushing prices (and consequently inflation) up in the process.

Road congestion is an immediate concern. It not only negatively impacts the psychology of road-users (and, accordingly, productivity in school/work); there are substantial albeit intangible costs to the economy when road-users are unable to get to school or work in time.

Resolving road congestion is therefore of paramount importance and tackling the roots of road congestion is crucial.

Car ownership does not directly lead to high road utilisation and congestion. Car usage is the key culprit. The Transport Ministry has already begun working on mechanisms that help reduce car usage (better public transport, higher ERP fees, a more ubiquitous means of reducing traffic across all roads using GPS-based ERP, etc).

However, there are limits to the effectiveness to mechanisms such as higher ERP fees. Additionally, these measures cost the government politically because road-users become unhappy with the double set of costs where ownership and usage are concerned. It is not a laughing matter when a car owner who has paid $80k for his COE and $8 per trip to work still has to contend with crawling traffic on the way to work every morning.

My suggestion is that we reduce the dimensionality of the situation. Focus on car usage instead of car ownership. This reduces the inherent frustration from the double set of costs that I mentioned earlier and reduces the political damage suffered by the government.

The GPS-based ERP is a good step forward but as the chinese saying goes, "distant water cannot extinguish fires that are next to us". We need a solution that can work right here and right now to tackle road usage.

Car usage (and consequently road usage) can be measured in the most conventional way. The higher the odometer reading, the more a given vehicle has been used.

All cars can be required to go for yearly inspections and a tax is levied upon the car owner based on the distance recorded in his car's odometer. The higher the consumption (mileage) in the last one year, the higher the taxation.

This encourages car owners to plan their trips and limit their mileage.

The necessary supporting legislation can be passed to make tampering with odometers an offence. This helps to reduce the fear that many buyers of resale cars face: odometer-tampering. Technological mechanisms can be built into cars to prevent or log tampering attempts.

An example of how the suggested mechanism would work:

a. John owns a 2005 Ford Focus with 60,000 km on its odometer. He goes for inspection on 30 Sep 2013, the anniversary of his vehicle registration date (30 Sep 2005).

b. The inspection centre records his mileage.

c. He uses the car for 25,000 km between 30 Sep 2013 and 30 Sep 2014.

d. On 30 Sep 2014, he goes for inspection and the inspection centre records his mileage as 85,000 km.

e. This information is sent to IRAS and the necessary levies are applied to his usage e.g. $30 per 1,000 km and he is allowed to pay over 12 months (similar to income tax).

With this, the COE system can be demolished as the primary means of reducing road congestion would be to restrict car usage. This has the added benefit of shifting road users towards public transport even though they may be car owners.

The current road tax scheme with the relevant penalties for old cars can remain to keep the car population young.

To summarise, by having such a system and doing away with the COE scheme, these are the benefits:

a. government benefits politically by reducing the frustration arising from taxation in both car ownership (COE) and car usage (ERP)

b. individuals/families get to buy their cars at much lower costs (since COEs now form a large percentage of car prices)

c. car owners limit their car usage based on their needs and are implicitly motivated to use public transport

d. with lower car prices, inflation figures for the Singapore economy fall drastically thereby improving the potence of the arsenal of economy-boosting tools that MAS has

e. car mileage numbers are logged yearly and prevent unscrupulous dealers/sellers from tampering with odometers and cheating buyers

f. taxation tiers for the new scheme can be adjusted flexibly on year to year basis to tighten/loosen car usage as infrastructure improves

g. cars that are lightly used are good for more than ten years of life; these do not have to be scrapped after 10 years as required under the present COE scheme, reducing environmental damage

For existing cars, the remaining COE value can be converted into a rebate that is used to offset the annual car usage levies

------------------------------

 

 

 

Thanks for sharing!

 

[weixiaowei2525]

Thanks for the feedback!

 

*It is understood that this idea is still in the planning process. Therefore, I will not dispute on details pertaining its logistics or technicalities

appurtenant to its implementation.*

 

Outright, the idea doesn't seem to be bad at all. I could see it benefitting those that drive their cars sparingly in comparison to those that

drive them extensively. Further justifying the need for drivers to plan their usage more efficiently.

 

However, this proposed scheme would have one major ramification. One that would contradict its purpose almost entirely. Causing a rise

in congestion instead of a uniform decline. (Note that cars are very desirable in SG. Especially in this day and age.) With this system in

place, the car market would see a huge decline in prices. Down to a level that's comparable to other countries. We would then see a huge

incline in vehicle ownership. Which is what the government has been trying to prevent since its erection.

 

Even if people were to drive their cars less, it's most likely that they would drive them at around the same times. Creating massive

congestion all throughout the island during the peak periods of the day. Furthermore, without the 10 year restriction that's currently

implemented in the COE system, the number of cars would imminently pile up as owners would refuse getting rid of them. But that's just

a technicality.

 

Instead of changing the way car ownership taxes work, I think this scheme would be more suited to replace the current road tax scheme

that predetermines a set amount to be paid based on a vehicles engine capacity. (Ridiculous!)

 

That, and the ability to import cars more than 3 years old and register them under the normal vehicle scheme like every other car. I don't

want to wait another 15 long years to import a Supra and only be able to drive it for 45 days of a year. I'll be too old to enjoy it anymore.

 

 

[Daniellica]

Sekali they chut pattern like simi odd no plates can drive at simi days and simi even no plates can drive at simi days like the 'middle kingdom'

Then we can see more elites owns more cars...

 

We can voice out our concerns until the cow come home or even the cow die of old age still we are not really heard.

See theory is absolutely different than on the ground.

Esp those rank and file people like me. We can only suffer in silence.

[Stars4U]

Ai ya,

 

Bro Daniel, we same same lor.

 

No money no rank, only can suffer and suffer.

[leonchew]

The purpose of the usage tax is to make costs more visible for motorists when they drive - often we think that petrol and parking is a very small cost compared to the cost of the car itself, so we tend to drive more. And for people who have to drive for work (e.g. salesmen), it probably doesn't make a big difference.

 

Even so, usage taxes don't solve one problem - carparking resources. Rather than having many cars sit in the garage, why not reduce them and move towards car-sharing?