Car buyers want COE system reviewed

[yeokiwi]

The urban area of Hong Kong has probably the highest employment and population density in the world. Although on paper, Hong Kong has a lower population density than Singapore, its people typically live around the area that they work.

By being very dense, it solves part of the problem of local transport since most people are living closed to their workplace.

The urban traffic congestion is also partially solved by having a high parking cost and low number of parking lots. Since there is nowhere to park, there is no mean to drive to work and therefore, less cars in urban area.

But, the above factors create a living environment that is different from Singapore.

[propertyinvestor]

to tax the rich higher does not limit the number of cars on road. Also, does a Ferrari cause more traffic jam than a Honda Civic? Of course, it made sense for luxury tax, but surely, it would not help the traffic today. COE from a traffic perspective, is rather a fairer system.

And if we are saying the middle-class is subsidizing the rich, can we say that the rich was subsidizing everyone not rich? That's not capitalism, that's socialism. I don't think that anyone is subsidizing anyone else.

Why cant the rich pay more? They have taken the most from society and its only right they give back their fair share. Nothing to do with socialism. Just plain common sense.

[freedom]

to tax the rich higher does not limit the number of cars on road. Also, does a Ferrari cause more traffic jam than a Honda Civic? Of course, it made sense for luxury tax, but surely, it would not help the traffic today. COE from a traffic perspective, is rather a fairer system.

And if we are saying the middle-class is subsidizing the rich, can we say that the rich was subsidizing everyone not rich? That's not capitalism, that's socialism. I don't think that anyone is subsidizing anyone else.

Why cant the rich pay more? They have taken the most from society and its only right they give back their fair share. Nothing to do with socialism. Just plain common sense.

because the rich does not owe the poor a living if they take more from the society fairly and legally.

[corydorus]

to tax the rich higher does not limit the number of cars on road. Also, does a Ferrari cause more traffic jam than a Honda Civic? Of course, it made sense for luxury tax, but surely, it would not help the traffic today. COE from a traffic perspective, is rather a fairer system.

And if we are saying the middle-class is subsidizing the rich, can we say that the rich was subsidizing everyone not rich? That's not capitalism, that's socialism. I don't think that anyone is subsidizing anyone else.

Why cant the rich pay more? They have taken the most from society and its only right they give back their fair share. Nothing to do with socialism. Just plain common sense.

because the rich does not owe the poor a living if they take more from the society fairly and legally.

Hopefully this do not turn into Obama and Republican kind of debates.

The poor do need more money and the rich has but it is theirs. You cannot demand people to give just because you want.

Which is why I say COE works so well because the Rich is willing to pay. And the poor can have a share of the taxed benefits.

My wish is they can use some to improve the public transport to improve standard of living for families as said earlier.

[HitandRun]

Why cant the rich pay more? They have taken the most from society and its only right they give back their fair share. Nothing to do with socialism. Just plain common sense.

Of course they are already paying more. The question is how much more? If they are overtaxed, they (including businesses) will pack up and go.

[yeokiwi]

My wish is they can use some to improve the public transport to improve standard of living for families as said earlier.

My understanding is that there is no lack of money(with or without COE) to improve the public transport. The current public transport that has little redundancy is the making of the past government policies. In order to make the business viable and reduce the cost of public transport operation, they remove bus routes that run parallel; remove private transport operators that use to ply the road(remember the small Shuttle bus??); does not allow private transport operator to run even the shuttle services within HDB towns and allow the population to grow rapidly.

Lastly, SBS transit and SMRT buses rarely used the expressway. why?? Charge a premium and send your passengers from the surburbs to CBD or any workplace directly and vice versa.
If the expressway is jammed, draw the red line on the left most lane. Yes, the rest of the private cars will suffer.
From Yishun to CBD is only around 30min if there is no jam.

[corydorus]

Maybe this is where subsidy comes in to operator or expanding more lanes, since as you mention there is no lack of money ?

[freedom]

Fiscal budget is not an easy job to do. You can't spend the money just because you have it. And there is always not enough budget. You have to spend them where it makes most sense.

[brattzz]

wait a minute, it's the number of cars that causes over-congestion, NOT the price of the car...by all means, taxes heartily on luxurious car brands!

i wouldn't want to drive if i don't have to.
alternative & reliable transportation must be provided!

[wee]

1) Its not quite right to conclude that the middle income is subsidising the rich with the COE system? $1.2m for a Farrari vs $100k+ for a Honda, The rich is still paying a hell of a lot more tax for the use of a car (fast and fancy one no doubt), without consuming any more scarce road space than a Honda.

2) The COE is primarily a tool to allocate resources and alleviate the traffic congestion? Or is it a primarily a progressive income tax tool? Or is there a perfect solution to blend the 2? I would question why should every tax tool be progressive in nature.

3) A regressive tax is not ALWAYS bad. For e.g. Munger has always argued for a VAT/GST in the US because he felt its very effective and easy to implement, even though its regressive. A easy to implement, broad based tax has its merits. The taxes raised can then be channelled to help the poorer segment in society.

4) Buffett had said to the effect that the rich did not get rich in vacuum. They benefitted tremendously from the society (because the system works) and hence they owe a debt to the society, and thus should give back their fair share to society. Michael Lewis also made a good point when he said the rich and privileged has benefitted from being luckier in life (being born in the right family/country/good education/given the right opportunity/etc) and they owe a debt to the unlucky ones in life. IMO it is not wrong that they (the rich, the lucky) pay their fair share of tax, on a progressive basis. However, this has to be balanced with what they are prepared to pay. Like some forummer has said, if its too high, they will just bring their business elsewhere. Singapore's success is build on, amongst others, attracting foreign investors, and tax policies has been use a key attraction.

5) I don't envy the policy makers at all. Every citizen views policies through their own colored lenses. Some are extremely coherent and balanced, and intelligent in their views, while some can be quite emotional (especially when they felt aggrieved inadvertently due to certain policies). But everyone carries 1 vote.