SBS Transit, SMRT submit applications for fare adjustment
-
3Boys:
Co-exist came in only later... I cannot find old reports now but I am certain it was designed as an interim as they were studying the ERP system then and I had a discussion with my friends and colleagues about this. No one has ever expected COE to be such a successful tool to generate $. That is already history....so moving forward, we have to be cognisant of what we subscribe to.
I clearly remember GCT and more than 1 transport minister saying that BOTH car ownership (COE) controls and car usage (ERP) measures will co-exist. I don't remember anyone saying that COE was interim.ksi:
Liberalise? As far as I remember, it was only an interim solution prior to building the ERP gantries which took time to build. It was supposed to be history after ERP went live...look at it today, what happened -
maybe they should implement \"COE\" for tobaco
:offtopic: :oops: -
3Boys:
Just saying that they worry they might collect too little so that they collect more but in the end it turns out there was never not enough and they collected \"too much\".
Well, you digress. You speak of the profit in absolute terms, and I am saying that is not an appropriate way of looking at it.
Not sure what you are trying to illustrate with GST. At the end of the day, it is a form of tax. Either you do it through income tax, GST or other means, someone has to pay for it. Even services that are 'free' come at the cost of providing it.
It's nothing more than just greed. -
3Boys:
for one, maybe the KPI is not well defined.. the million dollar ministers shd look into it..
And why do you believe a nationalised company can run better than a private one. What is your satisfaction level with the stat boards and ministries? You very happy with healthcare, education?
Secondly, privatizing might Not improve the situation (look at SMRT).. but certainty some group of pple will get richer..? Yes/No? -
Edureach:
I disagree. If the company posted zero profits or losses, surely the majority of the public would be agreeable to a fare hike. On the other hand, they might even welcomed a fare hike as it could lead to better quality of service. And snowman could bring in all his arguments and many pple would be interested to read.
As indicated in my earlier posts, no commuters would welcome a fare increase no matter how plausible the reasons given.
And surely there will not be so much complaints. -
tankee:
Support!maybe they should implement \"COE\" for tobaco
:offtopic: :oops:
:goodpost: -
-
Daddy
hard to undstand gahmen role in this la.
I wonder what's the government's role in this? Our transport minister's role in this? They are not even in the PTC's board... :?Strparent:
Public Transport - to raise again the fares ? Justifiable or not ? I vote ney.....oh, sorry, we are not allowed to vote on this, it is up to PTC.
our public tansport compnies are listed, so minster of tanspot must answer to shareholders, not to public. tio bo? -
Today's report.....There you go....some good suggestions in red.
What are the social costs of COEs?
By Christopher Tan
For many people, the Certificate of Entitlement (COE) system still holds novelty and controversy, despite having been around for more than 20 years.
It places a sizeable financial burden on new-car buyers, and COE premiums always make good cocktail conversation, whether they're climbing towards record levels or plummeting to ridiculous lows.
Faced with one of the smallest supplies of certificates, we are now witnessing an uptrend in premiums that started two years ago, and which is likely to continue for another two years or so.
For last month's first tender, the Category A premium (for cars up to 1600cc and taxis) reached $53,390, less than $10,000 away from the all-time high of $62,208 posted in 1997.
The Category B premium (for cars above 1600cc) hit $63,000. Barring the $102,002 and $110,500 premiums posted in late 1994, $63,000 is still among the highest prices ever recorded.
As recently as two years ago, both premiums were below $10,000.
The sharp spike over such a short span of time is worrying. And things are not looking good in the near term, either. COE supply, allotted in six-monthly quotas, is determined largely by the number of vehicles scrapped in the preceding six months. Right now, we're witnessing a deregistration drought.
So, in all likelihood, COE supply will either remain as scarce as it is now, or shrink even further. Hence, premiums could rise further. By the middle of next year, we could be looking at $65,000 for Cat A and $75,000 for Cat B.
From economic and environmental points of view, high COE prices can be considered either neutral or positive. Economically, the consumer most willing to pay for an item gets it.
And the annual COE revenue of around $2 billion, like all tax revenues, goes towards benefitting society at large.
Environmentally, the COE system helps control Singapore's vehicle population and, consequently, prevents road congestion as well as noise and air pollution.
But soaring COE rates also exert a hefty social cost - they serve to widen the gap between the haves and the have-nots. For example, upmarket marques are flourishing at the expense of mass-market brands because of the soaring COEs, as the sellers of premium cars simply have fatter margins to bid.
In the first five months of this year, the top five best-selling brands were BMW, Toyota, Mercedes-Benz, Volkswagen and Audi (in descending order). Three of those are luxury makes. If that's not enough, Porsche was among the 10 best-sellers. Imagine that!
Over time, this could lead to growing resentment among residents, especially if local wage earners are completely priced out of the car market, while wealthy immigrants continue snapping up flashy Bimmers and Porsches.
More insidiously, high vehicle prices contribute to inflation. Singapore's consumer price index has been creeping upwards in recent quarters, fuelled partly by the higher cost of cars.
Ironically, rising inflation will also have a direct impact in the form of public-transport fare increases. This inflationary pressure will be felt most keenly by lower-wage earners. Again, this will have an undesirable social fallout.
One way to defuse this would be to channel car-related taxes towards improving welfare for the masses. Right now, the vast majority of taxes and tariffs go into the country's Consolidated Fund, which is then disbursed for national spending. The link between COE revenue and investment in, say, a new MRT line is invisible to the masses.
It would help, perhaps, if car-related taxes could be used solely to improve public transport. The British government does this - it uses revenue raised through London's congestion pricing to beef up the city's public bus fleet.
Even if we do not actually institutionalise this practice, we can find innovative ways of communicating the link between tax collection and public spending.
For instance, we could put up signs on the hoardings of MRT construction sites that say: \"Brought to you with COE revenue collected from 2009 to 2010\".
The message is factual and light-hearted and, who knows, it might even warm the often-icy relationship between the Government and the governed. -
some rich people say buy smrt shares
how many to buy? how much ar?
people affected by fare increase can afford it?
fare increase benefit who? shareholders or those crammed inside buses and trains?
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better š
Register Login
