Singapore income tax highest in the world???
-
wow. this has degenerated well.
the reason i don't believe in a quota system, is that there will be exploition, whereby people will be buying cars at the presumably low prices, and selling them off at a profit to those who're willing and able to pay for them.
my proposed coe change was to make it a level playing field. everyone pays the same amount for a COE. after they have the COE, whatever vehicle they buy and at whatever price will be between the buyer and the dealer.
this is to seperate the cost of the COE as well as all it's other additional inflated fees from the cost of the car, so as to avoid the situation we have now where it's more cost effective to scrap a newly bought car than it is to repair it. -
if the intention is to control car USAGE rather the car OWNERSHIP, why not link tax to fuel used? increased fuel = increased usage, thus it should mean higher costs, rather than COE system which limits car ownership instead of usage. can the tax for
of course, there are some weaknesses i've spotted in this method myself
1. it will tax users of BOTH underutilised roads and congested roads equally.
2. drastically increased costs for taxi drivers
however, i believe stuff like average cost for COE can be reduced and that lower costs of cars will mean less need for taxis. though amt of money that the gov earns will be drastically reduced due to reduction in the main earner: COE.
my two cents, spot some flaws, correct something,add something, prove it useless, whack it down, whatever. -
This is getting to be quite amazing, and it sure is going down into the history of a forum being misdirected by degenerate.Originally posted by stupidissmart:
Having a very good day and a very good night of entertainment, I will try to humour you, to get the message through to a personality that believes in a "world of reverse order" by living in the practise of being " stupid-is-smart ".
I don't know wat u r good at since u can not answer tis simple question from me. U again choose to ignore tat question as U HAVE NO GOOD ANSWER TO IT. I will ignore other points till u come to senses and answer the question I wanted u to answer. Since u r so brain dead, I will use a more child like approach to explain the situation to u
Once upon a time, there was a small kingdom in the far east. The kingdom is small, as stated in the previous sentence, thus decided to employ SIngapore way of controlling cars, which is COE. The COE gradually rises to a very high level due to the high demand for cars in the kingdom.
Then came a stupid senseless consultant named Atobe and use the "supply" control method of controlling vehicles. The blur and good hearted king decide to use it, and "fine tune" its policy according to Atobe and inform all its citizen about the new changes.
The traffic advisor suggested to open up no more than 5000 COE tat month to establish normal growth, thus king decide to use 5000 as its quota for tat month.
The bidding day come after much anticipaton. To the king surprise, 50,000 bids came in for the 5000 slots available for tat month. The king now do not know [b]how to choose who is getting how much COE available, and he approach back Atobe for the solution.
Imagine u r tat Atobe, how r u going to advise the king on how to select which 5000 bids will get the COE ? [/b]
Firstly, you are assuming that the King has to deal with 50,000 bids, which maybe true in your infatuation with the present COE system that was shown in your flow path:
Present system: Gov -> Buyer
Secondly, if you are desperate to recover from your last posted embarrassing position, by telling the story of a "Once upon a time, there was a small kingdom.... " and include Atobe as a Consultant, who has promoted the idea of SUPPLY SIDE Quota Control, then at least be accurate by understanding the concept first.
Thirdly, do you not feel at all embarrass to tell a story of the SUPPLY SIDE Quota Control when you cannot even tell it accurately as already described by Atobe for the last 48 hours ?
Fourthly, I am not sure for your insistent hang-up that there will be a huge demand for vehicles, when there has been at least three COE exercises, in which there are LESS application then there are COE available. (In simple straight English, there are less buyers and more COE available, which resulted in the excess COE being carried over to the subsequent months).
Fifthly, if DEMAND exceed SUPPLY - meaning 50,000 buyers to only a small quota of 5,000 - is the "King" dead and cannot respond by increasing the Quota ? This has happened with the present COE system, in which the Government adjust the quantity of COE to meet rising demands.
Sixthly, figures are not just DEAD and FIXED.
Back to SUPPLY SIDE Quota Control - to answer your question of 50,000 interested buyers to buy a quota of 5000 vehicles for the month of OCTOBER 2003.
The 50,000 interested buyers will book their commitment fee with the 100 dealership (if you like more then 100, or less then my 100, just replace this 100 with whatever suits your fancy - I will not hanker with you over it).
If each of the 100 dealers equally receive 500 bookings from a total of 50,000 buyers, then the 100 dealers will each apply for a quota of 500 vehicles.
If the "King" decides to have a Quota Lot of 50 cars - priced at a base price of $5000 per car for the First Successful Bid. The Dealers will then place their bids OVER or BELOW this base price - (i.e. $5000 PLUS 10 PERCENT) (or another Dealer may bid $5000 MINUS 10 PERCENT).
Price for 1st Successful Bid - Quota Lot - 50 cars x $5000
Each Dealer that need more then ONE Quota Lot, will have to pay a premium of 10% more over their successful bid price. -
The mechanics used in the Present COE Bidding System - (in determining which COE bidder gets the award) - can be used to award the successful bidder in this SUPPLY SIDE Quota Control.
Or it can be modified to allow the median bid price to be established from all the prices offered, and the groups of application closest to this median price will be awarded the quota.
If first group of 20 Dealers submit offers at $5000 + 10% = $5,500 per car.
2nd Group of 20 Dealers submit offers at $5000 + 15% = $5,750 per car.
3rd Group of 10 Dealers submit offers at $5000 + 20% = $6,000 per car
4th Group of 20 Dealers submit offers at $5000 + 25% = $6,250 per car
5th Group of 10 Dealers submit offers at $5000 + 30% = $6,500 per car
6th Group of 15 Dealers submit offers at $5000 + 40% = $7,000 per car
The average median price will be $6,200.
All the 20 dealers in the 4th Group will get their application for the FIRST Quota Lot of 50 cars at $6,200 per car.
The other dealers in the 3rd and 5th Group, being the nearest to the average median price will be offered this average median price of $6,200.
While those in the 1st, 2nd and 6th groups will be offered the remaining Quota in equal proportions.
When the Dealers submit their application for the First Quota Lot of 50 cars, they will need to submit their application also for the Second Quota Lot or Third Quota Lot at the same time.
The method to determine the award for the Second and Third Lot can be the approach, or it can be based on the Median Price of the First Lot.
Since you need to understand the SUPPLY SIDE Quota System by way of a kindergarten story, and now that I have obliged you, I hope you can appreciate that I have to stick to my points with regards to the benefits of the SUPPLY SIDE Quota System; and which bears repeating:
I guess u r still sticking to your point and refusing to answer my question because u have no good answer for it
I never know u can be so vulnerable till tis stage, and all tat is holding your stand is creating confusion by answer a different question to the one posed, and trying to make the other party sounds silly, thus moltivated to stop asking tat question. Com'on, is tat all u can do ?
Firstly, in a SUPPLY SIDE Quota System, the DEALERSHIP is made responsible to submit the bid prices for this NEW type of COE (as you have aptly named it as CHEAPER COE).
Secondly, in a SUPPLY SIDE Quota System, the OPENING BID PRICE is Declared at a lower price of 4 DIGIT VALUE - (at present, an arbitrary and hopeful figure has been offered at $5000).
Thirdly, in a SUPPLY SIDE Quota System, it is important that the Quota per month be kept firm at a decided level, but moderated according to the situation.
Fourthly, in a SUPPLY SIDE Quota System, TRANSPARENCY is achieved, since the Base Price is made known to everyone, and the Dealers will be required to show the Quota Price paid for, as it is already practised with the Log Card showing the OMV, PARF, and COE Values.
Why should I avoid or refuse to answer your question ? Your questions are not difficult to address, and as the records have shown, in which I have even taken the trouble to print out the answers to your question in the referenced dates of October 9, 10, 11, and 12.
If u refuse to answer tis question, it proves U R JUST A TALK C,O,C,K person who being such a big coward, using verbal slippiness, to ignore a simple problem posed. Clearly one tat had known tat is the biggest loop hole in his solution. If u refuse to answer tis one question, then talking more doesn't mean anything as tis is one of the fundamental element in your solution, and u have no solution to it. I will treat all those comments insulting my IQ level as a way of u trying to escape notice, and will treat u no greater than a naughty boy trying to avoid answering a question by creating distractions.
The problem is with your infantile reading and understanding of the events and issues that are being discusssed; and I am not too surprised in the way your "thought process" has developed when you adopt a credo such as being " stupid is smart ".
Now I hope that you will at least change this belief so as to help yourself to understand the issues better.
You have not shown yourself to be speechless about all my points posted, and instead you seem to have displayed a dense degree of frustrations in how your positions have been exposed to be untenable.
If u think I am speechless about all your other points, then think again. I want u to be focus on tis one question and tis one question only. ANSWER IT PLAIN AND SIMPLE.
If you can only handle one issue at a time, I will definitely oblige you, as you have already shown a very industrious capacity to diverge into so many different positions in one subject.
Hopefully, my straight forward response to your effort at a kindergarten level story telling will help you to understand an issue for Adults Only. -
For the last 3 days, it was with great temptation that [color=blue]A:tobe had wished to tell B: ( stupid-is-smart ) :[/color]Originally posted by stupidissmart:A got a business plan and want to sell it to a group of capitalists. B, an experienced person also attended the presentation. On his presentation, tis is the exchanges tat took place.
A : As u all can see, if u do A,B,C, then u will get back your investments and much more
B : (sensing something not practical with business plan) Tat is very good, but wat happened if D,E,F happened ?
A : (realised a loop hole in D and E. However pride does not allowed him to admit it) Okie, if u do A', B' and C', then it will solve question F of your problem, now is there any other ques..
B : Tat is very interesting, but I think u haven't answer question D and E
A : I thought I told u A', B' C' already right ?
B : Yes but tat is for question F, how about D and e ?
A : I have told u so many times it is A', B' and C' already. R u deaf or stupid ?
B : I want u to answer D and E ? I know F, and A', B', C' doesn't address question D & E at all ! I want to know your answer for D and E !
A : As I said, it is A', B' and C' for F! I have told u so many times already I can't believe your spastic intelligence
B : HEY ! I am asking plain and simple question, D and E happen, then WAT ??
A : I am not going to answer question F so many times. I think u better go home and sleep, I shall now carry on....
B : Wat ?? Hey, answer D and E for goodness sake !
A : Hey stupid, haven't I told u enough ? Get lost !!
..................................................................
A: " Hey stupid, haven't I told u enough ? Get lost !! "
Thanks, stupidissmart for your contribution, it was fun while it lasted. -
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 quota of 5,000 - is the "King" dead and cannot respond by increasing the Quota ? This has happened with the present COE system, in which the Government adjust the quantity of COE to meet rising demands.
"""
First of all, from the above paragraph, u suggested tat there is no fixed quota level per month. In other words, if there r 50000 bidders, the king will eventually give out 50000 COE, though they may be charged at a higher price. Then in such a case, where is the control mechanism for the number of cars on the road ?? Gov may adjust the quantity, however the percentage change is not great, as descibed by
""
Thirdly, in a SUPPLY SIDE Quota System, it is important that the Quota per month be kept firm at a decided level, but moderated according to the situation.
""
If in your case, then since the COE is "cheaper", as u hope to achieve, then more people can afford to have cars. Assume the city can only support 1 million cars. In the past, only about 1 million people can afford to have them. Since COE is cheaper now, then 3 million can afford to have cars. Hence there is a 3 times over capacity. In the end, we will turn out to be the same as Bangkok or other congested roads in cities. There is a reason why there is a cap on the number of cars on the road.
""
If the "King" decides to have a Quota Lot of 50 cars - priced at a base price of $5000 per car for the First Successful Bid. The Dealers will then place their bids OVER or BELOW this base price - (i.e. $5000 PLUS 10 PERCENT) (or another Dealer may bid $5000 MINUS 10 PERCENT).
Price for 1st Successful Bid - Quota Lot - 50 cars x $5000
Each Dealer that need more then ONE Quota Lot, will have to pay a premium of 10% more over their successful bid price.
""
Tat is another stupid assumption u had made in tis. If I am dealer, who have 500 orders, and I had to pay extra after 50 lots, then I will ask my relatives to bid for me, as explained in IC method. In other words, if all the dealers do such, then it will turn out to be 100X10=1000 dealers, each with bids of 50. How is your overcharging going to work then ? How r u going to proceed on with selection again ?
Even if u manage to curb tis probelm, tat will pose another problem. U r forcing people to buy in a variety of cars rather than the one they like. Lets say car A manage to sell 500 per month while car B only sold 2. If we implement your stupid idea, than car A can only sell 50 per month, unless owners r willing to pay for overcharging fees while car B suddenly manage to sell 50 too due to your implementation. We r talking about dyunamic rate here, u cannot just "wait" now since we r increasing 450 "waiting pesonal" for tis particular car every month. U r forcing car owners to buy cars they do not like, and u r forcing car market to turn upsaide down.
If u going to use cost to diminish the demand, then wat difference had u made relatively to the past COE ? Only tis time u r removing the option of letting car bidders bid themselves without passing through the dealer channel. U have also added the problem of investment opportunity in the COE.
""
Or it can be modified to allow the median bid price to be established from all the prices offered, and the groups of application closest to this median price will be awarded the quota.
If first group of 20 Dealers submit offers at $5000 + 10% = $5,500 per car.
2nd Group of 20 Dealers submit offers at $5000 + 15% = $5,750 per car.
3rd Group of 10 Dealers submit offers at $5000 + 20% = $6,000 per car
4th Group of 20 Dealers submit offers at $5000 + 25% = $6,250 per car
5th Group of 10 Dealers submit offers at $5000 + 30% = $6,500 per car
6th Group of 15 Dealers submit offers at $5000 + 40% = $7,000 per car
The average median price will be $6,200.
All the 20 dealers in the 4th Group will get their application for the FIRST Quota Lot of 50 cars at $6,200 per car.
"""
Tis is another failed method above. Hence as the way u put it, only 20 dealers get to have their FULL bid while the other dealer LEFT with 0. In such case, then u have already MIXED luck inside the formula, which will end up with 1 BIG monopoly dealer. He will charge a HIGHER price for the COE he had successfully bidded, since he hold the market now and for tat month, and we can see their cars sell like hotcakes. Mean time we can see all the other dealers starve to death. They EARNED 0 tat month since they can't get any COE. If they r so unlucky not to be able to win any bid for 10 months, u have forced them to go bust.
Since no one can guess the median of tat month easily, then u had already RELIED on LUCK to distribute the COE. If tat is the case, then why not use the BALLOT box from the start ? Why not cancel out the dealer and use consumers themselves bid if u insist on using "median" ? Tis is more efficient than your stupid idea in the sense tat dealer r not involved in the loop neither is there any "investment" aspect from the selling of the COE.
Since all your method of selection fail as discussed above, lets see wat other method can u come up with. -
The reason why I am not bothering to post my views on this topic is simply because there's little to be said, and given stupidissmart's incompetence in subject matter, abilty to ignore logic and give in to emotionlism and denseheadeness, deems my contribution unproductive. However I take pleasure in analysing his behaviour and MO:
I can't believe what I am seeing here, Stupid is smart could quite possibly go down in forum history as the person who can talk the most on the least amount of knowledge and logic.
He never fails to surprise me in pushing the limits of human-infantileness and illogicity, making point after point without showing any form of reasoning ability whatsoever, and some how remain as unshakable in his belief in the logic of his cause. Pausing every now and then to change his stance and hurl infantile insults and drawing up improbable stories to illustrate his point (which impresses nobody by the way).
Some people are just amazing.
I'm sorry stupidissmart, but you lose, you already have since the first post. The only person ignorant of that I'm afraid, is yourself.
Someday you might develop enough sense to realize your foolishness, and cringe inwardly at your infantileness back then. But I'm not exactly hopeful. Sure, you can boost your ego now by relentlessly driving your point in and trying to emerge on top for now, but your actions are only serving to bring you down into history not as an intellectual, but as an idiot. So to use the term.
Thank you and have a nice day. -
To Singapore T
u r free to have your own view, but however if u have nothing constructive to talk about, please don't just go into the forum and insult a person with opinion u had gather on your own. I do not want to waste time mentioning the likes of u again. -
you forgot about char123Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:I can't believe what I am seeing here, Stupid is smart could quite possibly go down in forum history as the person who can talk the most on the least amount of knowledge and logic. -
Tis is to reply the previous mail u have sent already. From now onward, I will cut down on remarks against other author, and just focus on talking about their points in the argument. I can do nothing to the other party if he still decide to put in additional comments, but it is just a matter of courtesy.
''
If a dealership is lucky enough to get 1 million buyers to buy his 300 cars in stock, the best way to get more publicity is to conduct a ballot.
What is your problem with this ? It is like a Lucky Draw ! Everyone likes surprise win !
""
If tat is the case, why don't we start with balloting from the Gov to the buyer directly, removing the link of dealer directly ? Wat is the role of dealer in tis case ? If in the end everything is decided on using the ballot box, there will be no use of dealer, as u suggested in the role of buying COE.
""
What is the difference whether if it is the Government who decide which Dealer is lucky to get the 5000 cars to sell,
OR
whether it is a Dealer deciding which BUYER is lucky to get the 5000 cars to buy ?
""
As the same argument again, why need to go through the dealer at all ?
Wat is the difference if GOV decide which BUYER get to buy the 500 cars, while the dealer just focus on selling their cars.
Tis is wat I had suggested in Oct 11 1135
The gov will hold a ballot for the owner themselves to ballot it out. The application form for each ballot come in $100 or watever the gov want, and the people, if they wanna increase their chances, can buy more application form and try out their luck (tis is to prevent people from using other people IC to ballot). Of course if they got the ownership, they cannot transfer their ownership and have to get a car by tis month. (to avoid investors since it is only to themselves, tis time). There can be another alternative to those who must absolutely get their car within tis month. They get to pay the full COE, or a fixed min price fixed by gov.
Why not tis method cutting off problem of transfering ownership, cutting link of dealers ?
"""
For some sensible lessons of stocking vs financial cost, you need to abandon the idea of " stupid-is-smart " , because if you insist in your position there is nothing can be further said without endless cycle of assumptions that are made based on a whimsical speculation
"""
Then I have to propose tis question to u. Can u surely say tat ALL the cars sold by ALL the dealers, including 2ND hand car dealers, must sell their cars by advance booking, and can only pass the cars to the buyer after bidding day ? If your answer is yes, then I have nothing to say.
If your answer if no, then I have to ask, then shouldn't he keep at least some minimun stock of COE with him ? U can still say anything u want about fiancial planning, but fact is tat in such a business environment, one must stock up some "raw" materials to remain in business.
""
Based on the present soft economic situation, do you think it is wise to use the Sales Figures of 912 from October 2002 ?
As a responsible Financial Person, would you commit anything huge into stock, over and above the 323 buyers who have committed with Booking Fee ?
""
I am just giving u the figures u need. If u do not want to use the data from last year, it is okie. But r u sure u will only bid for 323 exact, without leaving any extra COE to play with ? R u sure the whole of next month there won't be any buyer tat buy cars within a shorter time of thinking ? I can see the possibility of potential people just go over to a show room, test a car and decided to buy it straight. Since there r willing buyers willing to book for a month before getting the car, isn't it better to tell them tat they can drive away with the car they want without having to wait at all.Tis can only be achieved since the company has the extra COE with them. Won't an extra stock of COE help to facilitate such transaction and bring convenience to the buyers ? -
"""
As a Condition in the SUPPLY SIDE Quota, the Dealership will be required to pay UPFRONT for the price of their bid, NOT the Buyers.
"""
Tat is part of your idea. However it is necessary to state your stand clearer by telling how do u cope with extra bidding from Gov side. I can not foresee why does dealer, having to pay an upfront could prevent overbidding. I have mentioned before $5000 is not a big sum, which can be easily fianced by bank loan. The dealer is just a middle man, which the user had to pay for the whole COE in the end plus the profit for dealer and interest loan from the bank.
If all dealer, as u suggested go through advance booking system, and the news of a possible reduction of COE reach the ears of the general population, won't tat create extra demand for tat month since more people can afford a car now ? In tat case, won't the demand greatly increase beyond the normal quota set by Gov ? If Gov set 5000 cars, and demand is 50000, then how does the Gov do its selection will greatly determine the validity of your stand in using the supply method u suggested. As u have said, there r real interested buyers in tis case, who had signed a contract to show their sincerity. The imposition of making the dealer pay for full sum of all COE will show little effect.
"""
You are speculating that the successful Dealership will auction his limited quota stocks to any Buyer who is prepared to succumb to the Dealers' greed for money by AUCTION the limited stock of cars to desparate Buyers.
Does your speculation make any sense ? I can argue in some other directions too just to counter your speculative position, where does debate end when arguments are based on wild speculations and not on reasons ?
"""
History has already proved tat people do speculation before. And tat is why Gov make a rule in stopping transfering of ownership. Tis is not wild speculation, tis is based on historic facts. The peopel tat bid for the cars may turn out not to be dealers at all. They may buy in COE when it is cheap, and sell it off when COE price rise. Will tis have a positive effect on the price structure ? Can u safely say tat there is not side effect when COE is made transferable ?
""
PRESENT: Gov -> Buyer - where is the Dealer in this path that submit COE bid on behalf of buyers - as a service ?
STUPID IDEA : Gov -> Dealer -> Buyer -
""
Lets just give tis example. I know an artist, who collect wood from forest and carve theminto works of art. If I want to buy them, I could
Ask jane, who will ask peter, then ask for Jackson and Veronica who will then approach the artist to buy the art piece for me.
Or I could ask the artist myself.
The chain is the shortest possible link in purchasing the COE. Hence the owner can approach the dealer who can bid for him. However he can also approach to buy from Gov itself. thus explaining
Gov -> Buyer
However in your case, nomatter wat they still have to go through dealer before bidding from Gov, thus the shortest possible way for the general buyers turn out to be
Gov -> dealer -> buyer
Do u still have any doubts about tis chain system ?
""
Who do you think "influence" or "advise" the Buyers as to the price to place in their COE application ? Who do you think does all the running around between LTA and the Dealership, to service the Buyers ?
""
The new system open bidding system now is quite easy to use, with many possible helplines for those who need help, offering more transparency. I believe tat it has reached a point tat dealers will not be involved in the bidding of COE now.
""
"COE doesn't GET CHEAPER in tis case, and DEALER STILL EARN PROFIT" ? You already stated before that the SUPPLY SIDE Quota System is a 'CHEAPER COE'; and about the profit element - how does your amazing brilliance come to this conclusion, when i had indicated that the Quota Price paid by the Dealership can be forced to be declared with the OMV, ARF and PARF printout in the Log Card
""
The answer to tis, I will need to see how u react with there is a higher demand for lesser supply from Giov side. I had used an assumption here tat Gov will be making use of high price to deter thus reduce the number of bidders. Henec the reason why I demand the answer from u for tat question.
""
If you have 4500 CONFIRMED in your waiting list, and you brilliantly "bid for 5500 cars" - why do you need to compensate 4500 buyers ? If you brilliantly bid for 5500 cars, you will have already received a successful bid of 1000 cars - no ? You need to compensate only 3500 only - no ?
""
I will treat tat my english is so bad u do not know wat I am taling about.
A dealer received 4500 advance orders for cars now. Hence the only obstruction for getting the commision is the COE. Since in the end, buyers will still pay for the COE, I will not hesistate to bid in a high price to make sure I get tat at least 4500. I bid in 1000 more COE as a stock reserve which u r so against. Thus again, the question of how Gov settle over bidding has come to play again. If u employs the use of getting the highest bidder win the bid, then I can say it will not reduce but only raise the price of COE.
""
You call this people "JOKERS" - who are sensible to pay $1 to $1000 to buy a paper called COE, and will consider people to be "SENSIBLE" to pay up to $90,000 (during the Peak) for a COE paper ? No wonder you live up to your credo of " Stupid-is-Smart " .
""
Tat time, if u don't bid tat high, u will end up with no cars. I don't think they r jokers nor not sensible. If u hate it so much , don't bid and of course don't use a car.
I hope u like tis new approach in handling forums. Lets see how u write in reply to tis. -
"""
As a Condition in the SUPPLY SIDE Quota, the Dealership will be required to pay UPFRONT for the price of their bid, NOT the Buyers.
"""
Tat is part of your idea. However it is necessary to state your stand clearer by telling how do u cope with extra bidding from Gov side. I can not foresee why does dealer, having to pay an upfront could prevent overbidding. I have mentioned before $5000 is not a big sum, which can be easily fianced by bank loan. The dealer is just a middle man, which the user had to pay for the whole COE in the end plus the profit for dealer and interest loan from the bank.
If all dealer, as u suggested go through advance booking system, and the news of a possible reduction of COE reach the ears of the general population, won't tat create extra demand for tat month since more people can afford a car now ? In tat case, won't the demand greatly increase beyond the normal quota set by Gov ? If Gov set 5000 cars, and demand is 50000, then how does the Gov do its selection will greatly determine the validity of your stand in using the supply method u suggested. As u have said, there r real interested buyers in tis case, who had signed a contract to show their sincerity. The imposition of making the dealer pay for full sum of all COE will show little effect.
"""
You are speculating that the successful Dealership will auction his limited quota stocks to any Buyer who is prepared to succumb to the Dealers' greed for money by AUCTION the limited stock of cars to desparate Buyers.
Does your speculation make any sense ? I can argue in some other directions too just to counter your speculative position, where does debate end when arguments are based on wild speculations and not on reasons ?
"""
History has already proved tat people do speculation before. And tat is why Gov make a rule in stopping transfering of ownership. Tis is not wild speculation, tis is based on historic facts. The peopel tat bid for the cars may turn out not to be dealers at all. They may buy in COE when it is cheap, and sell it off when COE price rise. Will tis have a positive effect on the price structure ? Can u safely say tat there is not side effect when COE is made transferable ?
""
PRESENT: Gov -> Buyer - where is the Dealer in this path that submit COE bid on behalf of buyers - as a service ?
STUPID IDEA : Gov -> Dealer -> Buyer -
""
Lets just give tis example. I know an artist, who collect wood from forest and carve theminto works of art. If I want to buy them, I could
Ask jane, who will ask peter, then ask for Jackson and Veronica who will then approach the artist to buy the art piece for me.
Or I could ask the artist myself.
The chain is the shortest possible link in purchasing the COE. Hence the owner can approach the dealer who can bid for him. However he can also approach to buy from Gov itself. thus explaining
Gov -> Buyer
However in your case, nomatter wat they still have to go through dealer before bidding from Gov, thus the shortest possible way for the general buyers turn out to be
Gov -> dealer -> buyer
Do u still have any doubts about tis chain system ?
""
Who do you think "influence" or "advise" the Buyers as to the price to place in their COE application ? Who do you think does all the running around between LTA and the Dealership, to service the Buyers ?
""
The new system open bidding system now is quite easy to use, with many possible helplines for those who need help, offering more transparency. I believe tat it has reached a point tat dealers will not be involved in the bidding of COE now.
""
"COE doesn't GET CHEAPER in tis case, and DEALER STILL EARN PROFIT" ? You already stated before that the SUPPLY SIDE Quota System is a 'CHEAPER COE'; and about the profit element - how does your amazing brilliance come to this conclusion, when i had indicated that the Quota Price paid by the Dealership can be forced to be declared with the OMV, ARF and PARF printout in the Log Card
""
The answer to tis, I will need to see how u react with there is a higher demand for lesser supply from Giov side. I had used an assumption here tat Gov will be making use of high price to deter thus reduce the number of bidders. Henec the reason why I demand the answer from u for tat question.
""
If you have 4500 CONFIRMED in your waiting list, and you brilliantly "bid for 5500 cars" - why do you need to compensate 4500 buyers ? If you brilliantly bid for 5500 cars, you will have already received a successful bid of 1000 cars - no ? You need to compensate only 3500 only - no ?
""
I will treat tat my english is so bad u do not know wat I am taling about.
A dealer received 4500 advance orders for cars now. Hence the only obstruction for getting the commision is the COE. Since in the end, buyers will still pay for the COE, I will not hesistate to bid in a high price to make sure I get tat at least 4500. I bid in 1000 more COE as a stock reserve which u r so against. Thus again, the question of how Gov settle over bidding has come to play again. If u employs the use of getting the highest bidder win the bid, then I can say it will not reduce but only raise the price of COE.
""
You call this people "JOKERS" - who are sensible to pay $1 to $1000 to buy a paper called COE, and will consider people to be "SENSIBLE" to pay up to $90,000 (during the Peak) for a COE paper ? No wonder you live up to your credo of " Stupid-is-Smart " .
""
Tat time, if u don't bid tat high, u will end up with no cars. I don't think they r jokers nor not sensible. If u hate it so much , don't bid and of course don't use a car.
I hope u like tis new approach in handling forums. Lets see how u write in reply to tis. -
Great that you have finally come to a decision when things are made simple for your understanding.
I am surprised at your selective ignorance of my post, and split hairs on issues without looking at the entire First, Second, Forth, and Sixth Points of my posts, and ignore the significance of all the points when put together.Originally posted by stupidissmart: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 quota of 5,000 - is the "King" dead and cannot respond by increasing the Quota ? This has happened with the present COE system, in which the Government adjust the quantity of COE to meet rising demands.
"""
First of all, from the above paragraph, u suggested tat there is no fixed quota level per month. In other words, if there r 50000 bidders, the king will eventually give out 50000 COE, though they may be charged at a higher price. Then in such a case, where is the control mechanism for the number of cars on the road ?? Gov may adjust the quantity, however the percentage change is not great, as descibed by
""
Thirdly, in a SUPPLY SIDE Quota System, it is important that the Quota per month be kept firm at a decided level, but moderated according to the situation.
""
In any case, I will assist you to grasp the significance of a SUPPLY SIDE Quota System, as it seems that you still refuse to absorb the information given.
In all my postings I have consistently indicated that whether it is the Present COE system, or my proposed SUPPLY SIDE Quota System, BOTH serve the same OBJECTIVE to control the Growth of the Vehicle Population.
The difference between the Present COE System and my proposed SUPPLY SIDE Quota System is the Lower "COE" PRICE with my proposal that will have to be paid for a Vehicle, and also the fact that it will be the DEALERSHIP that will have to bear the cost UPFRONT for the bid value that is being submitted.
Even with the Present COE System, the quantity of COE will be increased in the NEXT exercise, and not as IMMEDIATE response to any Demand Changes in the IMMEDIATE COE exercise.
Before you jump and say "AH HA" that Point 5 contradict Point 3, you will have to look at the ENTIRE PICTURE of this whole exercise.
Are you capable of viewing the BIG PICTURE as a COMPLETE WHOLE ?
Read my post on Page 2, 13 October 2003 - 04:25 AM on this same matter, which you had brought up again in your post on Page 2, 13 October 2003 - 01:26 PM that went on a confused ride into Twilight Zone.
If in your case, then since the COE is "cheaper", as u hope to achieve, then more people can afford to have cars. Assume the city can only support 1 million cars. In the past, only about 1 million people can afford to have them. Since COE is cheaper now, then 3 million can afford to have cars. Hence there is a 3 times over capacity. In the end, we will turn out to be the same as Bangkok or other congested roads in cities. There is a reason why there is a cap on the number of cars on the road. [/quote]Again you prefer to pick on one posting, and ignore what has been said in my other posts that was in reply to the same arguments that you have evidently prefer to push WITHOUT absorbing my reasons.
The SUPPLY SIDE Quota System that REQUIRE bids to begin from a BASE PRICE of 4 Digit Value will definitely be CHEAPER - as I had proposed; and which you have even so graciously acknowledged by calling my SUPPLY SIDE Quota System as a "CHEAPER COE" - so how did you decide now that it is to be more expensive now ?
Why do you INSIST in assuming that because COE is cheaper that there will be a surge of in demand of such tremendous proportions ?
Are you aware that during this OCTOBER 2003, the present COE system has resulted in the LOWEST COE PRICES over the last ten years; and yet NOT all the AVAILABLE COE are taken up by Buyers.
In simple English, during OCTOBER 2003, there is a SURPLUS of COE Certificates even when COE Prices is at the LOWEST LEVELS for the last TEN YEARS.
How can we come to the situation of BANGKOK traffic condition, when either the COE or the SUPPLY SIDE Quota System only allow a FIXED Quantity of New Vehicles to be sold PER Month ? How can a Bangkok situation happen when you admit that " there is a reason why there is a cap on the number of cars on the road " - which I assume you are aware of the existence of COE ?
What is the basis of your speculative assumption ?
What is the value of your assumptions when it is based on WILD, UNREAL, and ARGUMENTATIVE assumptions ?
[quote]
""
If the "King" decides to have a Quota Lot of 50 cars - priced at a base price of $5000 per car for the First Successful Bid. The Dealers will then place their bids OVER or BELOW this base price - (i.e. $5000 PLUS 10 PERCENT) (or another Dealer may bid $5000 MINUS 10 PERCENT).
Price for 1st Successful Bid - Quota Lot - 50 cars x $5000
Each Dealer that need more then ONE Quota Lot, will have to pay a premium of 10% more over their successful bid price.
""
Tat is another stupid assumption u had made in tis. If I am dealer, who have 500 orders, and I had to pay extra after 50 lots, then I will ask my relatives to bid for me, as explained in IC method. In other words, if all the dealers do such, then it will turn out to be 100X10=1000 dealers, each with bids of 50. How is your overcharging going to work then ? How r u going to proceed on with selection again ?
Even if u manage to curb tis probelm, tat will pose another problem. U r forcing people to buy in a variety of cars rather than the one they like. Lets say car A manage to sell 500 per month while car B only sold 2. If we implement your stupid idea, than car A can only sell 50 per month, unless owners r willing to pay for overcharging fees while car B suddenly manage to sell 50 too due to your implementation. We r talking about dyunamic rate here, u cannot just "wait" now since we r increasing 450 "waiting pesonal" for tis particular car every month. U r forcing car owners to buy cars they do not like, and u r forcing car market to turn upsaide down.
As was previously posted, even in the Present COE system, there are buyers who are unable to be successful in getting the car that they desire to get in October 2003, as the Dealer has run out of available COE for this month, and the Buyer will just have to wait until the next exercise.
What is the difference if the same situation occur with the SUPPLY SIDE Quota System ?
What is the basis of your speculation that Buyers will NOT Wait and will be forced to buy cars that they DO NOT LIKE ? Why does anyone buy a car that they DO NOT LIKE ? IF this is not the ultimate in WILD SPECULATIVE and ARGUMENTATIVE ASSUMPTION ?
Do you need me to drum the message about where the similarities end and the differences begin when comparing the Present COE system with the SUPPLY SIDE Quota System ? -
Is your OPINION of any value when it is colored by DISHONEST intentions ?
If u going to use cost to diminish the demand, then wat difference had u made relatively to the past COE ? Only tis time u r removing the option of letting car bidders bid themselves without passing through the dealer channel. U have also added the problem of investment opportunity in the COE. [/quote]
What position are you taking now ? Previously, you say that my cheap version of COE will result in more demand than the limited quantity of COE (1 Million buyers for 5000 COE), now you are saying that I am "using cost to diminish demand" .
You now have the audacity to ask what is the difference of my proposed SUPPLY SIDE Quota compared to past COE (or do you mean the Present COE system ?) I am amazed how you switch positions so quickly and IGNORE my repeated effort to show you where the similarities end and the differences begin when looking and comparing the Present COE with my SUPPLY SIDE Quota System.Are you trying to be more slippery than a snake ?
Are you aware that in the present COE system, COE Certificates are NON-TRANSFERABLE ?
Where is the INVESTMENT OPPORTUNITY ?
Are you interested in COE as a Control Policy, or to allow its prices to balloon as a result of wild price speculation ?
Do you think that in a SUPPLY SIDE Quota System, the same preventive regulations cannot be done ?
Here is a fine example of your DESPICABLE manner in debate, by taking what you need to prove YOUR point in a most DISHONEST way of debate by taking my paragraphs out of context.
""
Or it can be modified to allow the median bid price to be established from all the prices offered, and the groups of application closest to this median price will be awarded the quota.
If first group of 20 Dealers submit offers at $5000 + 10% = $5,500 per car.
2nd Group of 20 Dealers submit offers at $5000 + 15% = $5,750 per car.
3rd Group of 10 Dealers submit offers at $5000 + 20% = $6,000 per car
4th Group of 20 Dealers submit offers at $5000 + 25% = $6,250 per car
5th Group of 10 Dealers submit offers at $5000 + 30% = $6,500 per car
6th Group of 15 Dealers submit offers at $5000 + 40% = $7,000 per car
[b]The average median price will be $6,200.
All the 20 dealers in the 4th Group will get their application for the FIRST Quota Lot of 50 cars at $6,200 per car.
"""
Tis is another failed method above. Hence as the way u put it, only 20 dealers get to have their FULL bid while the other dealer LEFT with 0. In such case, then u have already MIXED luck inside the formula, which will end up with 1 BIG monopoly dealer. He will charge a HIGHER price for the COE he had successfully bidded, since he hold the market now and for tat month, and we can see their cars sell like hotcakes. Mean time we can see all the other dealers starve to death. They EARNED 0 tat month since they can't get any COE. If they r so unlucky not to be able to win any bid for 10 months, u have forced them to go bust.
Since no one can guess the median of tat month easily, then u had already RELIED on LUCK to distribute the COE. If tat is the case, then why not use the BALLOT box from the start ? Why not cancel out the dealer and use consumers themselves bid if u insist on using "median" ? Tis is more efficient than your stupid idea in the sense tat dealer r not involved in the loop neither is there any "investment" aspect from the selling of the COE. [/b]
Why did you make only a partial quote from my post (print in Blue) and [b]LEFT OUT the critical part (shown in Red) that should have been read as a COMPLETE WHOLE ?[/b]
You DELIBERATELY left out the continuing part now repeated in Red :
The average median price will be $6,200.
All the 20 dealers in the 4th Group will get their application for the FIRST Quota Lot of 50 cars at $6,200 per car.
The other dealers in the 3rd and 5th Group, being the nearest to the average median price will be offered this average median price of $6,200.
While those in the 1st, 2nd and 6th groups will be offered the remaining Quota in equal proportions.
Now, does this indicate that only 20 Dealers is successful and ALL the OTHER Dealers get NOTHING ?
Why do you try so hard to discredit the SUPPLY SIDE Quota System, when all it does is to IMPROVE on the Present COE - (as said by you to be a CHEAPER COE) - by allowing a LOWER 4-digit valuation as a Base Price for bidding to begin ?
Is it worth any of my effort to reply to the other WILD SPECULATIVE and BASELESS ASSUMPTIONS that you have made ?
[quote]
Since all your method of selection fail as discussed above, lets see wat other method can u come up with.
I was surprised with " Singapore T " descriptive post about you, but thought that perhaps you could be given the benefit of an opportunity to redeem yourself; and started with a reply in this post.
Now that you have shown your style of debate to be DISHONEST and DESPICABLE , I do not think it is worthwhile to continue in this useless discussion with you. -
If u want me to go through point by point from your previous mail, it can be done.
The first, second and third point, which is 1/2 of your points given r just personal insults, I see no point in touching on them.
For the 4th,
"""
Are you aware that during this OCTOBER 2003, the present COE system has resulted in the LOWEST COE PRICES over the last ten years; and yet NOT all the AVAILABLE COE are taken up by Buyers.
"""
I got to pose tis question, not all the AVAILABLE COE are taken up by buyers, isn't it because of the high cost of present COE tat contribute to tis phenomenon ? If it is lesser than the quota, than it just shows the effectiveness of the present COE. If there is no COE, the price will definitely climb up a LOT. Simple economy, if price go down, demand will rise.
More explanation on why there will be a rising demand below, using all your proposed models
Lets say tis example. If COE is considered as part of the cost price of a car, then if your method is successful to make the COE into 10% of its usual price, won't tat increase the number of people tat will buy cars ?There are a lot of people tat will want to buy cars, but can't afford the price of it. I think we can go around and ask people regarding to tis aspect. Ask a friend of yours with no cars tis question. If the cars is more affordable than before, will they want to buy a car ? In your case, if it is successful, the car is now cheaper, there will have occurances of OVERWHELMING increase in demand to the dealer side.
Suppose the dealer has taken your approach of using advance booking. Of course to prevent the owner from running away after the dealer manage to get the COE, they will have to sign a contract to legally bind them to pay for the COE and other costs. After signing of such a contract, then wat will be the significant of
"the DEALERSHIP that will have to bear the cost UPFRONT for the bid value that is being submitted. "
They just have to approach a bank, and the bank will readily provide the fund since it is relatively safe and profitable. (The dealer have the contracts) In tis case, then the bank will act as a buffer to the dealer, and DEALER DO not have to come out a single cent THROUGHOUT the whole exercise. The bank will PAY for the "cost UPFRONT" to the Gov directly. The profits/interest made by the bank will go directly to the buyers themselves.
Hence all the OVERWHELMING response will go up the chain and pose the OVERBIDDING situation on the Gov side. Tat is why the very important question, How r Gov going to resolve who get how much of the COE.
For point 5
""
Fifthly, if DEMAND exceed SUPPLY - meaning 50,000 buyers to only a small quota of 5,000 - is the "King" dead and cannot respond by increasing the Quota ? This has happened with the present COE system, in which the Government adjust the quantity of COE to meet rising demands.
""
Tis is from your previous mail too
""
In all my postings I have consistently indicated that whether it is the Present COE system, or my proposed SUPPLY SIDE Quota System, BOTH serve the same OBJECTIVE to control the Growth of the Vehicle Population.
""
SInce in such a case, to effectively control cars, the quota can only be +- 10 from the original bid. Tat is, the limit of number of quota given tis month will be 5500, if the original quota number is 5000. If in such a case, then isn't it clear tat the "living" king cannot raise the figures up. In tis case , then the selection of the Gov on who will take the quota became a big issue.
Tis is my question posted to u previously too
""
In other words, if there r 50000 bidders, the king will eventually give out 50000 COE, though they may be charged at a higher price. Then in such a case, where is the control mechanism for the number of cars on the road ??
""
I hope tis will answer your query why there cannot be an increase in the number of COEs according to demand.
""
How can we come to the situation of BANGKOK traffic condition, when either the COE or the SUPPLY SIDE Quota System only allow a FIXED Quantity of New Vehicles to be sold PER Month ?
""
In tis reply, I assume u know of the fact tat the QUOTA cannot be raise at all. If tis month is 5000, it will remain stubbornly at 5000+-500 no matter how much is the demand for COE. Tis is to counter your point 5 again. Then I have to ask again, how r u going to select who get the COE ?
"""
As was previously posted, even in the Present COE system, there are buyers who are unable to be successful in getting the car that they desire to get in October 2003, as the Dealer has run out of available COE for this month, and the Buyer will just have to wait until the next exercise.
"""
Tis is not a static figure, it is dynamic figure tat goes for every month. Here is an illustration : If the dealer used to sell 5000 cars tis month, while on average he only get 800 COE, tat means every month there will have 4200 people tat cannot get the cars. If u cannot get your car tis month from him, the odds is tat u will have to wait VERY VERY VERY long, maybe YEARS to get the car. Isn't tat forcing them to buy other cars ? Tis is especially so if u had used the overcharging policy.
In the present COE, it will be more fairer to the dealers and customers in the sense tat the buyers get to buy watever cars they want if they get the COE. Tis is especially so to the dealers since the people get choose the cars because they like the cars, and not because of external reasons. Tis will be a more healthy trend compared to "spreading" the buyers to dealers with the COEs
""
Do you think that in a SUPPLY SIDE Quota System, the same preventive regulations cannot be done ?
""
Obviously u can't, since it has to change names from dealers to buyers. If u say the dealer have to put down the buyer name from the start due to your advance booking method, then u r forcing dealers to go 0 on COE on tis month, which I do not agree due to "storage vs fiancial" argument we made. I believe especially 2nd hand car dealers sold most of their car within days or hours and not have to made them wait for a month.
""
Why did you make only a partial quote from my post (print in Blue) and LEFT OUT the critical part (shown in Red) that should have been read as a COMPLETE WHOLE ?
""
Pardon me for making tat mistakes, I agree tat is an oversight, but the result will still be insignificant. According to your theory, then the other dealers get only 50 COE tat month, a pale 10% compared to the 500 they can normally earned. If a business man has its profit reduced to 10%, don't u think tis is still a big blow to tat dealer ? In this aspect, they will still starve to death eventually.
Tis is a reply I had made then
""
Since no one can guess the median of tat month easily, then u had already RELIED on LUCK to distribute the COE. If tat is the case, then why not use the BALLOT box from the start ? Why not cancel out the dealer and use consumers themselves bid if u insist on using "median" ?
""
Why not cancel out the dealer if luck is decided to be used ? Won't tat be fairer to all the party involved, ESPECIALLY to the dealer. The policy u made r mostly unfair to the dealer, asking them to pay COE upfront, asking them not to bid too much with overcharging policy, sizing up their market share etc. They r providing us a service in giving us the cars. We should be fair to all 3 sides, Gov, Dealer and Consumer when we consider a change in COE structure. Tis also removes problem of transferring of ownership etc.
"""
Why do you try so hard to discredit the SUPPLY SIDE Quota System, when all it does is to IMPROVE on the Present COE - (as said by you to be a CHEAPER COE) - by allowing a LOWER 4-digit valuation as a Base Price for bidding to begin ?
"""
The reason is simple, it cannot work. I am not against any good idea to replaced tat the one we r having, however tat idea must at least be feasible in the first place. I meant cheaper, if it had worked at all. But frankly at tis point of time, I don't think so. U haven't even clearly stated how does Gov settle the problem of overbidding from Dealer ? How can it be workable then ? -
From the look of his previous reply, I believe Atobe will not be back to reply anymore. Hence I decided to write a conclucion here. I believe tis will be an important end for tis discussion. To those who hate me, no harm in taking a look since, treat it as just for entertainment sake.
First, I will talk about the buyer side first. If Atobe supply side idea worked, then the price of COE will goes down, since tat is the main objective of supply idea. Since the overall price for owning a car goes down, there will be an increase in numbers of buyers for a car. (Simple economy theory : Lower price, higher demand) Atobe attempt to show statistic tat the actual demand for car in Singapore is low, however tat is mainly because of the present COE system which forced the car price up, lowering the actual demand.
I believe it is general knowledge tat there r a lot of people who wanted to have their own car but cannot afford it in Singapore. For everyone who actually owned a car in Singapore now, one can easily find 3 others who desired a car yet cannot afford it.
Secondly, I will talk about the dealership perspective. From Atobe previous replies, he suggested tat the dealers had to pay for a huge sum of money to buy in all the COE they needed immediately. Tis will cause cash flow problem to the dealer. Thus tis becomes his main argument.
10th Oct 0254
""
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.
""
However, the number of bids made by the dealer will mainly concern themselves with the SALE VOLUME. i.e. If a dealer can sell 500 cars a month, whether from advanced booking or sale on the spot, he will not lower tat number to 50. If I can sell 500 cars a month, thus earning the commision for the 500 cars, why reduce this number to 50 ?
He can easily eliminate the cash flow problem by loans from bank, whose fees will be passed on to the buyers. The bank will act as a buffer, paying the COE fees first while waiting for the dealer to collect it back from the buyers. In the end, the dealer may act as just a middleman, one tat never even need to pay a single cent out from his pockets. Loans will even be made easier if the owners chose advance booking, since the contracts that they will signed with the dealer will add as a safe guard for the bank.
12th Oct 0741
""
Certainly, the Dealership will plan their preferred quota lot size according to how many cars they sell per month – (as you and I have mentioned).
""
In tis case, since the number of buyers for a car increased (from point 1), the number of cars the dealers will sell also increase. This increase will not be low, probably 30% or 40% more than during the present COE. This will move up the rung of ladder and pose the problem of overbidding to the Gov.
I mentioned the crux of this point again, Dealer based the number of bids they made mainly on the sale volume, and sale volume will increase due to the more affordibilty of cars. Thus in the end, the DEMAND volume will be higher than the Quota volume
3rd. Now we come to the Gov. Since from the above, this problem will be passed on to Gov. This is the one thing I have been trying to say for many times, OVERBIDDING on GOV side.
Frankly, watever answer Atobe give for tis problem, I can easily counter it with asking "Why is there a need for dealers to be involved in the transaction ? Why don't the Gov distribute COE directly to the buyers, using the new method tat u came out instead ?"
Because of tis, I believe it is hard for him to give a reply to tis question. Why do I ask tis question then ? Tis is to show the idea of involving the dealer is redundant.
I do not know if Atobe will rely to tis reply. Frankly tis discussion has go on for too long. Especially so since tis is just a hypothetical solution tat has never been tested and never will be implemented. If there is no reply on his side, I will probably stop here.
PS: To Lazer51088,
I wonder if anyone, including Lazer will ever read untill here. Anyway increasing the tax for prtrol is not a good solution since tat will increase business costs and standard of living in Singapore. Thus all the prices for almost everything here will increase, hurting everyone. Taxi driver will not be affected unless the tax is also applied on diesel (taxi used diesel).
To me, COE may not be popular, however it is a good method for taxing rich people. If Gov doesn't collect COE, they will still spend the same amount of money, and will try to raise tax from other areas such as GST etc. Tis will then affect all the people and businesses, making life harder for everyone. -
The reason I chose to talk not about COE and rather about stupidissmart's lack of intelligent behaviour stems from several reasons. Firstly I believe that the topic has already been covered in depth by those who have been posting on it. Secondly, I find stupid's amazing ability to ignore reason and spin his own reality of kiddish stories and frog-in-the-well mentality worth dissecting for all to see. I have no personal agenda against this individual, his involvement in my analysis is purely by merit of excellence in idiotic behaviour.
...
At the end of the day, it's your funeral dude.
The thing is, stupidissmart has no lack of dogged determination when it comes to debating, unfortunately his dogged determination is carried out in the face of good logic and reason, and we all do know that, in any debate (if this could even be considered one, it's more like a public dead-horse flogging of stupidissmart's intellectual capacity), no amount of dogged determination can overcome reason and logic. The audience has spoken, and I'm not afraid to say it's not in S.I.S's favour.
I would have like to have given him the benefit of the doubt, but now I think his genetic makeup may be worth looking into as well, to determine which drying puddle on the side of the gene pool he hails from. Is his antilogic ability nature or nuture?
Thank you and have a nice day. -
" stupid-is-smart " ???
I wonder how any sane person will even come up with such a credo, and actually put so much effort to live up to it.
stupidissmart, is there a need to reply to you, when you conduct your debate in a dishonest and shameless manner; and push illogical reasoning to the point of dishonest absurdity ?
Is there a need to further debate on issues with you when you do not have an iota of understanding of the issues posted ?
Your persona is well displayed in the many twists and turns of your positions, each time when your points have been shown to have been deflated.
When you run out of ammo, you SHAMELESSLY borrow some of my points - and while quoting selectively, you have the audacity to try to DISHONESTLY criticize while leaving out my other poiints that would have clearly deflated your position.
I have an endless resevoir of energy to continue debating with you, but find it pointless to deal with you when you shamelessly declare that being stupid is smart; and has no shame in dishonest behavior, no honor in dealing with or accepting the truth, and a coward to face reality.
BTW congratulations with your recent lunatic and directionless postings that do not seem to help your cause any further, as your supreme existence in the world of lunacy is now confirmed.
Carry on in your reverse world of being "STUPID IS SMART". -
Pardon me, since this is the first time I am writing in this forum. Unbelievably, all the hassle of me registering in this system is to just to say a word of fairness.
I have read some of the essays written by Atobe and stupidissmart (SIS). If you ask me, I do have to say some points written by SIS indeed does sound illogical and silly. Yet his arguments are not totally without merits. On certain issues, I believe his arguments does make sense.
I feel a sense of sympathy for him as he seems to gotten himself excessively bullied and abused. There are too much scolding, jeering and personal attacks, particularly to his name, throughout the threads. These scolding and jeering actions, if anything, tend to sway people mood and judgement, making readers tend to agree with the abuser. Not pertaining to anyone, personally such practices seems a bit too close to a ruffian act.
Though there are people that had talked too silly too much, however I think it will be a better trend if they are given some prompting instead of strong insults. This will encouraged the more inexperienced one to voice out their opinion, therefore increasing the level of activities here. -
Gentlemen, may i remind you that we are here for a civilised discussion not a flame war.Please, no more name calling or jeering.This is a good thread, and i will hate to close it.
-
Please do not treat tis mail as any jeering or name calling. Tis reply is to clear up my name.
About Singapore T :
To others, just read his mail as a source of entertainment. The reason why he purposely attack me is due to an old feud we had. His replies have no substance in it. Try an experiment, u replace the name "stupidissmart" with, lets say "Atobe", and u will find tat the passage still remain perfectly logical ! But one must be amazed at his ability at written abuses. Tis is probably his only talent in writing forum. If u do not believe me, if he ever reply, it will be something similar to all the mails he had written on tis discussion thread. No substance, just verbal assault.
About Atobe :
If I am being described as dishonest and despicable, he is also no angel too.
First, some portion of his reply is against the people writing, not against the points written. Every time he try to argue a point, he will end tat paragraph with some verbal insult to a certain degree. As according to Socrates, tis kind of remark tend to make people agree with the abuser, since if they don't they will be consider equally stupid etc as u described it to be. Though I am not free of tis either, the manner u have described is more vicious and tend to sway judgement.
Second, from 12th Oct 0741, u have kept using the one line I have written in a lot of your replies. Tat one line is "cheaper version of COE ". Since your suggestions is about a method tat is not tested, not implemented with no history to go about, the only way to find find your suggestions inappropriate is to go inside your model and argue on it. The main objectives of your argument is on the price of COE being cheaper, hence I had to assume the initial phase had worked, it will still pose a problem overall. Yet u clearly ignore tat fact and kept using tat one line as an advertisement, despite my elaboration. U used it often to cover up your loopholes and lack of points. To me, tat is LOW CLASS
Thirdly, I repeatedly asked the question about how Gov will resolve overbidding from its side. Yet u clearly ignore tat question and proceed with giving the explanation for another question. Worse still, u make it as though u have answer the question long time ago, but u haven't even touched on the matter. U keep dancing around the topic, making a mockery when it is u tat have failed to understand the question. To me, tat is equally DESPICABLE.
About the quotes from your lucky draw, I have already admitted I have not carefully read tat point. I stop reading and reply after reading the initial few lines of tat argument. If u want to keep resenting to tat, I have nothing to say.
Do not underestimate me as such a person tat will resort to such stupid tricks.Your persona is well displayed in the many twists and turns of your positions, each time when your points have been shown to have been deflated.
And about your accusation tat my points have been deflated, frankly I see none here. I guess the one with the most points being deflated is probably u. Have I kept changing my position ? Is it wrong for me to bring out more points and loopholes from your argument ? Is it wrong to upgrade the original idea to one tat is able to address your issue ? Haven't u done tat too ?
U had also clearly ignore certain points I have raised up too. From the issue of "Overcharging", u too have made many changes and switching stands. R u as slippery as a snake then ? Does tat mean u had change your position frequently too ?
Even when I have stated the proposal to stop name calling and verbal assault, but just attack the points given by the other party, u clearly ignore tat fact and carry on with your abuse. Tat doesn't speak well of u as a gentleman too. -
Hi socrates
Suffice to say that it is not surprising in the series of this sgForums, that anyone, who had the experience of crossing words with the character behind the name " stupidissmart " , have all ended up with the same opinion of a character who debase logic beyond any possible intelligence. This must set him out to be quite an achiever in this sgForums.
If anyone care to revisit the issues printed over the last few torturous days, one will see how issues keep constantly changing to suit new positions being adopted in the pursuit of demolishing the Proposed SUPPLY SIDE Quota System as posted by the brilliance of being " stupidissmart "
The idea of the SUPPLY SIDE Quota Control - as an ALTERNATIVE to the Present COE system - is basically to REMOVE the financial benefit to the Government, and this position is CONVENIENTLY IGNORED by "stupidissmart".
The Proposed SUPPLY SIDE Quota Control is to challenge the Government to respond, based on their declarations as follows:
(1) COE is a tool to control the Growth of the Vehicle Population.
(2) COE is NOT intended to be a tool of Revenue Collection.
(3) With the ERP in place, COE will be removed, and at the same time Road Taxes will be reduced from its more then 150 percent increases over the taxes imposed during the early 1980's.
" stupidissmart " is NOT WRONG in calling it a CHEAPER COE, as for all intent and purposes, the SUPPLY SIDE Quota Control System had set out to remove the heavy financial burden to any prospective vehicle owners.
This is accomplished with the proposal that a 4-digit value be set as a base price, which I had indicated as $5000 from which all bids PLUS or MINUS will be placed.
With the SUPPLY SIDE Quota Control, it is to achieve TRANSPARENCY on the part of the Government (through the LTA), and also to remove the element of wild speculations by Dealers, who have generally acted on behalf of most Buyers - with the Buyers having LITTLE or NO INFLUENCE to the supposedly BID PRICES.
In this SUPPLY SIDE Quota Control, it was intended that the Dealers will decide which Quota Size (with the allocated number of vehicles) to bid for, and how many Quota Lots to bid for - with each successful Quota Lot awarded available at a higher premium to be paid - so as to prevent "complete" monopoly.
In addition, the Dealer will have to pay UP FRONT the total value of the Bid Price for the Quota Lot required.
All of which is intended to prevent the available quota from being manipulated in price and in monopolisation.
It was repeated that there is LITTLE DIFFERENCE in the mechanism that operates the Present COE and the Proposed SUPPLY SIDE Quota Control - except for the changes described above.
The bidding methods of paper or electronic submissions, the manner of awarding for the SUPPLY SIDE Quota System is the same as the Present COE.
This was clearly described in my post 14 October 2003 - 05:01 A.M. in reply to the persistent clamor for the mechanics.
Yet in the stupendous reply from " stupidissmart " prefer to IGNORE the main parts that clearly allay the negative concern of only ONE Dealer benefit from the Proposed SUPPLY SIDE Quota System, and prefer to quote "out-of-context" to misrepresent my posts in a wild attempt at rebuttal and self-justification.
I am surprised that "socrates" can contradict your own position in your observation that - " I do have to say some points written by SIS indeed does sound illogical and silly. Yet his arguments are not totally without merits. On certain issues, I believe his arguments does make sense"
It will be interesting to view how you come to this self-contradicting position, when his position is being advanced as a SINGULAR and COMPLETE WHOLE to rebutt my SINGLE IDEA of a SUPPLY SIDE Quota Control.
Impressions of "scolding" and "jeering" are but the perceived views of the bystander or reader, of the jousting between two deeply engrossed verbal gladiators, who maybe oblivious to the world at large.
In any debate, the choice of words will normally reflect the circumstance and the intensity of the occassion.
When one side does not respond to logic and prefer to rely on blatant dishonesty - to move from one position to the next, and ultimately resort to blatant misrepresentation of other's postings, the outcome can only be total exposure of the despicable act of the party concerned.
This is quite different from "flaming".
This is nothing new in Politics - if POLITICS is what this place in sgForums is all about. -
Why do you even bother what others think, if you are honest and above board in your conduct ?Originally posted by stupidissmart:Please do not treat tis mail as any jeering or name calling. Tis reply is to clear up my name.
This is another desparate act of self-redeeming effort that clearly reflect the paucity of talent, from a mind bankrupt of any other way of responding.
About Singapore T :
To others, just read his mail as a source of entertainment. The reason why he purposely attack me is due to an old feud we had. His replies have no substance in it. Try an experiment, u replace the name "stupidissmart" with, lets say "Atobe", and u will find tat the passage still remain perfectly logical ! But one must be amazed at his ability at written abuses. Tis is probably his only talent in writing forum. If u do not believe me, if he ever reply, it will be something similar to all the mails he had written on tis discussion thread. No substance, just verbal assault.
Try harder, and be more specific in your accusation of "Atobe against the people writing and NOT against the points written".
About Atobe :
If I am being described as [b]dishonest and despicable, he is also no angel too.
First, some portion of his reply is against the people writing, not against the points written. Every time he try to argue a point, he will end tat paragraph with some verbal insult to a certain degree. As according to Socrates, tis kind of remark tend to make people agree with the abuser, since if they don't they will be consider equally stupid etc as u described it to be. Though I am not free of tis either, the manner u have described is more vicious and tend to sway judgement. [/b]
If you cannot stand the heat in POLITICS then try not to be "stupid" while acting "smart" by consistently throwing up smoke, and refusing to engage on the issues raised.
At least, I have been HONEST, and had RESPECTED your post by NOT MISQUOTING or LEAVING OUT any words in your preferred term with the words "CHEAPER COE" - when you cannot even bear to spell out SUPPLY SIDE Quota System anywhere in your Post.
Second, from 12th Oct 0741, u have kept using the one line I have written in a lot of your replies. Tat one line is "[b]cheaper version of COE ". [/b]
On top of this, you have left out an entire paragraph that is critical to my reply that was made in response to your persistent challenge to how the PROPOSED SUPPLY SIDE Quota System is to work.
Is this not DISHONESTY and DESPICABLE BEHAVIOR by misleading representation of my position ?
Is it my fault for YOUR OWN ASSUMPTION that the initial phase of MY PROPOSAL had worked, when YOU are fully aware that my proposal (is but a PROPOSAL for this Forum) "is about a method tat is not tested " ?
Since your suggestions is about a method tat is not tested, not implemented with no history to go about, the only way to find find your suggestions inappropriate is to go inside your model and argue on it. The main objectives of your argument is on the price of COE being cheaper, hence I had to assume the initial phase had worked, it will still pose a problem overall.
Here is a fine example of you changing position twice in a single paragraph - first you had ASSUMED that my proposal HAD WORKED, then you claimed that my proposal is about a "METHOD tat is NOT TESTED " . Brilliant form at work.
By calling my Proposed SUPPLY SIDE Quota System as a "CHEAPER COE" - which you recognised as being "The main objectives of your argument is on the price of COE being cheaper" - will it not be SAFE for anyone to say that you have recognised my proposal to be as what you say it is - a CHEAPER COE ?
With the exposure of your approach in argument in the preceding paragraph that explain how you reach the position of RECOGNISING my proposal as a CHEAPER COE, it will be interesting to know how you conclude that I had "clearly ignore tat fact and kept using tat one line as an advertisement " .
Yet u clearly ignore tat fact and kept using tat one line as an advertisement, despite my elaboration. U used it often to cover up your loopholes and lack of points. To me, tat is [b]LOW CLASS [/b]
How did I used "your one line" to cover up which of my loopholes and lack of points ?
Care to elaborate, or would you prefer to throw up more smoke ?
This is becoming very interesting in the manner you argue, now I am wondering which Class you come from with this level of brilliant reasoning.
This matter was brought up by you repeatedly, and I tried different simple ways to make you understand the same point, as was brought to your attention in a summary of all our exchanges on this matter printed in my post on Page 2 - 13 October 2003 - 04:21 A.M.
Thirdly, I repeatedly asked the question about how Gov will resolve overbidding from its side. Yet u clearly ignore tat question and proceed with giving the explanation for another question. Worse still, u make it as though u have answer the question long time ago, but u haven't even touched on the matter. U keep dancing around the topic, making a mockery when it is u tat have failed to understand the question. To me, tat is equally [b]DESPICABLE. [/b]
You refused to accept in my posted reply in your response on the same date - Page 2 - 13 October 2003 - 01:26 P.M.
Again, I responded to your preceding post with my reply on Page 2 - 13 October 2003 - beginning from 02:36 P.M.
Yet again, you could not grasp my reply with your response on Page 2 through Page 3 on 13 October 2003 - beginning from 03:10P.M. - which I replied in my post on Page 3 14 October 2003 at 05:00A.M and 05:01A.M - with a description of the bid price that resemble the Present COE system of bidding.
----------------------------------------
Extract from atobe:
With this post from me, you seem to have shown some satisfaction but UNFORTUNATELY , you deliberately MISREPRESENTED my post by LEAVING OUT a major portion of my reply.
----------------------------------------
With all the replies given over so many days, you could not read my replies, except to demand for calculations of a bidding model that reflects my Proposed SUPPLY SIDE Quota System.
Yet when the model was given, you pounce on one paragraph, and IGNORE the other critical paragraphs.
By failing to print the post in its entirety to reflect accurately my position, you have fallen into the realm of falsehood in reporting.
If this is not a DESPICABLE act of DISHONESTY in Political Debate, then what else will be ? -
cont
Do you read what your eyes see ? The following was printed to address your problem in understanding what was previously written:
About the quotes from your lucky draw, I have already admitted I have not carefully read tat point. I stop reading and reply after reading the initial few lines of tat argument. If u want to keep resenting to tat, I have nothing to say.
Do not underestimate me as such a person tat will resort to such stupid tricks. [/quote]
What other nimbler excuse will you be giving next ?
Perhaps you have also misread, or "have not carefully read tat point" which resulted in you missing out an entire paragraph that was critical to my reply that was made in response to your challenge ?
Do you need any effort from anyone to underestimate your supreme ability in obfuscating simple logic and common sense ?
Some of your points that have been deflated:
And about your accusation tat my points have been deflated, frankly I see none here. I guess the one with the most points being deflated is probably u. Have I kept changing my position ? Is it wrong for me to bring out more points and loopholes from your argument ? Is it wrong to upgrade the original idea to one tat is able to address your issue ? Haven't u done tat too ?
Extract from " stupidissmart "
"U haven't say anything about preventing people from investing in COE in your case since now ownership can be transferable, neither has u say anything about wat happened when there is an over bidding from the dealership in your case. "
Extract from "atobe"
Are ownership of COE transferable ? Can one actually bid for a COE and resell it at a higher price ?
--------------------------------------Originally posted by stupidissmart:
Again and again I have ask u toreply to the situation when there r more bidders than the quota set by Gov. Instead of answering tat u still keep telling me tat it won't happened.
My question to you: - can the COE system of a monthly fixed quantity of [color=red]5000 certificates be sufficient for a monthly demand of 10,000 buyers through 300 car dealerships – (all numbers are ASSUMPTIONS similar to your hypothetical numbers) ?[/color]
Did the words "it won't happen" appear anywhere in my text ?
---------------------------------------------------
Extract from atobe:
About your comment on my “stupid fixed quota size”, please refer to my post on Page 1 of this thread, dated 10 October 2003 – 02:54AM, it was clearly printed as follows:
“ 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, [color=red]or any numbers lower or higher [/color].”
-------------------------------------------------
Extract from atobe:
Again, on Page 1, 10 October 2003 – 11:24 AM, the following statement was again made in my post:
" If 5000 vehicles can only benefit 5000 BUYERS only, does it really matter if this 5000 vehicles (divided into whatever smaller lots) benefit whatever numbers of dealership ?
Someone has to loose out on the opportunity to buy a car, so does it matter if some dealership sell more, or sell nothing at all ?
[color=red]If fairness is to be done, then divide into smaller quota lots of 25 or 50 vehicles per quota permit, so as to allow more dealership to have its share.[/color] "
---------------------------------------------
Extract from atobe:
Are you satisfied that the SUPPLY SIDE quota system DOES NOT NECESSARILY have to be in lots of 300, 500, 1000, 2000, 5000 – it depends on what and how the final solution is convenient to be acceptable to the Dealerships and to the Vehicle Buyers.
-----------------------------------------------------
My apologies for hurting your feelings with the sarcasm.from stupidissmart
"""
Surely now, if you can afford to buy a BMW, why even consider a Mitsubishi in the first place ? If you can only afford to buy a Mitsubishi, I am not sure if you have enough budget even to be forced to buy a BMW.
"""
Tat is a stupid remark from u again. I am trying to say I want to have a car A, but it ran out of COE tat month. So how if I need a car tis month ?? I am forced to buy B which I don't really like due to the implementation of your stupid suggestion. Is tat good to general population ?
If Car A runs out of stock (whether due to lack of COE or physical car stock), and if you really like that car, surely you can wait ?
The waiting list of some of the most prestigeous car is almost a few months long, What is the big deal of a Mitsubishi or any other make ?
----------------------------------------------------from stupidissmart
Why do you feel for me that my idea is good, when I have mentioned at least twice over the last 24 hours that my solution may not be the FINAL SOLUTION, and require further fine tuning.
Your attack seems groundless as u keep feeling your idea is good.
---------------------------------------------------
Extract from atobe
Now that you have read all my previous answers repeated here to the same repeated point - how do you think the present COE system will resolve the ONE Million buyers bidding for only 300 COE ?
The answer for the FINAL TIME remains the same, as what has been given repeatedly - that whether it is the PRESENT COE or the SUPPLY SIDE Quota (your CHEAPER COE), the OBJECTIVE remain the same - and that is for this month the COE or SUPPLY SIDE Quota available is only 300.
The other 999,700 Singaporeans will have to wait for the next round - and NO APPOLIGIES will be offered.
---------------------------------------------------
Extract from "atobe"Why do you INSIST in assuming that because COE is cheaper that there will be a surge of in demand of such tremendous proportions ?You are brilliant in creating excuses to cover up for your stupendous efforts in smoking the issues.
Are you aware that during this OCTOBER 2003, the present COE system has resulted in the LOWEST COE PRICES over the last ten years; and yet NOT all the AVAILABLE COE are taken up by Buyers.
In simple English, during OCTOBER 2003, there is a SURPLUS of COE Certificates even when COE Prices is at the LOWEST LEVELS for the last TEN YEARS.
-------------------------------------------------
U had also clearly ignore certain points I have raised up too. From the issue of "Overcharging", u too have made many changes and switching stands. R u as slippery as a snake then ? Does tat mean u had change your position frequently too ?
Overcharging was referring to the Present COE System, how does it changed from my constant position in promoting my Proposed SUPPLY SIDE Quota System ?
Which other changes have I made, and how did I changed from my stand that the SUPPLY SIDE Quota System is different from the Present COE System in some ways, and yet similar in others ?
[quote]
Even when I have stated the proposal to stop name calling and verbal assault, but just attack the points given by the other party, u clearly ignore tat fact and carry on with your abuse. Tat doesn't speak well of u as a gentleman too.
Name calling ?
Your style of debate reflects the nonsensical logic of your nick - a nick which even a kindergarten kid will immediately understand to be ridiculous.
Is it discourteous to point out the errors of your ways ? -
I have no energy to argue over tis topic anymore. All I can say is please read the Conclusion I have written about tis issue. If u, or other people still feel tat the idea is superb, then I have nothing to say.