(10-09-2013, 08:01 AM)NTL Wrote: [ -> ] (10-09-2013, 12:39 AM)yawnyawn Wrote: [ -> ]I am not in the upper echelon of our society.
I guess losing the opportunity to own a car is part and parcel of living in a landlocked city state. FYI I don't own a vehicle currently. I will love to though... Who doesn't?
I don't. Too much hassle. Anyway, I think a car is more of a lifestyle rather than a "need", and my current lifestyle does not need a car. Everyone have their own choice.
Me too. I share the view that car ownership is more of a lifestyle, than a necessity. There are alternatives around e.g. Taxi, MRT, bus, rented car and even chartered service if necessary.
I think at certain stage of life the importance of owning a car changes. For a single man/lary probably one don't need becos he is highly mobile. I have a friend who is very thrifty but bought a car as his wife is pregnant and he needs to shuffle her to work and to hospital check up. A thrifty person yet he still bought a car.
Currently low personal tax for the high earners allows them more spare cash to buy cars and spend on luxury items. So let's see if the system will be reviewed. Maybe his has also resulted more super cars along the roads of this country. I hope at this rate, the middle class is not further squeezed and end up lower class.
(09-09-2013, 03:03 PM)yawnyawn Wrote: [ -> ] (09-09-2013, 10:02 AM)Temperament Wrote: [ -> ] (06-09-2013, 02:48 PM)specuvestor Wrote: [ -> ]Socialism with capitalistic incentive was what made Singapore, so much so that China wanted to learn the model from us.
Goh era of Singapore Inc, thinking the rich would eventually help the poor as aggregate economy improves through taxes and jobs, was what caused a lot of the problems today. The principle has changed
I think it's very interesting to say Quote:The principle has changed
Care to elaborate?
To me everything or every business in Singapore that has something to do with the GOV. must make money or the money must come from the people one way or another. No?
If you think of the COE now, it really crazy. Which country can follow what Singapore's COE system? Name me one and i kow tow to you.
And GOV is experimenting of Satellite tracking your car to make you pay whenever you move your car. No need ERP anymore. What's better then EMP?-"Every Move Pays"
Ha! Ha!
i think GOV will implement one day. Gov may gives motorists some "sweetener" before implementation of "EMP" . That's their style of implementation of many policies. So that you don't have the will to protest strongly. May be some Singaporeans will make noises but usually end in a whimper. Why?
Shanghai has followed Singapore's COE system.
I quote, "The average price for a Shanghai plate soared to 75,000 yuan ($12,000) at the city’s license plate auction over the weekend"
I think that the COE is a very useful tool to control vehicle population. For a city-state like Singapore, we must understand that it is not the priority of a government to allow everyone to own a vehicle. The taxes collected from the COE bidding should be used to fund improvements in public transport, to make it truly world class.
This is not enough. To also control usage, i will hope the government of the day can increase the cost to drive, i.e. by increasing ERP during peak hours. Apparently, the $8 to pass through the gantry at ECP to city is not enough to deter motorists from driving.
I agree with what you say but I don't think using a capitalistic price
alone mechanism will work for the greater good. A pity LTA dropped the idea to impose a limit on no of cars owned by a family. I think it is good idea to limit to 2. The rich will then also experience our inconvenience and know it's not just a matter of KPKB.
(10-09-2013, 11:01 AM)specuvestor Wrote: [ -> ]I agree with what you say but I don't think using a capitalistic price alone mechanism will work for the greater good. A pity LTA dropped the idea to impose a limit on no of cars owned by a family. I think it is good idea to limit to 2. The rich will then also experience our inconvenience and know it's not just a matter of KPKB.
Personal car ownership is a luxury item, so we should not impose a limitation by regulation, imo.
They pay for it, and will compete among themselves for a quota. We have no reason to KPKB, right?
I remember vividly the pleasant free-flowing driving experience 20 yrs ago. Then came COE, a system that supposedly could accurately control the growth of vehicles population and hence keep our roads congestion free. Singaporeans were very much aware of the terrible gridlock that could befall Spore seen in places like KL and Bangkok if nothing was done and COE was accepted as the necessary evil.
Fast forward to today, and after innumerable tweakings and several transport ministers we still ended up like KL and Bangkok or worse. Because everyone is trying to avoid getting stuck, traffic start to snarls as early as 7 am and 5 pm. In fact driving in KL is so much more pleasant today with so many new roads and expressways so long as you to pay the toll.
The recent announcement is yet again another tweak like those in the past. They can is being kicked further down the road.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2
(10-09-2013, 11:37 AM)Swinger Wrote: [ -> ]Fast forward to today, and after innumerable tweakings and several transport ministers we still ended up like KL and Bangkok or worse. Because everyone is trying to avoid getting stuck, traffic start to snarls as early as 7 am and 5 pm. In fact driving in KL is so much more pleasant today with so many new roads and expressways so long as you to pay the toll.
My experience showed different picture. KL traffic is much worse, comparing with CTE traffic, during peak hour.
I didn't visit Bangkok, but base on news report, it should be much worse, especially so during peak hour.
(10-09-2013, 11:29 AM)CityFarmer Wrote: [ -> ] (10-09-2013, 11:01 AM)specuvestor Wrote: [ -> ]I agree with what you say but I don't think using a capitalistic price alone mechanism will work for the greater good. A pity LTA dropped the idea to impose a limit on no of cars owned by a family. I think it is good idea to limit to 2. The rich will then also experience our inconvenience and know it's not just a matter of KPKB.
Personal car ownership is a luxury item, so we should not impose a limitation by regulation, imo.
They pay for it, and will compete among themselves for a quota. We have no reason to KPKB, right?
As per my previous post, I think sometimes car ownership is more than just luxury for some. For sure I think Cat B prices can go heywire but the transport system
as a whole cannot. That is the same concept as HDB vs private. Having an affordable house may not be a luxury though u can say people can rent. Problem arose when the luxury starts to affect the strategic.
And if we give those families an option to sell their COE, they also cannot KPKB that the govt didn't help them in family planning.
(09-09-2013, 12:18 PM)specuvestor Wrote: [ -> ]The idea of "pay as you drive" is the stated underlying principle for past 20 years and came from these kind of capitalistic ideology. The problem is that the rich are not impacted. It's only the logistics, middle class and those who really need to travel that is impacted. That is why the socialistic penalty point system works better than capitalistic fines. And transport efficiency is a major national strategic importance. I would look at strategic allocation instead and maybe allocate a COE to families with 2 kids or 2 elders. If they choose to sell the COE away they will receive a hefty sum subsidised by the market.
(10-09-2013, 10:22 AM)countonme Wrote: [ -> ]I think at certain stage of life the importance of owning a car changes. For a single man/lary probably one don't need becos he is highly mobile. I have a friend who is very thrifty but bought a car as his wife is pregnant and he needs to shuffle her to work and to hospital check up. A thrifty person yet he still bought a car.
Currently low personal tax for the high earners allows them more spare cash to buy cars and spend on luxury items. So let's see if the system will be reviewed. Maybe his has also resulted more super cars along the roads of this country. I hope at this rate, the middle class is not further squeezed and end up lower class.
Your friend is thrifty, but his wife is likely not.
(10-09-2013, 11:29 AM)CityFarmer Wrote: [ -> ] (10-09-2013, 11:01 AM)specuvestor Wrote: [ -> ]I agree with what you say but I don't think using a capitalistic price alone mechanism will work for the greater good. A pity LTA dropped the idea to impose a limit on no of cars owned by a family. I think it is good idea to limit to 2. The rich will then also experience our inconvenience and know it's not just a matter of KPKB.
Personal car ownership is a luxury item, so we should not impose a limitation by regulation, imo.
They pay for it, and will compete among themselves for a quota. We have no reason to KPKB, right?
Not all personal car ownership is for luxury or leisure. i was once a service technician who traveled all over Singapore and even part of JB to service medical equipments. At that time COE was quite high too. i remembered the cheapest Jap's car Suzuki Esteem was 80k+ for brand new. That was more than 20 years ago i think.
Now i think it is even worse because of increase of populations.
What about people in sales of all trades? Don't they need a car too?
I think COE is one of the main cause of inflation too?
Nobody really benefit except you know who.
(10-09-2013, 03:30 PM)Temperament Wrote: [ -> ] (10-09-2013, 11:29 AM)CityFarmer Wrote: [ -> ] (10-09-2013, 11:01 AM)specuvestor Wrote: [ -> ]I agree with what you say but I don't think using a capitalistic price alone mechanism will work for the greater good. A pity LTA dropped the idea to impose a limit on no of cars owned by a family. I think it is good idea to limit to 2. The rich will then also experience our inconvenience and know it's not just a matter of KPKB.
Personal car ownership is a luxury item, so we should not impose a limitation by regulation, imo.
They pay for it, and will compete among themselves for a quota. We have no reason to KPKB, right?
Not all personal car ownership is for luxury or leisure. i was once a service technician who traveled all over Singapore and even part of JB to service medical equipments. At that time COE was quite high too. i remembered the cheapest Jap's car Suzuki Esteem was 80k+ for brand new. That was more than 20 years ago i think.
Now i think it is even worse because of increase of populations.
What about people in sales of all trades? Don't they need a car too?
I think COE is one of the main cause of inflation too?
Nobody really benefit except you know who.
Do you mean that every citizen/household should own a car? This is difficult to implement as there is already problem with parking spaces in HDB car parks now.
By taxing on car ownership, the govt will have additional money to build up Singapore's public transportation. This money doesn't come from nowhere.