Buying Car Parks Instead of COEs

[TracyTan866]

It's not a failure. If its is, then nobody will be buying cars because of COE high pricing. Fact is that this is not happening.

mainly foreigners, some with black money, who are buying cars..the demand of cars will never go down as long as foreigners are allowed freely into SG

 

[TracyTan866]

why don't you see your MP to have your concerns heard and debate in the parliament? hopefully, no friends lobang kena pichar again.

my MP is Charles Chong. PAP dogs do not speak up against pap bad policies

 

[TracyTan866]

From the revenue point of view which is what this government is mainly about, the coe system is great. More coe, more erp and u can even throw in bcp (buying car parks) too, all these will be great for them.

From the point of view of trying to make Singapore a better place to live and life manageable for ordinary singaporeans, one erp system which is adjusted for timing and areas, should be more than sufficient.

this is short term effect.

just like cheap foreign labour comes with social costs, COE prices, passed down the line, incur high economic and social costs too.

just dont look at your nose..look up and look further and see the consequences of high COE prices

 

[GenghisKHAN]

mainly foreigners, some with black money, who are buying cars..the demand of cars will never go down as long as foreigners are allowed freely into SG

I don't understand your argument. How does your car park versus coe argument has anything to do with whether foreigners or locals are buying cars?
You're losing sight of your original thread topic here.

 

[TracyTan866]

I don't understand your argument. How does your car park versus coe argument has anything to do with whether foreigners or locals are buying cars?
You're losing sight of your original thread topic here.

COEs are available to the highest bidders. COE is controlled. So the cheap foreigners who have illegal monies or easy monies can easily outbid a working singaporean. COE monies is lost and gone after 10years and the working Singaporean has to rebid against rich foreigners come to SG..for some of these foreigners, money comes easy..so they are willing to pay $100k for a 10year COE. Can a working Singaporeans do that?

If the pap controls car buying to having a car park..the issue takes on a new perspective. A working Singaporean may pay $100k for his car park..but the carparl doesnt expire after 10years. The car park is his. so as long as he has the car park, he doesnt have to rebid to buy a car. so the $100k is not go to the pap and is not lost after 10years. That way, it helps to mitigate the cost of car ownership in SG and completely controls the car population

 

[GenghisKHAN]

COEs are available to the highest bidders. COE is controlled. So the cheap foreigners who have illegal monies or easy monies can easily outbid a working singaporean. COE monies is lost and gone after 10years and the working Singaporean has to rebid against rich foreigners come to SG..for some of these foreigners, money comes easy..so they are willing to pay $100k for a 10year COE. Can a working Singaporeans do that?

If the pap controls car buying to having a car park..the issue takes on a new perspective. A working Singaporean may pay $100k for his car park..but the carparl doesnt expire after 10years. The car park is his. so as long as he has the car park, he doesnt have to rebid to buy a car. so the $100k is not go to the pap and is not lost after 10years. That way, it helps to mitigate the cost of car ownership in SG and completely controls the car population

Now I see where you're coming from.

I've one word for your suggestion......


......NAIVE.

 

[TracyTan866]

Now I see where you're coming from.

I've one word for your suggestion......


......NAIVE.

why naive arhh? perhaps you think pap gets a lot of money from COEs and therefore it is naive of me to think that the pap will give up this cashcow?

if so, you missed the gist of my suggestion

 

[GenghisKHAN]

why naive arhh? perhaps you think pap gets a lot of money from COEs and therefore it is naive of me to think that the pap will give up this cashcow?

if so, you missed the gist of my suggestion

Firstly, the number of COEs issued is already pegged against the number of cars deregistered, so there is actually a containment element of the car population year on year and can be adjusted by LTA accordingly as it sees fit. Besides, charges like ERP controls the number of cars on the road, and the COE is now serving as a revenue generating scheme, because if it is not, there're a few other methods that can be adopted to control the car population yearly.

Second, I don't see how changing to the car park method as you suggested will solve the car population. It brings more problems to the equation as you need to consider more variables, like transfer of ownership of car park if the owner decides to scrap his car and take MRT and a host of other related problems pertaining to the issue of car park. In fact, a host of problems regarding ownership of the car park. Big problems that require their own solutions as I run this car park method quickly through my mind.

 

[laksaboy]

With the COE system an obvious failure, the pap will be forced to review its usefulness.

Don't be silly. The COE, along with the ERP, have been a tremendous success.

Success in enriching the govt's coffers.

Who cares about traffic congestion?

 

[TracyTan866]

Firstly, the number of COEs issued is already pegged against the number of cars deregistered, so there is actually a containment element of the car population year on year and can be adjusted by LTA accordingly as it sees fit. Besides, charges like ERP controls the number of cars on the road, and the COE is now serving as a revenue generating scheme, because if it is not, there're a few other methods that can be adopted to control the car population yearly.

Second, I don't see how changing to the car park method as you suggested will solve the car population. It brings more problems to the equation as you need to consider more variables, like transfer of ownership of car park if the owner decides to scrap his car and take MRT and a host of other related problems pertaining to the issue of car park. In fact, a host of problems regarding ownership of the car park. Big problems that require their own solutions as I run this car park method quickly through my mind.

you are stuck in the present pap thinking and pap reasoning.... be better than the pap, think out of the box...

 

[GenghisKHAN]

you are stuck in the present pap thinking and pap reasoning.... be better than the pap, think out of the box...

You still don't get it. The car population is controlled by LTA through the quota allotted for COES yearly, which is pegged against cars DEREGISTERED for that year. Hence, the car population is already controlled in principle. Why do we need to re-invent this control mechanism with a car park method that costs each car owner $100k, as you suggested?

Hence, your suggestion to me is naive, to say the least. It does nothing to control the car population, but instead it brings more problems to the equation, like what I've suggested.

To think out of the box is NOT difficult, but it must be a viable suggestion and your suggestion of car park method is simplistic and frankly, not workable as it does not solve the problem of high cost of owning a car, since, as you said, each car park can cost $100k, besides other problems related to owning a car park, etc, etc.

The COE method is deliberately left to float to squeeze as much revenue from those who think they can afford a car. In essence, it is not meant to control car population, as merely limiting the number of COES issued would have done the trick and then do a balloting. The lucky ones get the COE, at, for example.....$5K or any affordable price to be determined.

No need to go round the mulberry bush to solve the PRICE ISSUE of the COE by suggesting alternative method like what you've suggested (car park method). No need at all as this COE high price issue can be so easily solved by LTA...if it wants to. A BIG IF.

 

[TracyTan866]

You still don't get it. The car population is controlled by LTA through the quota allotted for COES yearly, which is pegged against cars DEREGISTERED for that year. Hence, the car population is already controlled in principle. Why do we need to re-invent this control mechanism with a car park method that costs each car owner $100k, as you suggested?

Hence, your suggestion to me is naive, to say the least. It does nothing to control the car population, but instead it brings more problems to the equation, like what I've suggested.

To think out of the box is NOT difficult, but it must be a viable suggestion and your suggestion of car park method is simplistic and frankly, not workable as it does not solve the problem of high cost of owning a car, since, as you said, each car park can cost $100k, besides other problems related to owning a car park, etc, etc.

The COE method is deliberately left to float to squeeze as much revenue from those who think they can afford a car. In essence, it is not meant to control car population, as merely limiting the number of COES issued would have done the trick and then do a balloting. The lucky ones get the COE, at, for example.....$5K or any affordable price to be determined.

No need to go round the mulberry bush to solve the PRICE ISSUE of the COE by suggesting alternative method like what you've suggested (car park method). No need at all as this COE high price issue can be so easily solved by LTA...if it wants to. A BIG IF.

I know what you are saying...but you are not thinking

 

[GenghisKHAN]

I know what you are saying...but you are not thinking

Say what you like, but your car park method suggestion is naive and simplistic. Besides, it does not solve the problem BUT instead add on to the problem of HIGH COST OF OWNING A CAR.

I don't need to spend time thinking like you to come up with dead-end solution. You need to be the solution and not be part of the problem, Tracy.

Already told you...if LTA wants to make COE affordable to everyone, yet control the car population...it merely needs to go for balloting method and set a FIXED price for each category. What is there to think? We all know the COE is meant manipulated in such a way to squeeze the most of whomsoever thinks he can afford that car. Simple as that.

 

[palden]

COEs are available to the highest bidders. COE is controlled. So the cheap foreigners who have illegal monies or easy monies can easily outbid a working singaporean. COE monies is lost and gone after 10years and the working Singaporean has to rebid against rich foreigners come to SG..for some of these foreigners, money comes easy..so they are willing to pay $100k for a 10year COE. Can a working Singaporeans do that?

If the pap controls car buying to having a car park..the issue takes on a new perspective. A working Singaporean may pay $100k for his car park..but the carparl doesnt expire after 10years. The car park is his. so as long as he has the car park, he doesnt have to rebid to buy a car. so the $100k is not go to the pap and is not lost after 10years. That way, it helps to mitigate the cost of car ownership in SG and completely controls the car population

They will try coe with car parks next.

 

[TracyTan866]

They will try coe with car parks next.

hahahaha..good one!

 

[RunRoad]

The COE is one reason among the many other reasons why people run road from SG It is unlikely the LEEgime will kill their cash cow COE

The car park suggestion is unlikely to replace the COE The car park requirement will only add on to the cost of the COE

Those who stay in landed property or condo with a parking space is not an issue

How will people in the HDB or those without a parking space handle this?

 

[TracyTan866]

The COE is one reason among the many other reasons why people run road from SG It is unlikely the LEEgime will kill their cash cow COE

The car park suggestion is unlikely to replace the COE The car park requirement will only add on to the cost of the COE

Those who stay in landed property or condo with a parking space is not an issue

How will people in the HDB or those without a parking space handle this?

buy a carpark..the car park is yours...

those without a car park cant buy cars just like those without COE cant buy cars. But this is a better system for the people because you dont have to buy a cra park every ten years, unlike a COE.

some people like Genghis dont understand this "difficult" concept because they have been programmed by the pap that the COE is the right and only way in SG

 

[RunRoad]

buy a carpark..the car park is yours...

those without a car park cant buy cars just like those without COE cant buy cars. But this is a better system for the people because you dont have to buy a cra park every ten years, unlike a COE.

Bearing in mind that majority of residents stay in the HDB flats If I am correct, the HDB has never built to have one car park per unit ratio Folks staying in HDB will have to bid for the lots?

How do one buy car park from HDB?

 

[TracyTan866]

Bearing in mind that majority of residents stay in the HDB flats If I am correct, the HDB has never built to have one car park per unit ratio Folks staying in HDB will have to bid for the lots?

How do one buy car park from HDB?

that will be arranged once the carpark issue is approved to replace COE

 

[RunRoad]

It is unlikely the LEEgime will kill their cash cow COE

The car park suggestion is unlikely to replace the COE The car park requirement will only add on to the cost of the COE

that will be arranged once the carpark issue is approved to replace COE

Read my posting above

Self explanatory

For the carpark proposal to replace the COE? Dream on