Singapore Expats Forum

Making the Car distribution system fairer?

Discuss about any latest news or current affairs in Singapore or globally. Please DO NOT copy and paste news articles from other sources without written permission.
User avatar
Barnsley
Manager
Manager
Posts: 2063
Joined: Tue, 10 Jun 2008
Location: Pasir Ris
Contact:

Making the Car distribution system fairer?

Postby Barnsley » Fri, 17 May 2013 11:00 am

First proposal involves tax!

I thought Singapore was trying to avoid the perceived mistakes made in Europe of over taxation.
Life is short, paddle harder!!

User avatar
Sergei82
Editor
Editor
Posts: 1455
Joined: Mon, 02 Nov 2009

Postby Sergei82 » Fri, 17 May 2013 11:22 am

From what I see the onlyway they "improve" things is by taxing those things more. Always and everywhere (cars, ERP, taxis, alcohol, tobacco etc etc etc)

User avatar
zzm9980
Governor
Governor
Posts: 6837
Joined: Wed, 06 Jul 2011
Location: Once more unto the breach

Postby zzm9980 » Fri, 17 May 2013 11:23 am

Is there a recent news story you're not linking and assuming we all read? Or is this just an open discussion?

Since this is the "Latest News" forum, I'd assume the former, and ask if you could kindly link us to something.

User avatar
Barnsley
Manager
Manager
Posts: 2063
Joined: Tue, 10 Jun 2008
Location: Pasir Ris
Contact:

Postby Barnsley » Fri, 17 May 2013 11:29 am

zzm9980 wrote:Is there a recent news story you're not linking and assuming we all read? Or is this just an open discussion?

Since this is the "Latest News" forum, I'd assume the former, and ask if you could kindly link us to something.


Just heard it on the 11am news on the radio.

Probably not hit the web yet.

Said Beemers and Audi's took up 30% of COE in the small car market.

That was going to change as well by the sounds of it.
Life is short, paddle harder!!

User avatar
Wd40
Director
Director
Posts: 3788
Joined: Tue, 04 Dec 2012
Location: SIndiapore

Postby Wd40 » Fri, 17 May 2013 1:20 pm

Yeah. I watched the news
Currently they just look at the CC of the engine to determine cat A or cat B.
The proposal is to look at the engine power as well, because currently really top end cars like BMW etc are falling in the Cat A, which is driving that category prices up, unfairly, just because they are less than 1.6L

I think its a good proposal, but still not fool proof. The best way to seperate the categories is to look that machine price of the car itself. For example only cars priced around the Honda Fit, Suzuki Swift etc range should fall in Cat A. Anything more expensive than that should go to Cat B.

User avatar
x9200
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 9161
Joined: Mon, 07 Sep 2009
Location: Singapore

Postby x9200 » Fri, 17 May 2013 6:25 pm

Taking into account the purpose it should serve the relation to the car price is rather weak or non existent. Something making IMO more sense and be more fair too would include:
- no of cars owned per person, family or within a household
- car weight
- engine/fuel type (linked to exhaust gases emission)

User avatar
zzm9980
Governor
Governor
Posts: 6837
Joined: Wed, 06 Jul 2011
Location: Once more unto the breach

Postby zzm9980 » Fri, 17 May 2013 7:34 pm

x9200 wrote:Taking into account the purpose it should serve the relation to the car price is rather weak or non existent. Something making IMO more sense and be more fair too would include:
- no of cars owned per person, family or within a household
- car weight
- engine/fuel type (linked to exhaust gases emission)


If the stated purpose of COE is to reduce the number of vehicles on the road at any given time, then your first point is the only relevant item. In which case, it would serve the opposite purpose you intend. Discount COEs for those who already own a vehicle, since it should be assumed an individual cannot drive more than one vehicle at a time, and multiple drivers in the same household will car pool together more often than individuals who aren't related.

Car weight and emissions should factor in slightly to give the more eco friendly vehicles an edge.

User avatar
zzm9980
Governor
Governor
Posts: 6837
Joined: Wed, 06 Jul 2011
Location: Once more unto the breach

Postby zzm9980 » Fri, 17 May 2013 7:36 pm

Wd40 wrote:Yeah. I watched the news
Currently they just look at the CC of the engine to determine cat A or cat B.
The proposal is to look at the engine power as well, because currently really top end cars like BMW etc are falling in the Cat A, which is driving that category prices up, unfairly, just because they are less than 1.6L

I think its a good proposal, but still not fool proof. The best way to seperate the categories is to look that machine price of the car itself. For example only cars priced around the Honda Fit, Suzuki Swift etc range should fall in Cat A. Anything more expensive than that should go to Cat B.


The BMW or MB does not cause significantly more congestion than the Honda or Suzuki. Why should COE punish the rich? They're already paying a progressive ARF on more expensive vehicles. The higher ARF is more significant than the cost of COE on anything more than the lower end BMWs and MBs.

User avatar
zzm9980
Governor
Governor
Posts: 6837
Joined: Wed, 06 Jul 2011
Location: Once more unto the breach

Postby zzm9980 » Fri, 17 May 2013 7:43 pm

So I guess the radio article may have been referencing the article I read in the Singapore AA magazine I just got. Here are some numbers from the article:

In 2012:
Two out of every five vehicles sold in Singapore were an Audi, BMW, or MB. Porsche sold 507 cars, outselling Mazda (348), Suzuki (144), and Subaru (135). Ferrari outsold Mitsubishi (80 vs 61).

For the previous ARF model, the tax on the Lamborghini Aventador was $422k. Now it is $731.6k.

BMW's best selling model was the 520i. The OMV is 42k, so thats what the previous ARF was. Now it's about $51k.


So the very rich are being punished with the new ARF taxes. (See Lamborghini). The "HDB rich" buying the cheapest 5 series they can are probably doing better overall due to the lower COE vs higher ARF. But, they still need 50% down now.

User avatar
Wd40
Director
Director
Posts: 3788
Joined: Tue, 04 Dec 2012
Location: SIndiapore

Postby Wd40 » Fri, 17 May 2013 8:01 pm

Google for this :

"Multiple-car owners may face surcharge, COE system to be refined"

Thats the article we are talking about.

Here's the reasoning for taxing the rich:

Mr Lui said: "Models such as Mercedes C180 Kompressor and Audi A1 have an open market value and engine power that is significantly higher than those of more mass-market models such as Toyota Corolla Altis and Honda City.

"While this is a reflection of increasing affluence and consumer preferences, we also want to make sure that Category A, which is intended for buyers of smaller budget cars, retains its original purpose."

User avatar
x9200
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 9161
Joined: Mon, 07 Sep 2009
Location: Singapore

Postby x9200 » Fri, 17 May 2013 8:10 pm

zzm9980 wrote:
x9200 wrote:Taking into account the purpose it should serve the relation to the car price is rather weak or non existent. Something making IMO more sense and be more fair too would include:
- no of cars owned per person, family or within a household
- car weight
- engine/fuel type (linked to exhaust gases emission)


If the stated purpose of COE is to reduce the number of vehicles on the road at any given time, then your first point is the only relevant item. In which

What is the purpose of reducing the No of vehicles on the road? First point is relevant directly, the rest indirectly.

case, it would serve the opposite purpose you intend. Discount COEs for those who already own a vehicle, since it should be assumed an individual cannot drive more than one vehicle at a time, and multiple drivers in the same household will car pool together more often than individuals who aren't related.

I disagree. Having restrictions on the 2nd and next vehicles would encourage the use of public transportation and car pooling within the same family/household. No restriction, all members of the family may want to have separate cars.


Car weight and emissions should factor in slightly to give the more eco friendly vehicles an edge.

User avatar
x9200
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 9161
Joined: Mon, 07 Sep 2009
Location: Singapore

Postby x9200 » Fri, 17 May 2013 8:13 pm

Wd40 wrote:Google for this :

"Multiple-car owners may face surcharge, COE system to be refined"

Thats the article we are talking about.

Here's the reasoning for taxing the rich:

Mr Lui said: "Models such as Mercedes C180 Kompressor and Audi A1 have an open market value and engine power that is significantly higher than those of more mass-market models such as Toyota Corolla Altis and Honda City.

"While this is a reflection of increasing affluence and consumer preferences, we also want to make sure that Category A, which is intended for buyers of smaller budget cars, retains its original purpose."


Ok, clear, but is it anything that significant under the current regulations?

User avatar
zzm9980
Governor
Governor
Posts: 6837
Joined: Wed, 06 Jul 2011
Location: Once more unto the breach

Postby zzm9980 » Fri, 17 May 2013 9:26 pm

x9200 wrote:What is the purpose of reducing the No of vehicles on the road? First point is relevant directly, the rest indirectly.

case, it would serve the opposite purpose you intend. Discount COEs for those who already own a vehicle, since it should be assumed an individual cannot drive more than one vehicle at a time, and multiple drivers in the same household will car pool together more often than individuals who aren't related.

I disagree. Having restrictions on the 2nd and next vehicles would encourage the use of public transportation and car pooling within the same family/household. No restriction, all members of the family may want to have separate cars.


Car weight and emissions should factor in slightly to give the more eco friendly vehicles an edge.



Ugh I hate trying to reply to quoted inline color coded replies...

First point: The purpose of reducing the number of vehicles on the road is to reduce congestion.

Second point: Fair point. Not sure how well that would work out, but thinking about it it seems more logical than my original point.

User avatar
zzm9980
Governor
Governor
Posts: 6837
Joined: Wed, 06 Jul 2011
Location: Once more unto the breach

Postby zzm9980 » Fri, 17 May 2013 9:34 pm

Wd40 wrote:Google for this :

"Multiple-car owners may face surcharge, COE system to be refined"

Thats the article we are talking about.

Here's the reasoning for taxing the rich:

Mr Lui said: "Models such as Mercedes C180 Kompressor and Audi A1 have an open market value and engine power that is significantly higher than those of more mass-market models such as Toyota Corolla Altis and Honda City.

"While this is a reflection of increasing affluence and consumer preferences, we also want to make sure that Category A, which is intended for buyers of smaller budget cars, retains its original purpose."


They should use COE to control/reduce congestion and ARF to tax the rich. Categorize COEs by the various classes of vehicles they believe should be on the road, and then allocate/price them according to how they want them distributed. If Tan Ah Beng and his family meet whatever criteria the government decides is desirable for a car owner and can afford a COE, it should be the same price for any private passenger vehicle: a Chery QQ 0.8l, a 1.3l Fit, a 2.0l BMW, 4l MB, etc.

If you want to tax the rich, make the ARF even more progressive and keep it based on the car's value. Otherwise you'll continue to see manufacturers find loopholes to get into cheaper catagories. This is why we see 1.4l twin turbo VWs, BMWs, etc. IF they start rating by horse power, they'll just start under rating the cars, adjusting the power band, and/or reducing weight to make the car quicker. Or, it'll be an intentionally simple to disable ECU handicap that every after market shop will be able to bypass (like many speed limiters).
Last edited by zzm9980 on Sat, 18 May 2013 8:21 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
x9200
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 9161
Joined: Mon, 07 Sep 2009
Location: Singapore

Postby x9200 » Sat, 18 May 2013 7:33 am

zzm9980 wrote:First point: The purpose of reducing the number of vehicles on the road is to reduce congestion.

I think congestion is indeed the main reason but pollution (noise, exhaust gases) are always somewhere in the image. Those with bigger, more noisy, less economical engines contribute to the overall worsening of living condition along the congestion issues. Heavy vehicles damage more the infrastructure and almost always occupy more space.


  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Return to “Latest News & Current Affairs”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests