VES 2018

[Yewheng]

Again, sing the tune :

"It's only 10-20% about being green .. the rest is about tax.."

This one hard to quantify. We could also say that it's 20 to 30% go green, the rest is about tax, or 50-50. But one thing for certain is that government need to collect more revenue for rising expenditure. So that is the main problem..

[Jwee85]

It will be a vicious circle.

 

With surge pricing during peak period.

 

Those who needs to go to work and back home during these peak periods, will use the surge pricing, to justify the need to buy a personnal car no matter the Coe prices.

 

In the end car lite will NEVER result in cheaper travelling cost for Singaporeans.

[Jwee85]

It will be a vicious circle.

 

With surge pricing during peak period.

 

Those who needs to go to work and back home during these peak periods, will use the surge pricing, to justify the need to buy a personnal car no matter the Coe prices.

 

In the end car lite will NEVER result in cheaper travelling cost for Singaporeans.

[fungyee77]

This one hard to quantify. We could also say that it's 20 to 30% go green, the rest is about tax, or 50-50. But one thing for certain is that government need to collect more revenue for rising expenditure. So that is the main problem..

 

I think most reasonable folks understand that government needs to increase revenues to fund expected increase in social expenses, based on the the past couple of elections. 

 

Whilst I cannot speak for others, the issue I have is how the VES is presented to us. What we are being told is that we need to encourage more green vehicles, hence the change to the VES system. However, what we see is (1) an across the board tax increase; (2) a new system is not very effective at encouraging people to shift to green vehicles (CEVs was arguable more effective in this regards); and (3) no visibility on how existing structural impediments for greener vehicles (i.e. charging infrastructure, higher cost of EVs in general) are being resolved.

 

So the government loses credibility in its messaging because any reasonable person can easily poke so many holes in its arguments.

 

I'd rather the government be more upfront in their messaging i.e. we need to increase transport revenues by $X, to fund enhanced early turnover scheme which is expected to cost $Y and establish charging infrastructure which is expected to cost $Z, with $XX to contribute to increased social expenses. Admittedly, I may not fully agree even if presented in this light, but at least it shows a reasoned approach and brings to light what the challenges are, and we can then have an informed discussion on the appropriate trade-offs.

 

Based on track record, the government has been right more than wrong on the big issues over time. Hence, I have little doubt the intention is honest and requisite work has been put in to analyze all the possible scenarios, but frankly speaking, the messaging leaves a lot to be desired. 

[Vratenza]

You collect revenue from motorists you put it to use and budget for public transport (bus/mrt) , road expansion, heck even satellite ERP 2.0 etc

 

You don't squeeze us motorists and use it for extravagant spendings like YOG, increasing own salary, promoting your own party's agenda through grassroot fundings. 

 

Where to find the money to fund those? You asking me? What do you think?  I am not paid millions you know, I feel indequate and  insecure to offer my solutions in the face of big shots around here. 

 

This one hard to quantify. We could also say that it's 20 to 30% go green, the rest is about tax, or 50-50. But one thing for certain is that government need to collect more revenue for rising expenditure. So that is the main problem..

 

[synthez]

Agree with you bro Cscbb!

Edited March 19, 2017 by synthez

[Raychay]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcXMhwF4EtQ

[mr2t]

They will make it sustainable. Our government loathes going into budget deficits and that mindset is still very much ingrained into all institutions of government.

 

I agree that Medishield Life has the potential to spin out of control. Something drastic needs to be done to slow the self-perpetuating tendency for wasteful insurance claims. Too many doctors/patients are going for treatments and receiving overpriced medications with the mindset they must make 'full use' of their coverage.

 

The PIC scheme has not met its initial objective of boosting productivity. It has had little real benefit (Unless you were a consultant) but was a minor lifeline to local SMEs facing a tough few years. Then again, I have it on good authority from someone who tried to report on a 'consultant' that the government was willing to let the scheme benefit the 2 or 3 out of 10 genuine claimants to "boost the economy". 

 

The building of cycling infrastructure is an example of 'pump priming' the economy. Its just a sign of the times when we are spending on replacing roadside drainage (You know that semicircle crevices that funnel water on roads to the drains) from one design to another on a sloping road that never floods. Or when we are spending on silly roadside greenery.

 

However, government spending is not a problem in itself. Fiscal spending forms a major part of economic growth. The private sector will never spend on many public goods. Prudence and a balanced budget is the order of the day.

 

The problem is that how the government spending be sustainable ? If it is sustainable, they will not be increasing taxes already.

​The problem is that government step in bread and butter issue may make things more expensive. Example, Medshield life, people think that medishield life is a good thing, but then it may end up cause health care prices to go up. Government has been very hesitant to step in more on medishield scheme until recently that they are forced to a corner to come out with Medshield life. They understand the impact but with people keep want government to step in for medishield, they had no choice but to do it.

​Another thing is the PIC scheme, Government feel that they could spend some money on PIC scheme to help people to start up business easier. The only problem is that when government spend this kind of money, it will be prone to abuse. Government had been catching those abusers but these are just tip of an iceburg. Some may argue that PIC scheme is good what, yes its good, but without government help, those who are in the mindset to do their own business, with or without PIC scheme , they will also find a way to start up business and make money. If they do not make money, take the PIC scheme also the same which is do not make money. So ultimately this kind of thing best is to let people do their homework. If they do not make money they will need to learn kopi money and so that next time they will be more prepared to start up business again. All these no need government help, they could also succeed one day.

​Then don't know when it started on the cycling trend, and its getting more and more out of hand for a small group of cyclist that make very loud noise that government need to step in to make cycling a better place. Those are the hardcore cyclist who cycle on roads. Then what ? Government listened to them and start to expend park connectors and also to make footpath wider and cyclist lane on the footpath. While those Pro cyclist who make the loudest noise continue to cycle on the road. The foothpath widening, cycling lane and park connectors does not bother them. Yes it is good that pathway now is wider in many areas but that come at a cost.

The thing is that government money is not infinite, when government keep spend so much money on many things, end up they need to recover the cost. So end up increase taxes, then many people not happy. In the 1st place if government don't do all those unnecessary thing, perhaps they may not need to increase taxes already.
​

 

[Mkl22]

I just wanted to share my thoughts on why CEVS is to be replace by EVS.

 

I dont think it really has anything to do with the environment protection, rather it is because CEVS did not value add to the government and it in fact disadvantages the piggy bank and car-lite policy. In another word, for those who cursed CEVS, think again, it actually was good for car buying and owning.

 

Take for example, I am just taking a general example.

 

OMV $20,000

Parf $10,000

car price $$110,000

depreciation $10,000.

 

under CEVS

OMV $20,000-$15,000

Parf left with $2500

car price $95,000

Depreciation $9,250

 

the $15,000 Saved if compounded at 1% pa, will return roughly $16500( $1500 interest earned over 10 years). Without CEVS, this is not available. without CEVS, $15000 more will have to be handed in, just to get back half of it($7500) in for 10 year, without interest. Why cant they just take that $7500 and dont give me back anything, I can have better use for that $7500, rather than park there with them without interest. But with CEVS, I am get back $15,000 which they were suppose to keep and roll for 10 years.

 

Go figure how much is that in total value and how much investment returns that will be in the LTA pool.

 

Also, with such a low Parf value under CEVS, it makes economical sense to renew COE when it expires in 10 years. Imagine that.

 

Now, we are talking about paying cash for that purchase, what about those taking loans? Are we paying interest on the OMV/parf under a loan? Effectively we are paying interest to banks on money we loan to the government. Not only did the gov not pay us interest, they make us pay interest to the banks over our own money. Silly?

 

For those who always think that having a high parf value is better, think again, that money is actually yours, but they just take it away from you for 10 years without paying you interest. I would rather they give me zero parf and lower the car price, which directly or indirectly reduce the depreciation. On top of that save me interest sld I have to take a loan.

 

But if you need Parf value as a form of enforce saving for your next car, that is a different story. I am just sharing my thoughts base on I can save up for the next car without a paper parf value.

 

EVS just did a total opposite of CEVS, it did nothing but killed this benefiting system for car owners. Bringing the system back to where it was, but this time they are taking more money to cover up what they lose during the term of CEVS, with higher parf value.

 

Renew COE in 2028, many will be asking here again, is it worth to renew COE?

 

I dont know if you guys can understand what I am saying, anyway I myself also dont quite understand.

You have to understand what is parf. Parf was instituted a long long time ago. Have you heard of 11.2k and 29k fixed Parf?

 

If I recall correctly, up to 1000cc it's was 9k, then 1001-1600cc was 11.2k, 1601-2000cc 29k and above 2000cc 43k. Maybe I missed a catagory.

 

The main aim then was to discourage old cars of more than 10years old. This was way before coe was introduced. By giving you back your money it made you weigh the decision to renew or not a lot more. It can be easily seen when you look at commmercial vehicles without parf. Majority are renewed as there was no parf. So as long as the vehicle was somewhat serviceable their lifespan got extended till 20years.

 

I have wondered if the policy was to refund the rebate at the end of 10years instead of upfront, would we have seen a diffferent result now.

Edited March 19, 2017 by Mkl22

[Yewheng]

They will make it sustainable. Our government loathes going into budget deficits and that mindset is still very much ingrained into all institutions of government.

 

I agree that Medishield Life has the potential to spin out of control. Something drastic needs to be done to slow the self-perpetuating tendency for wasteful insurance claims. Too many doctors/patients are going for treatments and receiving overpriced medications with the mindset they must make 'full use' of their coverage.

 

The PIC scheme has not met its initial objective of boosting productivity. It has had little real benefit (Unless you were a consultant) but was a minor lifeline to local SMEs facing a tough few years. Then again, I have it on good authority from someone who tried to report on a 'consultant' that the government was willing to let the scheme benefit the 2 or 3 out of 10 genuine claimants to "boost the economy". 

 

The building of cycling infrastructure is an example of 'pump priming' the economy. Its just a sign of the times when we are spending on replacing roadside drainage (You know that semicircle crevices that funnel water on roads to the drains) from one design to another on a sloping road that never floods. Or when we are spending on silly roadside greenery.

 

However, government spending is not a problem in itself. Fiscal spending forms a major part of economic growth. The private sector will never spend on many public goods. Prudence and a balanced budget is the order of the day.

​Actually the more the government spend, they need to collect more taxes. When more taxes collect, it actually indirectly reduce amount of capital for businesses to grow as business owner will need to set aside more money for taxes. Like increase in water price by 30% for example, they would need to set aside more money for water usage especially those that need a lot of water to operate like manufacturing sector, restaurants, Server centre. etc. So it does not help in economic growth at all especially for private sector.

 

​The less the government spend, the more the capital are freed up for private business owner to grow their company.

You collect revenue from motorists you put it to use and budget for public transport (bus/mrt) , road expansion, heck even satellite ERP 2.0 etc

 

You don't squeeze us motorists and use it for extravagant spendings like YOG, increasing own salary, promoting your own party's agenda through grassroot fundings. 

 

Where to find the money to fund those? You asking me? What do you think?  I am not paid millions you know, I feel indequate and  insecure to offer my solutions in the face of big shots around here. 

​Ya.. I also not planner. So must ask ministers or those planners.. haha

Edited March 19, 2017 by Yewheng

[DACH]

ok la u win la.. pls continue to "own" your hdb. u happy can liao..  i rest my case even though i feel like stirring more shit./... hahha.. stick back to the topic...

He is probably those "investors" trying to make quick bucks by buying low and selling high for HDB flats for profits, which he only lived for a few years one after another. Thus he regarded as his ownership as he can "own" that property for that period of time he possessed the property, just because that he can keep the profits for the sale of property or rentals. However he refused to look at the long term true value/ownership when one buys a new flat, he only looks short term. The fact that the flat is the ultimate ownership belongs to the govt, and the title deed from the lease states that the owner is legally bound for the possession of the apartment but the deed and the physical apartment still belongs to the govt. 
The govt serves the right to reclaim that property if they want it back for redevelopment or deem structurally unsafe (very rare). And it is very hard to determine and see the big picture of this lease relationship because the oldest flats here are about 50 years old, against the 99 year deed. So we don't know what really happens after 99 years. Further is that this lease is renewed again when one is given a new flat as replacement, with the old flat is taken back by the govt for redevelopment purposes. The years for the lease "resets" again with the replacement. And many of these old flats torn down are only about 30 to 40 years old.
All those rules and regulations, e.g. keeping procceds of sales, inheritance, are the flexibilities that the govt set under their conditions to allow more flexibilities for the deed holders to use the flats to match their different needs under the scheme of govt provided housing, which sole purpose is to provide housing benefits to the people in the first place. Simpy put, govt owns the flats and they have the rights to change the rules (allow more flexibilities) according to the needs of the deed holders, and not by the deed holders own rules.

I hope that the new generations of buyers will understand the basic understandings of HDB clearly when they are buying a new flat. Lease from govt vs perceived ownership. Our flats are bound to us in legal terms through a lease from the govt, govt is the ultimate owner. Please do not be misled by perceptions from short term investors.

I shall rest my case here not to deviate from the topic any further.

[Pocy]

I just wanted to share my thoughts on why CEVS is to be replace by EVS.

 

I dont think it really has anything to do with the environment protection, rather it is because CEVS did not value add to the government and it in fact disadvantages the piggy bank and car-lite policy. In another word, for those who cursed CEVS, think again, it actually was good for car buying and owning.

 

Take for example, I am just taking a general example.

 

OMV $20,000

Parf $10,000

car price $$110,000

depreciation $10,000.

 

under CEVS

OMV $20,000-$15,000

Parf left with $2500

car price $95,000

Depreciation $9,250

 

the $15,000 Saved if compounded at 1% pa, will return roughly $16500( $1500 interest earned over 10 years). Without CEVS, this is not available. without CEVS, $15000 more will have to be handed in, just to get back half of it($7500) in for 10 year, without interest. Why cant they just take that $7500 and dont give me back anything, I can have better use for that $7500, rather than park there with them without interest. But with CEVS, I am get back $15,000 which they were suppose to keep and roll for 10 years.

 

Go figure how much is that in total value and how much investment returns that will be in the LTA pool.

 

Also, with such a low Parf value under CEVS, it makes economical sense to renew COE when it expires in 10 years. Imagine that.

 

Now, we are talking about paying cash for that purchase, what about those taking loans? Are we paying interest on the OMV/parf under a loan? Effectively we are paying interest to banks on money we loan to the government. Not only did the gov not pay us interest, they make us pay interest to the banks over our own money. Silly?

 

For those who always think that having a high parf value is better, think again, that money is actually yours, but they just take it away from you for 10 years without paying you interest. I would rather they give me zero parf and lower the car price, which directly or indirectly reduce the depreciation. On top of that save me interest sld I have to take a loan.

 

But if you need Parf value as a form of enforce saving for your next car, that is a different story. I am just sharing my thoughts base on I can save up for the next car without a paper parf value.

 

EVS just did a total opposite of CEVS, it did nothing but killed this benefiting system for car owners. Bringing the system back to where it was, but this time they are taking more money to cover up what they lose during the term of CEVS, with higher parf value.

 

Renew COE in 2028, many will be asking here again, is it worth to renew COE?

 

I dont know if you guys can understand what I am saying, anyway I myself also dont quite understand.

Understood ...... all talked about $$$ Huat Ah!!

[Spidercool]

Elantra will enjoy rebates...=)

 

 

Elantra has been confirmed to incure surcharge of $10k rather than rebate.

Can price will be up $10K according to the komoco sales rep.

[Sktan10]

Elantra has been confirmed to incure surcharge of $10k rather than rebate.

Can price will be up $10K according to the komoco sales rep.

Then you will see bare bone elantra again in order to keep the omv as low as possible. I think even bare than the current GLS model.

[Spidercool]

Then you will see bare bone elantra again in order to keep the omv as low as possible. I think even bare than the current GLS model.

 

Bare bone in the sense of removing more equipment from the car?

I was told by the se that the price across the board will be up for most models, so likely the car prices will up but equipement setup should remain.

[DACH]

Bare bone in the sense of removing more equipment from the car?

I was told by the se that the price across the board will be up for most models, so likely the car prices will up but equipement setup should remain.

They might take away the airbags and leave the front ones to lower the costs.

[therock]

Then you will see bare bone elantra again in order to keep the omv as low as possible. I think even bare than the current GLS model.

Somehow I can't imagine that they can take a lot more out..

It may be a good push for Hyundai & Kia to bring in a new engine. That Gamma is almost a decade old..

[Carbon82]

On a lighter note, if LKY decided to implement VES at the under world, 100% of the "cars" would be slapped with the max surcharge. Why?

 

First the model are mainly older mercedes or high cc luxury / sport car, which emit higher CO and CO2.

 

Next, the "manufacturing and delivery" process would have generated a lot of CO and CO2 (think of grid charge slapped on that used Tesla).

 

And last but not least, as the other world is likely to have ultra high PSI reading from the burning process, it become necessary to implement VES (maybe with more stringent criteria even) to make the air there cleaner...