Democrats propose a fairer COE system

[LonewolfAlfa]

COEs to be issued via a balloting system? what a stoopid idea.

in tiny spore, a car is a 'want', not a 'need'.

u want, u pay. geddit?

 

[Char_Azn]

Their 2 main points

For example, a couple who needs a car to run their small family business, ferry their children to and from school, and take care of their elderly parents would certainly have a greater need than another couple who already owns two cars but wants to buy a third for their teenage son. In such a set-up, a richer family would always out-bid a poorer family even though the poorer family may have a greater need for driving a car.

Two, it must be realised – and emphasised – that traffic congestion is not caused by people who own cars but rather by the amount of usage of the cars. Hence any system that limits the number of cars must necessarily consider the factor of ownership versus usage. The present quota system is inherently unfair because it penalises ownership of cars.

Point 1 sounds fair enough until U get to point 2.

rather by the amount of usage of the cars

directly contradicts everything they just said in point one

a couple who needs a car to run their small family business, ferry their children to and from school, and take care of their elderly parents would certainly have a greater need than another couple who already owns two cars but wants to buy a third for their teenage son.

coz it's obvious that the teenage son is not going to use that car as much as the poor family in this scenario

Next with regards to

hence any system that limits the number of cars must necessarily consider the factor of ownership versus usage.

It's already in place, for years, it's called ERP

Finally the current system is to limit the number of cars on the roads. Less cars = less congestion becoz less cars automatically = less usage of cars. No matter how much an individual uses the car, there isn't a way for him to increase the congestion levels when the total number of cars a reduced. There is nothing wrong with the system, it ensures that only those who are really needs it will go out and buy a car.

And the best part about this whole article is that it totally forgot to mentioned that a 2nd hand car right now can go cheaper then the cost of a COE. If the family was poor, why in the world of ass would they not buy a 2nd hand car and want to buy a brand new one which will cost 3 times as much.

 

[LonewolfAlfa]

If the family was poor, why in the world of ass would they not buy a 2nd hand car and want to buy a brand new one which will cost 3 times as much.

becuz singaporeans everything also must buy new and shiny one. no money still want to show off.

 

[Char_Azn]

becuz singaporeans everything also must buy new and shiny one. no money still want to show off.

Just to totally piss off someone who likes to show off. Buy the same brand, same model but 1 year old and tell him that U bought it at less then half the price. See which of U look like a moron

If the latest car have an *insert new feature*. Declare loudly to everyone around
"WOW!!! U paid *insert price difference of brand new car - older car* just for *insert new feature*!!!!"

 

[LonewolfAlfa]

Just to totally piss off someone who likes to show off. Buy the same brand, same model but 1 year old and tell him that U bought it at less then half the price. See which of U look like a moron

If the latest car have an *insert new feature*. Declare loudly to everyone around
"WOW!!! U paid *insert price difference of brand new car - older car* just for *insert new feature*!!!!"

its not like that 'poorer' family die die must need that latest model Lexus / Volkswagon / Audi which they cant buy yet in the 2nd hand market.

 

[cass888]

its not like that 'poorer' family die die must need that latest model Lexus / Volkswagon / Audi which they cant buy yet in the 2nd hand market.

If the family is "poorer" they should not drive in Singapore. Period. No ifs, no buts. Why? Because their car gives the rest of the world the same amount of grief whether they are rich or they are poor. So they should pay the same amount.

Only the SDP will try to sing the ole Marxist "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" bullshit.

 

[bryanlim1972]

Need? Yeah, right. From each according to his ability to each according to his need. INDEED.

Not a fairer system. Just a fucking communist system.

you're a bit out of touch... branding someone a commie to destroy his credibility ran out of fashion about 50 years ago.

i believe you should be at death's door soon, as only senile old farts still believe in scaremongering with the threat of communists.

 

[bryanlim1972]

If the family is "poorer" they should not drive in Singapore. Period. No ifs, no buts. Why? Because their car gives the rest of the world the same amount of grief whether they are rich or they are poor. So they should pay the same amount.

Only the SDP will try to sing the ole Marxist "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" bullshit.

what an extremely politically naive statement to make.

money decides all and the poor be relegated.

only under educated fools forget the lessons of history.

 

[cass888]

you're a bit out of touch... branding someone a commie to destroy his credibility ran out of fashion about 50 years ago.

i believe you should be at death's door soon, as only senile old farts still believe in scaremongering with the threat of communists.

With all due respect, the SDP's suggestion is really communistic. No threat. Not labeling. Their bloody "needs based" suggestion is horrifyingly communist.

What is scarier is that SDP is probably not communist. But deciding that communistic ideals are the way to winning the votes.

A model that even communist countries have been abandoning.

 

[bryanlim1972]

With all due respect, the SDP's suggestion is really communistic. No threat. Not labeling. Their bloody "needs based" suggestion is horrifyingly communist.

What is scarier is that SDP is probably not communist. But deciding that communistic ideals are the way to winning the votes.

A model that even communist countries have been abandoning.

cast aside the labels for a moment...

allocation of resources purely on a pay-per-use basis, whilst efficient, is not the way to maintain social cohesion.

consider the french revolution, the king would still be on the throne if the monarchy learnt to share more with the people.

i'd argue the "needs basis" might be a viable model for the allocation of resources to maintain social cohesion.

if society breaks down, rich and poor alike suffer. the poor will resort to more and more desperate crimes for survival.

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear Bryan

Needs ? Since when is the right to own a CAR a basic human right ? I mean rightly all the other parties are talking about better public transport, more concessions for children and the lower income, but owning cars is a luxury and should be treated as such



Locke

 

[cass888]

i'd argue the "needs basis" might be a viable model for the allocation of resources to maintain social cohesion.

The communists tried that and failed badly. When one is rewarded not according to effort and results but "needs" then one will not bother to contribute "according to his ability". That is why it does not work.

Much as it is painful, "you drive, you pay" works best. It is fortunate that the PAP is able to implement such a system because it's efficiency has been proven without doubt. Just drive in KL/Bangkok/Mumbai/Shanghai/London/New York/Beijing in peak hours and you will know what I mean.

 

[cleareyes]

They're speaking as if they're going take over the whole government and civil service by next election.

Not going to happen. Not the next GE, not fvor the next 5 GEs

The proposal is a joke. I shhared this proposal idea with some researcher coworkers and all asked one question:

How is SDP going to make over the shortfall of revenues generated by COEs?

Its easy for SDP to come up with a policy or proposal that could become populist, and yet, they think they have solved one problem, not realising they have created another problem.