Singapore income tax highest in the world???

last SG · 2003-10-10T14:19:04+00:00

Good, u have finally answer the question. Now it is finally my turn to shoot """ Fifthly, if DEMAND exceed SUPPLY - meaning 50,000 buyers to only a small qu...

ilovemilk SG

If you believe that our income tax is the lowest in the world, well.....here's another perspective.....

I tend to agree with his assessment....except that he has not taken into consideration the cost of car ownership in Singapore.

Yeah yeah yeah, the governement will argue that housing and cars are expensive because of we are just an island state......well, I must say that is a very believable storyboard which I was sold to for many many years....but I'm starting to look at things from more angle than 1.

Read this contribution from a particular Mr. Ho and make your own judgement.

Subject: RH: Why our income tax is world's highest by far
View: Complete Thread (6 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: soc.culture.singapore
Date: 2003-10-01 04:46:08 PST

RH:

First, a disclaimer. I do not have the statistics on personal income
tax rates in Singapore or elsewhere, although I do have a general
ballpark knowledge of the comparative personal income tax rates of
Singapore as compared with some countries such as US, UK and
Australia, etc. But since I am merely proposing a new way to look at
Singapore's personal income tax rate, I am sure readers will be able
to judge the correctness and accuracy of the points I am going to
make, and, with their more informed knowledge, be able to confirm my
observation.

First, let me define 'personal income tax' in general terms, that is,
that Singapore's 'income tax' is the tax monies that we pay to the
Government based on how much we earn.

Thus, if you are prepared to agree with me that our 'income tax' is
all the monies that are taxed from our income and given to the
Singapore Government, then you are going to be very shocked by my
observation.

First, many wage earners in Singapore do not pay income tax. Or so it
seems. That is, they do not even earn enough to fall under the income
tax rates. But nevertheless, as I will show, even these low income
wage earners are paying income tax [in the general sense of the term]
and at a very high rate, too.

Furthermore, for those who fall into the income tax brackets, they not
only pay their usual income tax [up to the highest marginal personal
tax rate of 26%, I believe] but they, like their poorer Singaporeans,
pay another income tax on top of the usual one, that is also very
high.

What is this 'additional income tax'?

Well, it is the CPF-HDB Great Ripoff Scheme.

Let me explain.

We all know that when we are having a salary, 40% [for most years in
the past, now 36%, I believe] of every single wage earner goes to his
CPF. I repeat, every single Singaporean has his/her wages deducted by
36% every payday, without exception.

You may say, Oh! That's OK because it goes into OUR CPF and not the
greedy Singapore Government. So, it is not another income tax, right?

Wrong. Because the CPF allows you to use your CPF funds to pay for
your HDB flat.

So what, you may say?

Ah, here comes my observation.

Now, the Government takes 36% of every single wage earner's pay every
month and puts it into the CPF, under your name and 'ownership' BUT
TAKES IT OUT TO PAY FOR YOUR HDB FLAT. AND BY INFLATING THE PRICE OF
YOUR HDB FLAT, THE GOVERNMENT THEREBY TAKES AN EXORBITANT AND ALMOST
ILLEGAL PORTION OF YOUR CPF, THAT IS, YOUR MONIES, THUS ALMOST
DIRECTLY FROM YOUR INCOME EVERY MONTH.

Now, again, you may say that that is OK because the HDB flat will be
yours after you have finished paying for it.

True, that is, if your flat can be sold at the same or higher price
than when you paid for it. Or, if selling were an option -- if you
sell, where could you live? So selling is not really an option.

We now come to the point of HDB flat prices.

It is now irrefutable fact that a 4-room HDB flat costs less than
$30,000 to build. We have seen direct tender prices by contractors to
build HDB flats and we know that flats cost less than $30,000 to
build. BUT THE PRICE OF A 4-ROOM HDB FLAT IS ABOUT $280,000 [my wife's
colleague paid that]. Thus the HDB makes a massive profit, which goes
to the Government. Even if we have to pay for the administrative costs
of the HDB organisation, each 4-room should not cost more than
$80,000. The extra $200,000 is simply obscene profit.

Thus, we now have a clearer understanding how this evil scheme works.

First, the Government, by law, forces every single wage earner to put
36% of his salary [or income] into his CPF. Then, it 'allows' these
CPF monies to pay for your HDB flat. And by inflating the price of
your flat to obscene levels, it takes most of your CPF and puts it
into the Government kitty.

Thus, this CPF-HDB combination directly takes your income monies [via
the CPF Board] and credits it into the Government coffers. Is this not
a ripoff? Is this not another income tax? That is, a direct tax on
your income?

Another point. Precisely because 36% of our wages goes into the CPF,
which we cannot withdraw, we are 'prepared' to pay higher prices for
our flats than would be if we had to pay in cash. If everyone had had
to pay cash for their flats, the HDB could never have raised prices to
such obscene levels.

Thus the CPF Home Ownership Scheme is merely a sleight of hand to take
our income and transfer it to the Government coffers. Through the
indirect means of our HDB flat.

We own the flat, no? True. But if there were no such CPF Home
Ownership Ripoff, we would have rebelled against paying $280,000 for a
tiny flat.

But the Government spends its obscene profits wisely, no? That is
another issue for another day. But look at all the spanking new
Ministerial Buildings, the new Durians on the Esplanade, etc, the high
spending on the military, to the tune of US$4 billion a year, and ask
yourself if you can trust the Government to spend the money wisely,
and back on the people. [Most of the GIC funds are invested overseas,
creating jobs and opportunities for foreigners; hardly any is spent
locally to benefit Singaporeans]. The list goes on...

And what do we get for paying these highest income taxes in the world?

No social security. No free health service. No unemployment benefits.
No everything.

We pay more than the developed countries in income taxes and get
nothing like what they enjoy. To hazard a guess, our income taxes [as
I have discussed above] probably exceeds 40% of our incomes, counting
both the normal income tax and this abnormal tax on our income.

On top of that, we also pay GST, etc.

Any wonder why Singaporeans are poor while the Government is rich?
Exactly as Machiavelli advised. Any wonder why Singaporeans have so
little money to spend that the retail sector is hurting and has been
hurting for at least a decade? Any wonder why the velocity of money in
Singapore is stagnant? Any wonder why there simply isn't enough money
in the economy to oil the wheels of commerce and trade as well as the
economic engine?

And who to blame for this sorry state of affairs?

Lee Kuan Yew and his cronies. They cannot blame the US slowdown or the
world moribund economies, or SARS, etc. This has been one of the
factors contributing to the crisis Singaporeans are facing.

Blame the 80 year old senile minister who refuses to go even though a
majority of Singaporeans in a poll wanted him to go.

Stevenson101 SG

your topic is wrong, sweden and America have higher income tax ba.....?

Unless you want to include CPF, though it doesn't really count as a tax considering you get it back, though not the complete sum

nismoS132 SG

car tax is 100% necessary.

unless you wish to have traffic like bangkok.

infact, i'm more for increasing the costs of owning a car.

Atobe SG

You got to be kidding ?

The COE system is another means of robbing the savings of hardworking Singaporeans, and boosting the SURPLUS performance of the Government Budget, which will end up into the National Reserves, to be screwed up in bad GIC investment decisions.

Does anyone have a clue as to how much foreign exchange is lost in having expensive COE cars being scrapped each time COE falls, and before the car has even reached its first 10 year period ?

Before COE was introduced, car ownership is for a life time.

The money that is paid into a monthly car hire purchase can be realised when the car is sold off. Buying a car through hire purchase is equal to putting money into a saving account. The amount lost when the car is sold, is an acceptable depreciated value - which can be nullified whenever new car model is priced higher.

With the COE system, the money paid goes directly to the government coffers, and when the car is scrapped, nothing from the hire purchase instalment will ever be seen by the Car Owner.

No wonder we pay the Ministers the million dollar salary to take money from the Citizens, and boost the Singapore Reserves from Government Surplus.

Stevenson101 SG

Think more logically Atobe, instead of seizing every opportunity to criticize the government's policies. What if there weren't any car taxes in Singapore?

I may not agree with the government with a lot of things, but i can still accept the rationality behind the CoE. If cars were made cheaper and every tom dick and harry could afford one the traffic jams created would defeat the whole purpose of a vehicle being a transportation device.

doghouse837 SG

talking about house
u say govn earn alot
but they also need to charge u for using their land mah
just like monopoly
didnt u play it before
u need to pay rent
as for HDB dont really have tax for land compare to those
privite properties, so they had a one time charge for the land
as singapore is small, land is going be be expensive cause everyone is fighting for the space they want, so its expensive, its understandable
if u study buz course, u will know loh
dont just look at the cost, behind it still might have other stuff government need to pay

CenturionMBT SG

Sure, you can scrap coe, IF you can find a new system that could replace it.

Gun SG

We need to look back on the yester-years why COE was introduced. It was based on gov's plan to use EPR-type technology prior to 90's to control car USAGE, NOT ownership. Hence Singaporean bought gov's reasoning that COE is a temporary exercise to control vehicular population. Now over gov back-track on this and admit more than ever, they depend on COE mony to upkeep their extravant spendings for most of 90s.

Did you ever wonder why gov is so prepared to invest such expensive EPR systems on our road while there are much cheaper and low-tech way of controlling road usages ?

Some countriies, like the France and Italy requires certain registered no. cars to be on the road on certain specified days.

I don't think i'll be a problem in implementing this simple law in law-consicous Singaporeans.

Question now is, has EPR and COE provided such rich source of income that the gov is not prepared to let public transport become an altenate form of transport ?

Atobe SG

If the Government is truly interested in the control of the vehicular population, there are many ways other then using the PUNITIVE MONETARY approach to regulate.

The availability of vehicles can be regulated by a quota system WITHOUT the financial impact of the COE that is entirely wasteful to the Singaporeans, and build onto the insatiable appetite of the Government to soak or suck up any and every available funds from the Singapore Citizen.

The COE system can be modified by having the Car Dealerships to bid for a regulated quota of IMPORT PERMITS for the cars to be sold to the Singapore Consumer. Instead of regulating the RETAIL end, why not regulate the SUPPLY side ?

If any one Dealership overbid and is stuck with more quota and stock of cars, then it will be financially burdensome on the dealership. Should the Dealership decide to pass on the added cost of an overbid to the Car Buyer, it will make the retail price unattractive when compared to Competitive Makes.

With an extended ERP system that covers every major road arteries in the City and the Suburbs, the price of operating a car becomes even more prohibitive when also considering the high price of fuel that is being sold in Singapore.

There are many other creative ways of REGULATING the growth and the physical size of the Vehicle Population in Singapore, other then using the punitive fiscal approach that directly hurt the Singaporean car buyer.

Try to think " out-of-the-box " , instead of being trapped in Government Propaganda about the need to use punitive fiscal measures that affects the Singaporean pocket directly and in massive blows.

If the COE policy is truly meant to regulate the car population, why does the Government limit it at 10 year interval, with the need of having to pay for another COE for a second 10 year - that is worth ZERO value at the end of the second 10 year period ?

As GUN had mentioned, the previous Minister of Communications Mah Bow Tan had so boastfully said that COE will be a temporary measure and which will be removed when ERP is in place to regulate the ECONOMIC USE of Road Space.

He also said that the 150 percent increases in Road Tax - (that was implemented before the COE was introduced) - will also be reduced when the ERP system is fully implemented.

Conveniently, Minister Mah Bow Tan was moved out of the Ministry, and the entire matter was "forgotten", and the Singaporean's short memory was further dulled and distracted by all kinds of Singapore Shares mixed with additional fiscal measures such as the GST.

nismoS132 SG

if we were to do away with the COE and put in a simple quota system then it would become another system controlled by the rich, where they buy the cars in at a low price and sell it to the highest bidder.

AzRaeL SG

at least i get the money back in some form when i quit singapore for good.
i paid $100k for my 4room flat.
plan to sell it for a profit.
move away and never come back.
my income tax is less than $100 annually.

Atobe SG

If a SIMPLE quota system can benefit only the rich, then let us refine it further to affect the SUPPLY side rather then the DEMAND side of the insatiable and masochistic appetite of Singaporeans to absorb fiscal punishment just to own a car.

Like with the COE, a "Simple Quota" system can be categorised into the various engine capacity or kerb weight of the car, with the Government fixing a MINIMUM bid price for any Dealership to bid an allocated number of cars PER quota lot, PER type of vehicle range.

The bigger car will be larger in engine capacity, and heavier in kerb weight, and should pay a higher price; with a differentiation made to a bigger commercial or goods vehicle such as a 10 ton truck.

With the Government fixing the MINIMUM bid price, the Dealership will then adjust their bid offers either PLUS or MINUS the minimum bid price expected from the Government.

At least the wild price bidding of $30,000 PLUS for a COE will no longer be seen, and if the Government is sincere about merely REGULATING, and NOT PROFITEERING, then there should be no qualm of them revealing their MINIMUM EXPECTATION.

If each "quota lot of 2000 vehicles" is offered to a dealership at $6000 per vehicle as a minimum bid price, it will cost the dealership $12,000,000 from a single lot alone. With each car costing only $6000 in QUOTA PRICE, this will be far more reasonable than the stupendous amount of $60,000 for a COE Paper (at its peak).

While the discussion is now focussed on the COE and car quota allotments, other issues to reduce the High Tax Revenue collected will need also to be addressed.

The Government is moving into a new area of Revenue Collection through Domestic Consumption - both in the form of GST and ERP.

By collecting niggardly small fractions for each transaction, and multiplying each transaction by the Population Size that is actively involved in the Consumption, and multiplying further through a Calendar Period, the Government Treasury will be filled at a fantastic rate of geometrical leap.

With the ERP and GST already in place, and with upward reviews of charges being considered, the Government is appallingly slow in removing the fixxed tax rates that it has installed more then ten years ago.

nismoS132 SG

what i would rather is a revamp of the COE system. remove all that crap like arf and parf that artifically inflates the price of a car and created the unique motor insurance market we have.

raise the price of COE to a minimum of 50k for private ownership of cars, 25k for commercial vehicles, let the market decide the price thereafter with no intervention whatsoever from the govt. the COE will entitle a person to own any 1 car for 10 years, after which they will be required to renew the COE. since the COE is now a seperate item from the car, owners will be allowed to change their cars anytime they wish should their budget allow it, for the COE would be a permit to own a car, rather than a permit to own the car.

let COEs be made transferrable, should anybody decide that they do not need a vehicle anymore.

set up a proper open bidding system, with an area allocated specially to display the current bid price real-time with facilities for people to make/change/cancel their bids.

should the number of bids exceed the quota of COEs available, we will continue using the system of using the 50th highest bid as the final price of the COE.

Atobe SG

But why ?

Why submit yourself to the punitive sum of $50,000 for one piece of paper that entitle you to own a Car - and only for TEN YEARS ?

With a monthly (or is this a quarterly) quota of almost 5000 cars, this will result in a recurring $250million PER QUOTA windfall to the Government Treasury.

Why pay such a high price for " an Entitlement (?) " to possess a car (or to own a Commercial Vehicle) ?

Why limit the ownership period for only TEN years, and having to purchase another COE to own the same car for a SECOND Ten Year Period - that will result in the car having a ZERO VALUE at the end of the 20th Year ?

I am not sure what you mean in your statement :

" ....for the COE would be a permit to own a car, rather than a permit to own the car " .

Can any electronic bidding system reliably reflect the actual bid input from any anonymous Consumer, or will it be manipulated with or without Certified Public Auditors that depend the renewal of their operating license from the Government ?

Is land so scarce that 4.5 million people cannot find space to live in, or is this another one of the habitual Ruling Party scare strategy to justify the PRICE demands that they place on any services offered to the Singapore Citizen ?

Look around the open and undeveloped spaces around Singapore, and the "misuse" of available land.

The Concept Plan for Singapore seems to be dictated by Political Inputs from the Politicians more then from any inputs by Professionals, or the interested Public.

nismoS132 SG

so you're saying our traffic jams are not bad enough until they're as bad as those in tokyo/NY/beijing?

the fact is that land is scarce, and that owning a car is considered a status symbol of sorts. if we were to reduce the price of owning a car to that of overseas, tons of people would rush out and buy cars now.

are 1-2 hour traffic jams during peak hours not bad enough?

already is parking a problem in the CBD, must we make it worse?

currently, coes are pegged to vehicles. i'd rather that you can buy any car you choose with that 1 COE, than for you to sell your current car together with it's COE to buy another car with an overblown COE. which creates an illusion of great amounts of money moving around.

i agree that COEs are priced too heavily. but i also believe that it is a good deterrent that stops people from buying a car they do not need.

if it were possible, i'd like for the money earned from COEs to be put into public transport companies, de-privatise them, make them non-profit. surpluses are to be used for the public good, not shareholder value.

stupidissmart SG

Let me ask as I not really understand your system of quota. If someone bid all 5000 cars tat month, and other people follow suit, then who get to import the cars ? If I manage to get 5000 cars for tat month, then I am gonna sell u 10 times more expensive than the price I bought it with since i am controlling the market for tat month already. I rather let gov earn COE than a rich business man opting for monopoly.

Singapore has no land left. Tat is the biggest prob. U cannot as Atobe say develop ALL the land in Singapore now as tat will leave us 0 land for growth or buffer, like sudden immediate use of land.

Car is considered a luxury good, not necessity. I do not have a car, take the very expensive public transport, have to take cab if I stay in town over midnight, yet am still living in SIngapore. Unless u r in business which make it mandatory to own a car, u can really survive using public transport. If u r in business, gov allows u to buy a cheaper COE for lorry or van. It is a tax for the rich, or otherwise the vain.

Though I do have to raise tis issue... why does public transport fare be so high and service so unreasonable ?? I believe tat SIngapore is the country where citizen has to pay the most for the use of public transport, considering tat we have to pay so much for cars too. The way they delete off bus routes in Sengkang and Hougang to fill up the seats for North East line is really tyrannical and typical action of monopolising bullies.

To make sure they earn money through North East line, they literally force us to travel by MRT. Do we have a choice ? Is it reasonable for us to walk to Orchard rd Is there other transport available ? Before tis I have buses linking directly to the city, having bus stops near to my house. When NE line start, I have to walk all the way to the "nearby' MRT to take the train. Worse still, they even refuse to open Buang Kok Green station to save their money ! The day North East line start is the day where public transport becomes more inconvenient to me (BTW I live in Houguang, next to Buang Kok Green MRT). How can they do such deeds ?

Can public transport companies only care about their income (They r probably one of the companies tat make the most money in singapore now) and totally ignore the inconvenience of the people ? I start to believe tat Gov purposely make it "privatised" so tat watever wickedness these "privatised" companies did, is none of their business. I now had tis feeling tat MPs had such high salaries, can afford their own cars, never take bus and public transport, only look at figures and exclaimed out "looking at statistic, singapore public transport is one of the best bla bla bla...." Bullshit !

Atobe SG

Has the high prices of COE ever affected newer cars being purchased by Singaporeans ?

Even at the peak of COE prices, cars are still being sold - although at only a slightly lower quantities - as there are still desperately crazy Singaporeans, who have far too much money to spend as if there is no tomorrow.

My suggestion of SUPPLY side control is made to allow for an alternative and more effective measure to control the never-ending demand for newer cars if the Government is interested in actually controlling the car population numbers.

To prevent all the quotas from falling into the hands of one person or one dealership, the quota size for any single category can be made in lots of 100 or 500 or 1000, or anywhere in between. Each different quota with differing quantities can have a MINIMUM bid price, so as to cater to the smaller dealership.

If the MINIMUM bid price is fixed by the Government at $5000, then each quota of 1000 vehicles will already require the successful dealer to have $5million in hand immediately.

Market Forces will determine how each quota lot will arrive at the equilibrium from the MINIMUM base price set by the Government, and which will affect the competitiveness of the selling price for the different makes of cars. The more greedy and desperate a dealer is in bidding a ridiculously high price, it will only cause his cost per car to go up.

Any desperately crazy dealership, who decide on bidding wildly to take up all quotas for all categories, will run the risk of having a large stock of cars with over priced quota rates all of which can end up as dead stock.

It is doubtful if there is a need for a concern that any single individual or company will pick-up all the available quota in one bid ?

The problem with traffic jams and car parks availability is due to the poor planning and anticipation of development requirements.

If one notice the pattern of Government response to the building of roads, it is basically a fire fighting approach, in which the Government will look into the problem only when it arises. There are provisions made, but it will be brought out of the cupboard only when the problems appear.

The ECP, PIE, CTE are cases in point. Each lane of these expressways are narrower then those along the newer TPE, SLE and the AYE.

We have heard of Minister Mah Bow Tan lamenting that when the CTE was opened, it has resulted in massive traffic build-up within two months of its opening. Why is this so ?

It is due to the fact that the housing corridor that it serves has grown at a pace faster then the Planners have anticipated, and when the CTE was planned 4 years will have passed from concept stage, budgetary approval, fund allocation, design, and building completion before it is finally open for use. Four years will result in massive changes to the housing development that contribute to the city bound traffic with the CTE serving the residents from Sembawang, Yishun, Ang Mo Kio, Serangoon Gardens and the newer suburban estates of Li Hwan and Tai Keng Gardens, and new estates along Lorong Chuan, Seletar Hills and Bukit Sembawang area.

Has LTA considered the residential developments when planning the CTE ?

By the time the CTE was opened for public use, it is already four years out of date with reality on the ground.

Even along the TPE, there have been instances of late additions of entry and exit points along the TPE, to alleviate the massive jams caused by residents getting home to Senkang, Hougang, and Punggol areas. These exit points seemed to have been forgotten or considered non-urgent until the traffic problem blew up.

Road designs are hopelessly arranged, with exit from the highway being made on the fastest lane (Lane 1) as one can find the exit from PIE towards Clementi when slow vehicles have to cut into the fast lane, and the fast vehicles have to slow down and get into the lane for slow and heavy vehicles.

With such high road tax, import tax, COE and ERP being levied onto the Singapore car owning population, one can only wonder if the funds collected are being put to effective use when traffic jams have been occurring continuously.

Lowering the cost of cars will not result in tons of Singaporeans rushing to buy the cheaper cars, as there is that control mechanism of SUPPLY quota.

In fact, the Government has found the COE system so lucrative that at each COE bidding, the quota allotment has been slowly increasing.

Now is there any truth in land being scarce and for a need to control the car population ?

With all the public transport being in the hands of Government Linked Companies, is it little wonder that car ownership is INTENTIONALLY made to be expensive, so that Singaporeans are forced to depend on Public Transport ?

Who are the shareholders of all the Public Transport Companies ?

Look into the thread Temasek Holdings.

stupidissmart SG

Now the COE is also determined by market demand isn't it. If there is a great demand for cars, price go up and if there is poor demand for cars, price go down.

Wat is the difference if u control from the supply side ? There will be obviously more demand for cars than the quota set by Gov, and they will end up giving the cars with the highest bidder again. If Gov decide to release 500 cars tis month but 50000 cars r being bidded, how is gov going to decide who get who win the bid, other than who bid a higher price again ?

Supplier will try to see and predict the trend in the price of COE and bid for prices then. In tis way, the price of COE will still go up because as u say it, all people wanna have cars. The real demand is much higher than the supply allowed by gov and only with the increased price can they force the demand to go down.

In your case, COE turn out to be transferable, as before. In the past, u can transfer COE ownership between different owners. Now u can't because Gov realise there r people tat "invest" in COE. They buy a lot of COE when it is cheap. Keep them and sell them when price go up. The normal people turn up giving "COE" to investors instead. In tis way, the loser is the Gov and consumers while the gainers r investers.

Anyway planning roads is no easy task... U can say about minor "jams" yet forgeting tat most of the time, at most places in Singapore, everything is going smoothly. If everything goes smoothly, no gratitude, when something unexpected blew up u blame them for everything. I guess u should be glad tat the problems we face now r considered minor. U cannot expect a PERFECT road condition anywhere in the world.

I guess it is good to say do not think little of other people achievement or problems unless u have walk a mile in their shoes.

|-|05| SG

This actually does pose the same problem as the COE which although the price is market contorl the amount of COE's per month has a quota!!
If we use a new import quota system the resualt will still be the same.The rich who want a car will ask the car dealer to put up a higher bid for which they will pay the dealer.This means when u want the car you buy it and then the dealer bids for it which brings us back to square one with the COE only thing is the ownership is transferable.Which can be done with a revamped COE system

Though I do have to raise tis issue... why does public transport fare be so high and service so unreasonable ?? I believe tat SIngapore is the country where citizen has to pay the most for the use of public transport, considering tat we have to pay so much for cars too. The way they delete off bus routes in Sengkang and Hougang to fill up the seats for North East line is really tyrannical and typical action of monopolising bullies.

To make sure they earn money through North East line, they literally force us to travel by MRT. Do we have a choice ? Is it reasonable for us to walk to Orchard rd Is there other transport available ? Before tis I have buses linking directly to the city, having bus stops near to my house. When NE line start, I have to walk all the way to the "nearby' MRT to take the train. Worse still, they even refuse to open Buang Kok Green station to save their money ! The day North East line start is the day where public transport becomes more inconvenient to me (BTW I live in Houguang, next to Buang Kok Green MRT). How can they do such deeds ?

Can public transport companies only care about their income (They r probably one of the companies tat make the most money in singapore now) and totally ignore the inconvenience of the people ? I start to believe tat Gov purposely make it "privatised" so tat watever wickedness these "privatised" companies did, is none of their business. I now had tis feeling tat MPs had such high salaries, can afford their own cars, never take bus and public transport, only look at figures and exclaimed out "looking at statistic, singapore public transport is one of the best bla bla bla...." Bull*%#$ !

Ok well ok due to our low income taxable(the basic income tax not the CPF)Our transport is not totally paid for by our goverment.This is also true with medical care and other stuff.In countries like Canada which has the highest income taxt rate of 55%( if i recall correctly)Has very cheap transport,social security(hand outs) and free YES free health care.Meaning if you need braces the goverment pays for it TOTALLY.If you need an operation for a broken bone the goverment pays TOTALLY.Also things like the GST is 5%-15% with simple things like pencils and pens costing $3.(Hence making my canadian and austrialian friends come back and buy things like that)
Also CPF is a "retirement" fund.Sure the goverment takes it but in the end you get it back.And most people pay their mogage with it.You are also missing out the private property owners of which there are many!Also i think you do not pay anything for the mantanice of your HDB estate which includes the utility bill for the corridoor lighting,lifts,cleaning the blocks,repainting,etc etc etc.

Atobe SG

The difference between the SUPPLY side quota control and the DEMAND side COE quota control is that a Dealership will have to commit not to the payment of ONE vehicle, but for the entire quota of a fixed quantity of vehicles - either 500, 1000, or any numbers lower or higher.

The Dealership will have to be careful that he does not end up with a stock of overpriced "Quota Allotment" of vehicles that may end up being non-competitive against another make of vehicle, as well as the possibility of a lower cost for the next Quota bid.

The Dealership will have to weigh his sales potential, his cash flow position, present stock levels vs additional stocks, financial cost of holding vehicles in stock for too long a time, competitor's pricing, and a whole host of consideration pertaining to their specific industry.

The DEMAND side will only involve the Car Owner, who is only concerned in getting his single vehicle, and do not care necessarily be overly concerned with the financial aspects as would a Dealer that is involved with purchasing an entire quota approved quantity into his stock.

The SUPPLY side quota control of the car population can be finely tuned to ensure that Dealerships do not monopolise all the quotas by out bidding the other Dealerships. The system can be fine tuned to the point that any second quota allotment awarded to a previously successful Dealership, will carry a Premium Value added to the bid price.

Unlike the present COE bidding system - which has now become an additional financial collection system for the Government Treasury - the SUPPLY side quota will see a definitely fixed quanity of vehicles being allowed to be sold on a monthly basis.

There are more then this few suggested ways of tweaking the SUPPLY side quota allocation to control the size and growth of the Car Population in Singapore, without the need of implementing financially punishing direct and indirect taxes called under different names.

Let us not forget that the objective is to regulate the growth and size of the vehicle population in Singapore, and this entire exercise is NOT about generating additional Cash for the Government Treasury.