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

Postby zzm9980 » Sun, 19 May 2013 4:07 pm

x9200 wrote: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.


Basically it comes down to, what is better for the state: randomness (or weighted pseudo-randomness), or letting the market decide? For the state, the later is better as neither scenario can be appropriately quantified to determine which will better serve the people who need it the most (and how do you even quantify need?). At least the later option will generate additional revenues for the state. So considering it from THAT perspective, I change my mind to agree with x9200.

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

Postby zzm9980 » Sun, 19 May 2013 4:10 pm

Wd40 wrote: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.


If my office wasn't so damn far (75 minutes door to door each way assume every connection is perfect), or at least to an MRT (1.1km walk from closest MRT, or over-packed shuttles which are hard to get on to) I wouldn't own a car. Unfortunately upon taking the position and receiving a transportation allowance large enough to fully cover at least a small Japanese saloon car, I bought a car. If this had happened before the finance rule changes (40%+ down? ha) I wouldn't have bought a car. Or if my wife and kid hadn't been fully spoiled by it, I'd sell it and get a small motorcycle.

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 4:22 pm

zzm9980 wrote:
x9200 wrote: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.


Basically it comes down to, what is better for the state: randomness (or weighted pseudo-randomness), or letting the market decide? For the state, the later is better as neither scenario can be appropriately quantified to determine which will better serve the people who need it the most (and how do you even quantify need?). At least the later option will generate additional revenues for the state. So considering it from THAT perspective, I change my mind to agree with x9200.


For Singapore, however, there's a very real issue of space for all those cars--the roads and parking. I have no problem with the state making money from people willing to spend but it has also priced vehicles way too high for those who legitimately need it.

It doesn't have to be one way or another; some middle ground surely can be reached.

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

Postby zzm9980 » Sun, 19 May 2013 4:35 pm

nakatago wrote:
zzm9980 wrote:
x9200 wrote: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.


Basically it comes down to, what is better for the state: randomness (or weighted pseudo-randomness), or letting the market decide? For the state, the later is better as neither scenario can be appropriately quantified to determine which will better serve the people who need it the most (and how do you even quantify need?). At least the later option will generate additional revenues for the state. So considering it from THAT perspective, I change my mind to agree with x9200.


For Singapore, however, there's a very real issue of space for all those cars--the roads and parking. I have no problem with the state making money from people willing to spend but it has also priced vehicles way too high for those who legitimately need it.

It doesn't have to be one way or another; some middle ground surely can be reached.


But how? I can't think of a fair way of distributing the COEs other than pure randomness or the auction we have now.

Also off-topic regarding your location: This is Singapore, people counter-intuitively say to turn something "on and off" :P "Yes, I turned it 'On then off' exactly like you said and guess what? There's no lights at all! it's not working!"

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 6:52 pm

zzm9980 wrote:
nakatago wrote:
zzm9980 wrote:
x9200 wrote: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.


Basically it comes down to, what is better for the state: randomness (or weighted pseudo-randomness), or letting the market decide? For the state, the later is better as neither scenario can be appropriately quantified to determine which will better serve the people who need it the most (and how do you even quantify need?). At least the later option will generate additional revenues for the state. So considering it from THAT perspective, I change my mind to agree with x9200.


For Singapore, however, there's a very real issue of space for all those cars--the roads and parking. I have no problem with the state making money from people willing to spend but it has also priced vehicles way too high for those who legitimately need it.

It doesn't have to be one way or another; some middle ground surely can be reached.


But how? I can't think of a fair way of distributing the COEs other than pure randomness or the auction we have now.

Also off-topic regarding your location: This is Singapore, people counter-intuitively say to turn something "on and off" :P "Yes, I turned it 'On then off' exactly like you said and guess what? There's no lights at all! it's not working!"


It's so easy to say this and that, being armchair experts that we are.

http://youtu.be/OmKbrXnKCuk?t=1m8s

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

Postby zzm9980 » Sun, 19 May 2013 8:11 pm

nakatago wrote:
It's so easy to say this and that, being armchair experts that we are.

http://youtu.be/OmKbrXnKCuk?t=1m8s


I actually think of this everytime support here tells me to "on off it please".

PNGMK
Director
Director
Posts: 4848
Joined: Thu, 21 Mar 2013

Postby PNGMK » Sun, 19 May 2013 9:15 pm

I just want to see the LTA design 20th century roads and intersections instead of being stuck in the 50's.

iamsen
Regular
Regular
Posts: 104
Joined: Sun, 03 Feb 2013

Postby iamsen » Mon, 20 May 2013 2:37 am

If buying a Honda Fit costs $185k (last time I checked), I might as well get a BMW whatever for ~$200k. I'm going to be sh!t poor and deep in debt anyway, I might as well enjoy it.

I mean, why not? You're already getting yourselves into a ton of debt, what's a few thousand more?

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

Postby Wd40 » Mon, 20 May 2013 5:57 am

iamsen wrote:If buying a Honda Fit costs $185k (last time I checked), I might as well get a BMW whatever for ~$200k. I'm going to be sh!t poor and deep in debt anyway, I might as well enjoy it.

I mean, why not? You're already getting yourselves into a ton of debt, what's a few thousand more?


Pity you guys man. I was on vacation in India couple of weeks back and my Brother in law bought the recently launched Renault Duster for the equivalent of S$24k. Just look at it man. :)

Its true that traffic is bad in places like bangalore and travel times can be like 1.5hrs, if your house and office are at extreme locations, but if I can get a car like that I rather wait in traffic for that much longer than getting squeezed in a sardine can for near an hour.

Image

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

Postby zzm9980 » Mon, 20 May 2013 8:35 am

iamsen wrote:If buying a Honda Fit costs $185k (last time I checked), I might as well get a BMW whatever for ~$200k. I'm going to be sh!t poor and deep in debt anyway, I might as well enjoy it.

I mean, why not? You're already getting yourselves into a ton of debt, what's a few thousand more?


Because the Fit is closer to $120k, and the cheapest BMW closer to $220-250k, at least as of a month or two ago.

Also a big reason is road tax. I'm not sure how they scale it, but a 1.5 liter fit is about $800 a year. A 2.0 liter Civic was double that.

edit:
Ok, I actually checked price lists. Honda Jazz (Fit) is 120k. Cheapest BMW is the 116i, which might as well be a Honda Fit. That's 164k. Entry level 3-Series is 183k for a 316i which is actually pretty nice, twin turbo, low emissions, one of those 'screw with the gahmen to get the cheap COE' models I mentioned before. But in Singapore, you'd have no face driving around a Class A COE BMW, so you need to go with the 320i. That's 203k.

Now, considering your monthly payment on the honda fit will be just under $1k a month (assuming 50% down) for 5 years, the payment on the BMW (again assuming 50% down, which is a much larger outlay) will be just under $1.7k a month. Don't forget parking, ERP (which should be the same for either), petrol, road tax, and insurance (which will be more for the BMW, maybe double for the road tax).

http://www.sgcarmart.com/new_cars/price ... -05-10.pdf
http://www.honda.com.sg/cars/price_sheet.asp

heck, also notice right there that BMW forces you to get your insurance and financing 'in-house'. Add at least another 10-20% on your insurance from whatever you'd expect to pay.
Last edited by zzm9980 on Mon, 20 May 2013 8:48 am, edited 4 times in total.

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

Postby zzm9980 » Mon, 20 May 2013 8:38 am

Wd40 wrote:
iamsen wrote:If buying a Honda Fit costs $185k (last time I checked), I might as well get a BMW whatever for ~$200k. I'm going to be sh!t poor and deep in debt anyway, I might as well enjoy it.

I mean, why not? You're already getting yourselves into a ton of debt, what's a few thousand more?


Pity you guys man. I was on vacation in India couple of weeks back and my Brother in law bought the recently launched Renault Duster for the equivalent of S$24k. Just look at it man. :)


It's a Dacia. (Of Dacia Sandero fame for top gear fans). Not sure if I'd rather drive that or be on a b'lore bus :P

Also, how are car prices/taxes/etc in India? Isn't anything imported rather pricy due to tariffs? A friend has a tiny Hyundai hatch there, and it cost about double what it would have in the US (still a fraction of the Singapore price).

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

Postby Wd40 » Mon, 20 May 2013 8:48 am

Well Renault Duster is built in India and the price is all inclusive.

Hyundai has a big manufacturing plant in India and its the hub from which is exports small cars like the i10 and i20 to the world. The i10 that you see in Europe and even in Malaysia comes from India.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyundai_i10

This car costs less than S$10k on road in India.

Its true that imported cars are expensive in India, those are the Audis, BMWs and Mercs but there is huge range of cars below them.

iamsen
Regular
Regular
Posts: 104
Joined: Sun, 03 Feb 2013

Postby iamsen » Mon, 20 May 2013 9:37 pm

zzm9980 wrote:
Because the Fit is closer to $120k, and the cheapest BMW closer to $220-250k, at least as of a month or two ago.


That's much cheaper than I remembered. I was visiting the showroom with a boss about half a year ago. He was the 4th car in a 6 car collision and was considering getting a new one, until he saw the prices. I remember the Fit being 160~180k then while the Premio or something was like 240~260k.

PNGMK
Director
Director
Posts: 4848
Joined: Thu, 21 Mar 2013

Postby PNGMK » Sat, 25 May 2013 8:22 pm

I noticed an article in the ST today about this and blaming the 'blame the rich' mentality for the unhappinesss about cars and housing prices...

Whatever... let me let you in on a secret. If you own property here and you have had if for awhile a $100,000 COE is not out of reach - the banks will lend you the equity on your house at SIBOR or thereabouts (1% or less plus a margin).

My forester comes up in 2017 - that's how I plan to renew it's COE.

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

Postby Wd40 » Sat, 25 May 2013 11:05 pm

PNGMK wrote:I noticed an article in the ST today about this and blaming the 'blame the rich' mentality for the unhappinesss about cars and housing prices...

Whatever... let me let you in on a secret. If you own property here and you have had if for awhile a $100,000 COE is not out of reach - the banks will lend you the equity on your house at SIBOR or thereabouts (1% or less plus a margin).

My forester comes up in 2017 - that's how I plan to renew it's COE.


2017! Wow, you plan that well ahead? COE is like stock markets. It could be 10k or 200k anything is possible.


  • 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