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
Wd40
Director
Director
Posts: 3857
Joined: Tue, 04 Dec 2012
Location: SIndiapore

Postby Wd40 » Sat, 18 May 2013 9:15 am

zzm9980 wrote:
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).



Well IMHO, although a small car like a Honda Fit less size than say an SUV like Audi Q7, in terms of congestion, I dont think size matters that much. Cars are expected to occupy the whole lane, so width doesnt matter, height ofcourse never mattered. The length, yeah may be a bit, but even then cars are expected to keep distance in Singapore and so the length of the car, also shouldnt play that much big a part considering the amount of distance maintained.

So if congestion was the only reason, I dont think you even need 2 categories A & B for cars. Currently if you see the categorization is based of Engine CC and in the past it worked just fine. You had expensive cars typically being more powerful and higher engine CC. But now that Car mfrs have started making smaller yet top end cars, the CC differentiation doesnt work anymore and hence the refining proposed.

If you ask the middle class person, for them COE is the biggest factor and unlikely the ARF. So if you want the middle class person to also be able to buy a car you need different categories.

Its not really about taxing the rich, but if rich people were allowed to bid in the CAT A, they are just going to bulldoze it, no matter how high the COE price is and the middle class person will never be able to afford a car.

Ofcourse the gahmen wants to reduce the number of cars, but it doesnt want to be seen as facilitating only the super rich to be able to buy cars.

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

Postby zzm9980 » Sat, 18 May 2013 9:42 am

Well, the topic was 'making the system more fair'. I assume a requirement is also maintaining the current caps on the number of vehicles on the road. There is really no fair way to keep people from 'cheating' on Class A and B other than going by the vehicle's price.

If we're trying to make cars more affordable to the middle class, you'll have to add more cars to the road. There are more millionaires than car owners in Singapore. I'd also wager that the mid-level government bureaucrat who helps craft these policies is one of the target demographics of the entry-level luxury european sedans we see with 'tricked' engines (very low displacement, turbo-charged for higher HP like the 1.4l twin turbo audis and VWs) meant to drive through the loopholes and save them money. They have a vested interest in keeping things the status quo.

User avatar
Strong Eagle
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 10609
Joined: Sat, 10 Jul 2004
Location: Off The Red Dot
Contact:

Postby Strong Eagle » Sun, 19 May 2013 12:03 am

If one really wanted to make the system "fair" and control the number of vehicles on the road, one would simply conduct a monthly or bi-weekly lottery. All who want to drive a car put their name in a hat... those that get their names picked drive, and those that don't take the bus. Totally fair... the potential driver of a Maserati has the same chance as the driver of a Fit.

Of course, this will never happen because the gahmen would be giving up a large source of tax revenues... about 1.6 billion in 2012.

User avatar
Wd40
Director
Director
Posts: 3857
Joined: Tue, 04 Dec 2012
Location: SIndiapore

Postby Wd40 » Sun, 19 May 2013 8:29 am

Strong Eagle wrote:If one really wanted to make the system "fair" and control the number of vehicles on the road, one would simply conduct a monthly or bi-weekly lottery. All who want to drive a car put their name in a hat... those that get their names picked drive, and those that don't take the bus. Totally fair... the potential driver of a Maserati has the same chance as the driver of a Fit.

Of course, this will never happen because the gahmen would be giving up a large source of tax revenues... about 1.6 billion in 2012.


That wont work too, because then people who got a car by the lottery can then easily sell the car to a rich for 2 or 3 times the price and then there will be a booming secondary market, unless they dont allow them sell off their cars for 5 years just like HDB.

Ultimately someone becomes rich either the gahmen or the people. In case of cars the gahmen have done the right thing by keeping the COE wealth for themselves. But in case of HDBs I think they have gone horribly wrong, allowing prices to escalate so much and letting people capitalise on it by reselling in the secondary market. They should have never allowed people to resell their HDB to others, instead give it back to the HDB at HDB's inflation adjusted prices, all these problems would have never occurred.

User avatar
nakatago
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 8333
Joined: Tue, 01 Sep 2009
Location: Sister Margaret’s School for Wayward Children
Contact:

Postby nakatago » Sun, 19 May 2013 8:33 am

Strong Eagle wrote:If one really wanted to make the system "fair" and control the number of vehicles on the road, one would simply conduct a monthly or bi-weekly lottery. All who want to drive a car put their name in a hat... those that get their names picked drive, and those that don't take the bus. Totally fair... the potential driver of a Maserati has the same chance as the driver of a Fit.

Of course, this will never happen because the gahmen would be giving up a large source of tax revenues... about 1.6 billion in 2012.


This.

If they sincerely want to control congestion in the streets, they would actually limit the number of cars instead of having an increasingly expensive ERP/COE/ARF/WTF/STFU system.

Also, if they really implement a fair system, maybe those idjits in LTA who never take public transport would realize that the meandering/labrynthine footpaths and the ridiculous number of crossing lights for a single crossing are just stupid.

User avatar
x9200
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 9290
Joined: Mon, 07 Sep 2009
Location: Singapore

Postby x9200 » Sun, 19 May 2013 10:22 am

Yes, and if somebody will really need a car on a specific day (i.e. moving house, going to the airport with small kid (car seat), picking up some heavy goods, going with a sick, but not dying person to a doctor) (s)he should do what? It would be highly impractical. Besides, random does nor mean fair, it just mean random.

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

Postby zzm9980 » Sun, 19 May 2013 10:26 am

x9200 wrote:Yes, and if somebody will really need a car on a specific day (i.e. moving house, going to the airport with small kid (car seat), picking up some heavy goods, going with a sick, but not dying person to a doctor) (s)he should do what? It would be highly impractical. Besides, random does nor mean fair, it just mean random.


What do the 90% of the population that aren't car owners do? Surely not all of them lack cars by choice, but economic circumstance.

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

Postby zzm9980 » Sun, 19 May 2013 10:28 am

Wd40 wrote:
That wont work too, because then people who got a car by the lottery can then easily sell the car to a rich for 2 or 3 times the price and then there will be a booming secondary market, unless they dont allow them sell off their cars for 5 years just like HDB.


No, it's simple. Tie the COE to both the owner and the vehicle. Make it transferable only to future vehicles the owner purchases.

User avatar
x9200
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 9290
Joined: Mon, 07 Sep 2009
Location: Singapore

Postby x9200 » Sun, 19 May 2013 10:42 am

zzm9980 wrote:
x9200 wrote:Yes, and if somebody will really need a car on a specific day (i.e. moving house, going to the airport with small kid (car seat), picking up some heavy goods, going with a sick, but not dying person to a doctor) (s)he should do what? It would be highly impractical. Besides, random does nor mean fair, it just mean random.


What do the 90% of the population that aren't car owners do? Surely not all of them lack cars by choice, but economic circumstance.

Voluntary or not, they compromise on safety and increase the risk (broadly speaking). Randomness only introduces uncertainty. Better than this would be simply ban all the private cars. This would be more fair. In any lottery like setting you will have daily situations where your neighbors will be able to do it while you not and it will not necessary get even over time as there are many factors contributing including weather, your personal/work schedule etc. and "density" of such factors is insufficient to have it fully randomized over the whole population.

User avatar
Wd40
Director
Director
Posts: 3857
Joined: Tue, 04 Dec 2012
Location: SIndiapore

Postby Wd40 » Sun, 19 May 2013 10:43 am

In my company I find it quite funny. The Singaporeans who are at low levels have cars. The expats at high levels travel by MRT.

Heck, I know the facilities guy in our company who issues access cards to staff, drives a car. Many locals here who are working in banks, even at entry level, think they deserve a car. Some even earning 5k, rent out their HDB and stay at their parents/in-laws place, but definitely will have a car.

As expats we know how horridly priced they are and as a principle of matter, I refuse to drive a car here, not that I cant afford it. I dont care about prestige either. And I love cars, mind you, but I satisfy the urge by riding a motorcycle. Thank god the motorcycles are spared from the madness. But for locals I guess, no choice. They live here, they die here and considering how aspirational they are, they must buy a car.

User avatar
nakatago
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 8333
Joined: Tue, 01 Sep 2009
Location: Sister Margaret’s School for Wayward Children
Contact:

Postby nakatago » Sun, 19 May 2013 10:50 am

x9200 wrote:Yes, and if somebody will really need a car on a specific day (i.e. moving house, going to the airport with small kid (car seat), picking up some heavy goods, going with a sick, but not dying person to a doctor) (s)he should do what? It would be highly impractical. Besides, random does nor mean fair, it just mean random.


Weighted priority then. Also, introduce car sharing programs.

Making things expensive only gives priority based on money, not need.

I'm sure those highly-paid ministers can think of something.

User avatar
x9200
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 9290
Joined: Mon, 07 Sep 2009
Location: Singapore

Postby x9200 » Sun, 19 May 2013 11:02 am

nakatago wrote:
x9200 wrote:Yes, and if somebody will really need a car on a specific day (i.e. moving house, going to the airport with small kid (car seat), picking up some heavy goods, going with a sick, but not dying person to a doctor) (s)he should do what? It would be highly impractical. Besides, random does nor mean fair, it just mean random.


Weighted priority then. Also, introduce car sharing programs.

Making things expensive only gives priority based on money, not need.

I'm sure those highly-paid ministers can think of something.

But this is not an utopia communistic state and it should not be expected that it will go along financial equity line. More over, it should be assumed that those who can afford and have their money taken (taxed) should indirectly contribute to the well being of those who can not afford as sharing of the public space is the place where the equity should be expected. I wonder if this is the case, so how much money from ERP/COE etc goes to improve the infrastructure and such.

User avatar
nakatago
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 8333
Joined: Tue, 01 Sep 2009
Location: Sister Margaret’s School for Wayward Children
Contact:

Postby nakatago » Sun, 19 May 2013 11:41 am

x9200 wrote:
nakatago wrote:
x9200 wrote:Yes, and if somebody will really need a car on a specific day (i.e. moving house, going to the airport with small kid (car seat), picking up some heavy goods, going with a sick, but not dying person to a doctor) (s)he should do what? It would be highly impractical. Besides, random does nor mean fair, it just mean random.


Weighted priority then. Also, introduce car sharing programs.

Making things expensive only gives priority based on money, not need.

I'm sure those highly-paid ministers can think of something.

But this is not an utopia communistic state and it should not be expected that it will go along financial equity line. More over, it should be assumed that those who can afford and have their money taken (taxed) should indirectly contribute to the well being of those who can not afford as sharing of the public space is the place where the equity should be expected. I wonder if this is the case, so how much money from ERP/COE etc goes to improve the infrastructure and such.


Hey, you brought up those who need cars.

Just making them more expensive alone still won't address those who actually need them and controlling congestion in Singapore.

User avatar
x9200
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 9290
Joined: Mon, 07 Sep 2009
Location: Singapore

Postby x9200 » Sun, 19 May 2013 12:07 pm

What I brought up was the issue of impracticability. It was only illustrated with some examples of real needs put in question if a randomize system would be introduced purely for the fact it would be a lottery.

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

Postby zzm9980 » Sun, 19 May 2013 4:04 pm

nakatago wrote:I'm sure those highly-paid ministers can think of something.


From the seat of their BMWs during their morning commute :)


  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Return to “Latest News & Current Affairs”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest