Singapore: Right to own a car costs $76,000. And that doesn't include the car | Hacker News Reader

Singapore: Right to own a car costs $76,000. And that doesn't include the car

cnn.com

63 pointsTomte139 comments

Singapore is a city-state with limited space and stellar public transport...the absurd cost of owning a personal vehicle is easily justifiable. You can hardly justify this structure in most other places...residents will revolt, lol

A developed country is not a place where the poor have cars. It's where the rich use public transportation.

> You can hardly justify this structure in most other places...residents will revolt

Those statements may both be true, but it's worth noting that people revolting against a measure doesn't mean it's unjustified. People would revolt in the US against any measure meant to control car ownership, but we definitely need such measures in our car-first societies.

Fees to own gasoline cars in Norway and Denmark are fairly comparable as far as I understand, and they haven't revolted.

Not really comparable after paying for CoE for open category 152K SGD (US$104K), in Singapore there is a advanced registration fee called ARF,then there is additional tax on top. So a typical BMW X5 will be around SGD 540,000 (US$ 394,600) and that too for 10 years, after 10 years need to buy a new CoE or discard the car.

A Tesla Model S will be more than 400k for 10 years after that need another 100k for 10 year renewal.

Also fuel prices and road tax are high in Singapore which needs to be paid regularly besides buying costs.

It looks like they pay a VAT, plus a greenhouse tax. But the greenhouse tax seems relatively small, equivalent to around $100 USD—though there are many factors that would change that number a little bit. The VAT is much higher, something like 25% of the vehicle price. But I would not consider VAT a tax on car ownership, per se, since it is applied to many other goods, and we would not consider a VAT levied on, say, a microwave to be a tax on microwave ownership.

No, Denmark has a extra tax.

For gasoline cars: First you add 25% VAT to the price. From this you calculate extra tax as:

25% of first $10k of price. 85% of price from $10k to $30k. 150% of price above $30k.

https://motorst.dk/en-us/individuals/vehicle-taxes/registrat...

This is amazing. How did the public respond when this was introduced?

You can get along quite well in Denmark without owning a car. Hence, car-owners are proportionally not as big a voting bloc as in the USA.

It is true for Copenhagen, but I wonder how it feels to families living in rural areas.

If I can trust Wikipedia over 1/3 of the 6m people live in the Copenhagen Metro region, that's ignoring all the other towns. Also now I wonder how this works with used cars.

It's more like "how did the public respond when the extra tax was reduced from 180% of the total amount".

(the above rates are lower than previous rate!)

By buying a bunch of EV’s, because they’re more or less exempt from the tax.

... public transportation

I thought the VAT on new gasoline cars was 180% in Denmark. Turns out they cut it to "only" 100%.

180% of an average car price of $40K is very close to $78K.

No, the citizens working for international organisations like CERN and WTO buy the cars without taxes instead, as per countries agreements with said organisations.

The 'fees' are primarily in the form of high taxes on new gasoline cars, and especially high taxes on new cars with large/powerful engines. If you want, say a BMW M3 with the biggest and most powerful engine, then you're probably paying a $76k premium compared to the US. If you want to buy a small 30 year old piece of crap then the additional taxes aren't anywhere near that high.

Fairly comparable? Not even close

Fees to own cars vs. fees to own gasoline cars, I'm sensing there's an important difference here.

This is a red herring. It is a conscious decision of the government rather than a consequence of being a city-state.

Because of limited space owning a car will be expensive in any casem

Without the fee, the cost will take time to rise.

During this period of rising costs, cars will be overbought (in relation to the parking and driving space available).

As car numbers increase, traffic congestion increases. (This is a time cost)

As congestion increases, cars will be sold or parked in favor of public transportation.

Selling a car in such conditions will be difficult and probably result in net loss.

This means more cars will be kept parked and unused. (This is a space cost)

All the while, traffic will still be bad. And now there are more cars in the city than can be driven or sold.

A fee can prevent these time and space costs, effectively turning them into upfront monetary costs.

If there is no parking space overall car ownership cost will adjust very quickly, especially in a city where I am sure police does not take lightly to illegal parking... (and you probably need some form of official authorisation to build more parking spaces...)

I think some places regulate car numbers by requiring proof of parking space in order to buy a car (some towns in China?).

This is not a criticism. They decided to limit cars and to limit them through tax.

Good point. Since cars aren’t driven 24-7, every purchase likely already has a known space available, limiting the negative effects of parked cars.

This doesn’t take into account shared spaces (where one car is parked while another drives), which might be more common in such a space-limited area? Just a guess.

Either way, a parked car is still a waste of space. A fee can help make more space available for humans rather than metal. (Assuming the fee rises above the natural cost of parking)

> It is a conscious decision if the government rather than a consequence of being a city-state.

Sometimes, drastic solutions like these are needed. Singapore strikes a good balance between freedom and responsibility IMHO.

> Singapore strikes a good balance between freedom and responsibility IMHO.

Singapore is a one-party state, probably as close to a perfect implementation of a benevolent dictatorship as there ever could be. It's a great place to live if you don't care about political freedoms and aren't a dissident of any kind.

It's only had three prime ministers since self-governance began in 1959 (64 years ago), and the third and current prime minister, who has been in office for nearly 20 years, is the eldest son of the first prime minister, who was in office for over 30 years. The same party, the People's Action Party, has had over three-quarters of the seats in parliament throughout the country's whole history.

There are many things to be admired about Singapore, a "good balance between freedom and responsibility" is not one of them. And endemic to all governments of this type, it remains to be seen whether it can be maintained for another few generations of Singaporeans.

https://freedomhouse.org/country/singapore/freedom-world/202...

Just to add to you comment, the fundamental problem with a benevolent dictatorship is that it stays a dictatorship even after the benevolent part ends.

> Sometimes, drastic solutions like these are needed. Singapore strikes a good balance between freedom and responsibility IMHO.

Some of them make sense. But executing people for drug crimes can be called barbarism.

> You can hardly justify this structure in most other places

Because most of those place where build to be car centric (most of the US?). I live in Sydney/Australia where there used to a massive tram infrastructure which was destroyed (allegedly) under the pressure of big oil to make the city more car centric.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jul/28/erase...

Monaco is considerably smaller. Have you seen their cars?

Do you mean the ones they travel through the sea? And on top of that, it’s just a ‘country’ for rich. Singapore is not a fake country, far from it.

I feel like Singapore is also largely a country for the rich, perhaps just larger -- they import something like 30-40% of their workers as migrant workers.

Singapore is super modern futuristic place, while Monaco is just a tiny city with no infrastructure, but a dock for yachts, casinos, restaurants and some mountains. I don’t know much about Monaco (visited once), but it feels like a place to invent some laws and install money laundering schemes, or tax evasion, or whatever else similar. Singapore on the other hand feels like super futuristic utopian dream city. I lived shortly there, but not long enough to dive into local culture and meet many people. While I would like to come visit Singapore again and again, I see no point in visiting Monaco ever again, for me it’s just beyond boring.

I think if you find money laundering and tax evasion schemes to be scummy you might want to look closer at the migrant work force that helped build that utopian dream city and ask important questions like:

* How do they afford such an expensive city?

* Where do they go when the work is done?

* Why don't they get the same rights as citizens?

* If the city needs them so badly and has such a hard time finding work, why aren't they allowing migrants a more permanent residency that isn't tied to a specific company?

* Why are companies and the government restricting migrant movement?

* Why do companies (sometimes) charge their migrant workers for the right to work?

* Why do companies (sometimes) withhold the passports of their workers?

* Why does the government punish overstaying a visa with caning?

I think there are a lot of parallels to western wealth disparity but there's still a lot of grossness to the systemic human labor trafficking that is the backbone of the country.

My point is space is not the issue (Monaco is smaller), policy is.

Keep in mind that this is also the country that fined shops selling chewing gum up to S$2,000.

Incentives uses to nudge our behaviours... Why not — to the max.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewing_gum_sales_ban_in_Singa...

I like this, particularly their rules against cigarette smoking, that ruins my day and air outside

I wish I could ban weed smoke smell in NYC. One person smoking makes a 30 foot diameter smell like skunk. Just use edibles and/or vapes people!

> One person smoking makes a 30 foot diameter smell like skunk.

Even better, a couple of idiots in a car smoking with their windows rolled down.

I'm all for banning smoking cigarettes or weed in public spaces. If you want to ruin your health, do it in the privacy of your own house.

Even in your house, so many apartments have shit ventilation. Weed smell goes into windows, hallways, etc.

Right? I always feel worried about getting a contact high through the second hand smoke too.

That is very unlikely to ever happen in all but the most enclosed situations, by the way.

Back in my day we used to hotbox on purpose lol. 6 people all crowded into a small bathroom, towel under the door

I was in Singapore some years ago with a smoker, and discovered that there were indeed smoking areas (at least near many bars) but they were so few and small that they would always be full of smokers, the ashtrays would be overflowing, etc.

Made me wonder whether part of the government plan was "yes, if you must, but you will not enjoy it."

Weed smokers ruins it as much or more?

To be fair, it does work if you value security above both freedom and creativity. Singapore is one of the safest if not the safest city on earth when it comes to crime

This is also the place that famously canes people for petty crimes.

And a death penalty for smuggling drugs.

EDIT: It seems that Singapore is more authorian than I thought (based on the Human Rights Wikipedia article). People would be complaining more about that were it not for the fact that it is a market-based economy.

On the bright side, the LGBT community got some rights this year.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Singapore

Look at what drugs can do to a place (SF) - if it works maybe it's worth it?

They also have a well regarded healthcare system.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Singapore

Makes me love Singapore the more. Very pragmatic leadership. Can't be characterized as "right-leaning" or "left-leaning" or whatever...it's like the leaders just sat down and thought, "Let us borrow any idea that works and implement in our country"...grew from third-world levels of poverty to enviable first-world development in a few decades.

I'm not Singaporean and have never visited if you're wondering...

I lived in Singapore 3 years, quite a pleasant city. Super efficient, clean, people polite and smiling. As an expat, the censorship and oppression was only materialized by the absence of a decent art scene. Music, theatre, movies, graphic arts, ... are nowhere to be seen or very mediocre in a city this size. Oh yes, and sure no drugs beyond alcohol.

The expensive car policy is well counterbalanced by good public transportation and cheap fast taxis (no congestion). More convenient than owning a car, imo.

Not just enviable, they have the worlds highest GDP per capita, the only Asian country with a triple AAA rating by all ratings bodies, good integration policies (low crime but basically a 20/20/20/20 split between Buddhism, Atheism, Christianity, and Islam - not completely 20:20:20:20 but can't remember the right numbers and it's close-ish), one of the highest life expectancies in the world, and pretty awesome food!

It's almost like cracking down on crime in a tough way with liberal economics can lead to a great place to live.

User Joak lived there and has posted here - it’s an interesting take.

The oppressive state behaviour has repercussions in their view.

Privileged migrants (I mean expats) might not be terribly affected by how unfree or authoritarian a society is.

> As an expat, the censorship and oppression was only materialized by the absence of a decent art scene.

Even if Singapore is authoritarian and unfree, if they have high happiness scores, high life expectancies, high standards of living, maybe we have to accept you can have some good authoritarian places to live.

If you'll read my comments again you'll see that I haven't taken a stance on this myself one way or the other.

Fair point!

> Can't be characterized as "right-leaning" or "left-leaning" or whatever.

Singapore's story is remarkable, like you said. But it can absolutely be characterized as right-leaning, with a conservative social policy marked by low individual freedom (low tolerance for antisocial behavior, definition of "antisocial" largely in the hands of the government) and high economic freedom (laissez-faire free market capitalism, small government[0]). On the Nolan chart[1], it would fall squarely in the Conservative side.

[0]: At government expenditures of ~15% of GDP, Singapore has by far the smallest government, in economic terms, of all developed countries.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolan_Chart

> what drugs can do to a place (SF)

I miss raves and house parties in 90's San Francisco.

At least the Tenderloin has a 24/7 block party! /s

When I see how people behave recklessly in some places, I'll be low-key wishing for this kind of law.

Crimes for which judicial caning applies seem like fairly serious ones to me: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caning_in_Singapore

One of most famous cases was a dipshit American with a spray can, so you and I are going to have disagree about the definition of “serious” crimes. Especially when the entire impetus of the vandalism law to stop graffiti protesting the ruling party in 1966. (Previously, vandalism was punished by a small fine, rather than caning.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caning_of_Michael_Fay

Vandalism is a felony in my state (Massachusetts). That seems to define it as being a serious crime here.

I wonder how many people have been actually convicted of vandalism in Massachusetts?

Looks like tens of thousands of occurrences per year and thousands "cleared" (unclear how close to 'convicted' that is, nor on whether all 'criminal damage' is vandalism).

https://ma.beyond2020.com/ma_tops/report/crime-overview/mass...

How many people have been caned for vandalism in Singapore?

I'd wager that far, far more people have a felony vandalism conviction in MA than were caned for it in Singapore.

I'm sorry, but this link doesn't back up what you're saying at all. It doesn't list felony vandalism at all, just "criminal damage". It doesn't even give a break down between felonies and misdemeanors.

I'm old enough to recognize when someone did a quick google search in an attempt to win argument on the internet, but this doesn't back up your argument at all. Especially with your final line, which is just made up of a whole cloth to justify beating someone.

Troll harder.

Forget a few grams of bud in your suitcase while transiting through Singapore? Just get a handed a death sentence as a foreign national, hope you enjoy your holiday execution.

Everybody knows the laws, why would you insist on breaking them?

What makes you think I insist on breaking Singaporean laws?

Maybe not you specifically, but why would anyone bring drugs in their luggage on a transit flight through Singapore. Why would someone not have a basic understanding of breaking the law in the countries they travel to/thru?

A lot of people, especially many who use marijuana, are quite disorganized and forget about all sorts of random items in backpacks, suitcases, etc. between trips. So it’s a very real possibility

Where is it legal to bring weed across country or even state lines? There's no way to "forget" to remove something from your luggage that's universally illegal, unless you've choosen to flout the law because it's easy to get away with elsewhere.

You’ve never left something in a pocket before, or dropped something into an open suitcase without noticing it?

Maybe coins or random pocket trash, but never illegal drugs. I think I would notice 500 grams of weed, which is the minimum to receive the death penalty in Singapore.

Half a kilo isn't easy to overlook, I'll give you that.

When I count all my pieces of clothing damaged by chewing gums, recall the felling of disgust when accidentally touching a chewing gum attached under a seat or table, see the awful black stains created by trampled chewing gums... yes, this industry deserves it.

I always throw chewing gum in the bin. But I guess if only one in a thousand does not do that then you can end up with gum all over the asphalt (in a city state).

Having spent my entire life where chewing gum is legal, I find this attitude absurd.

What are we going to do next, ban farting?

Once farting will become billions dollar industry with fat executive boards, with stars and celebrities advertising farting as a way of living, and farting casually introduced in mainstream movies. Then some farting restrictions might be really necessary.

> farting casually introduced in mainstream movies

That could actually be pretty funny.

Do you know https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/ ?

I was told by someone who lived in Singapore it was because people put the chewing gum on the lasers that counted passengers on the transit system. It was an expensive system.

Chewing gums were probably put on many places and things, and their removal was nasty and expensive.

A college friend of mine was from Singapore. After he got a job at FAANG, he bought an Aston Martin. He said it was so cheap compared to owning a fancy car in Singapore, that it was an appealing deal from his perspective. I learned that his tires cost as much as my car. A year or two later, he bought an second Aston.

He eventually moved back to Singapore, but kept his cars here, at his in-laws house.

Did your Singaporean friend's family have a house in Singapore? If so, that explains how they could afford a couple Aston Martins.

For reference - house ownership is almost impossible in SG without either being old money or making millions and moving back.

Difficulty in owning a house in singapore is pretty similar to other developed countries. Like in HK, they have HDB (Housing Development Board) flats, which are government-subsidized housing, the median price is around S$500,000 (approximately $372,000 in USD). Only citizens and PRs can buy with subsidies for first time home owner. I would say around 60-80% singaporeans live on HDB housing.

I said a house, not a HDB flat.

A detached house in SG goes for millions of USD [0] on top of having PR and Citizenship requirements. This is because they are Freeholds (aka if you buy the property, you also own the land underneath).

HDB flats are also leaseholds (aka 99 year leases). My ex's family HDB was screwed after the govt began the whole Jurong East expansion there a couple years ago. Unsurprisingly her family voted Workers Party before switching to the PSP.

[0] - https://www.propertyguru.com.sg/property-for-sale?market=res...

not sure what you mean by screwed as some of my team members are HDB owners and we are not aware of any fiasco reg. Jurong expansion.

Anyway just want to provide additional context that housing is not for millionaires only in Singapore. Of course we can argue about the semantic of flat and house til the cows come home.

Yes, and I said a HOUSE in my comment. I asked if the guy's friend has a HOUSE, not a flat. I said HOUSE ownership, not HOME ownership. Ay ya.

sounds like he came from money, no one who does not come from money would think a FAANG salary was reason to buy an aston martin.

in singapore a $60k/yr salary is more than enough to justify a small $200k honda civic.

I was in Singapore some months back.

So clean, so humid+warm+sticky, and when I compare the headcount cost in various locations (countries & cities), for the same grade: 1 Singaporean = 1.3 Londoners 1 Singaporean = 1.8 Warsawians 1 Singaporean = 4 Chennaians

So.. yes.. car ownership IS expensive but a "Director" in Singapore nets crazy amounts. And if you think car ownership is expensive.. wait to look to rent a flat in a cozy area...

It can be tough to find a full-time jobs as I found the prospect for web developer roles in the current economy is low that could left quite a lot of us jobless or pursue part-time jobs despite the workforce group has been keeping us in contact.

Living between a multi-story car park (the rich parking their cars), luxury estate and a neighbour park (Punggol Park), with a construction noise pollution that can last 24 hours. I'm just a poor guy but I have been reaching government for assistance, yet failed lots of times. Those my neighbours just sleeping well.

When I lived in Hong Kong long ago, IIRC there was an approximately 400% sales tax on new car sales.

> Failing that, there is the option of getting a motorbike – permits for which are a relative snip at $7,930

I don't understand why this is so much lower. Motorbikes can park in smaller spaces but on the road, require similar area/clearance

Motorcycles are a lot easier on infrastructure and are much less dangerous to other road users. (No A-pillars or blind spots) They take up way less space too. You can park 6 motorbikes in the space of one car. Keep in mind also, most of the bikes there are 125cc models for local deliveries and such.

I think climate activists want to drastically raise the cost of owning and operating a car, which will make a cars a luxury good unavailable to the middle class. As people catch on, this policy stance will become very unpopular.

If the cost of owning and operating a car included paying for externalities like CO2 emissions it would already be unaffordable to the middle class. Internalizing those costs is only fair.

If the full costs of existing as a human being were internalized, nobody would be able to afford to live. Existence itself imposes a cost on the environment. Even Grok the caveman had to burn wood for warmth, releasing CO2 and particulates into the atmosphere.

I think the better approach is Locke's "enough and as good" proviso.

Burning wood (certainly before things like medieval deforestation) isn't a cost on the environment. The carbon from firewood is already “in cycle”. Unlike the carbon that is millions of years old that we have dug up from the ground.

A false equivalence.

Burning wood is absolutely a cost on the environment; just ask anyone who grew up in homes heated by firewood. But of course, as you say, the scale is different. Should your example of medieval deforestation have been impermissible for environmental reasons, then? Where should the line be drawn? Who has the authority to draw that line?

No (non-nuclear) renewable technology currently exists that can by itself meet the energy demands of developed world standards of living. I'm not sure if wind and solar alone can even meet a developing country's standard of living. I'd really like it if we could build a thousand new nuclear power plants, but of course, reality is often disappointing and we get things like Germany shutting down its nuclear reactors and burning more coal instead.

If companies would have to pay for externalities as well as the exploitation of the less developed world: capitalism wouldn't be “competitive”.

In the US perhaps but Singapore is super dense and has actual public transit. You can't do it in most US cities because we're so captured at the car-centric local maxima for 99% of our cities. Ultimately it's an issue we should really address but it's so entrenched into the cities and people's housing it'll take a major event to change.

Greens are already unpopular among that segment.

I guess living in a city state means that for your needs walking 8or on rainy days, public transport, will be sufficient.

Another post today made this point: city’s are not noisy, but cars are.

Even the car-free parts of cities are noisy. Go to any bar or restaurant district in a pedestrian-only zone with a sound meter and tell me it’s quiet and I’ll tell you that your hearing aids and meter’s batteries need to be replaced.

Cars are noisy. People are noisy, whether inside or outside of cars.

You're wrong.

https://www.chem.purdue.edu/chemsafety/Training/PPETrain/dbl...

weird. Walkable cities are much more quiet than the car ones. Sure, a busy area is noisy from revelers. Cars are just loud technology, compared to bikes or walking.

I think that the fact that this is a city state is a bit of a red herring here. It's like living in Manhattan/Brooklyn and cost of owning a car in such locations will naturally include cost of parking space.

So this is really a conscious decision to use taxes to limit cars for the majority of people while letting the rich have one but I suppose it'll always be that way.

EVs?

If you factor in the high salaries and super low taxes, it's not that bad. Also taxis and ubers are high-end cars readily available at very reasonable prices.

The USA needs to build a country where we can do this too. Car dependency is a scourge. The horrible housing policies of our states, counties, and cities is slowly destroying the fabric of our civilization. The fact that you need to own a car to exist in this country is absurd.

January: 26°C (79°F) - 31°C (88°F)

February: 26°C (79°F) - 31°C (88°F)

March: 26°C (79°F) - 31°C (88°F)

April: 26°C (79°F) - 32°C (90°F)

May: 26°C (79°F) - 32°C (90°F)

June: 26°C (79°F) - 31°C (88°F)

July: 25°C (77°F) - 31°C (88°F)

August: 25°C (77°F) - 31°C (88°F)

September: 25°C (77°F) - 31°C (88°F)

October: 25°C (77°F) - 31°C (88°F)

November: 25°C (77°F) - 31°C (88°F)

December: 25°C (77°F) - 31°C (88°F)

The temperature there is quite stable. Good place to try something like this.

> April: 26°C (79°F) - 32°C (90°F)

i travelled there during April for a couple of weeks. big mistake, humidity was close to 100% every single day. i was literally sweating while sitting.

On the other hand, the southern hemisphere is only 150 km away! I used to live there 2+ years, I think I could walk about 100 meters before I started really pushing the sweat. Also after a few months your body gets adjusted, and it is only 95% as bad as it used to :D

yup, this is what people that moved there were telling me. you get used to it.

Singapore's fertility rate is 1.1

Singapore is one of few countries where population aging not gonna be a problem anytime soon due to how many immigrants are working, live there or just want to move there to live.

I think it would be ethical to consider that pricing current residents out of the chance to have a family is not good, and that a supply of willing immigrant meat into your fertility shredder metropolis does not cancel out the harm to actual people.

At this rate they might raise the military service time from two to four years.

check latest prices/bidding here

https://onemotoring.lta.gov.sg/content/onemotoring/home/buyi...

I wish we had this cost where I live in The Netherlands. So many people here don't need cars.

Then how will Wassenaar inhabitants and drug clans self-stigmatize? VanMoof and Urban Arrow bicycles and not that expensive.

It's nice to be able to have things that you don't strictly need. In fact, you could call that human progress.

Over taxing a “need” in a way to counter it is never a good strategy, you will just make that need a privilege for the wealthy, destroying more and more the middle class. And yes, cars are a need in a lot of cases, places, countries, and environments, not using a car might work for your specific situation and/or city, but can not be generalized.

One would think they should make a lottery if they want to limit the number of cars. Like the Green card lottery for visa in the US. Then it would depend on income. And every person in the household can participate, so larger families with perhaps greater need would have higher chances of winning.

Bidding also opens a lot of problems, see NYC taxi medallion auctions.

Good luck getting elected in most of the world with such proposal.

ironically I remember the jokes about owning cars in soviet union

I never understood public policies that making something so expensive only the wealthy can afford.

Just make it illegal and seize the car for destruction. Same effect, and fairer.

Seizing private property for destruction is fair?

Yes. Much fairer than two tired system.

Equality by kneecapping the rich. Want to know how I can tell you are from California?

Hard nope from me, sorry. Seizing people's property and destroying it is never cool.

Seizing property used in the commission of a crime is done all the time, and has been done for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.

What do you think happens to guns used in a robbery, or illegal drugs? You think they’re being sold off in a GSA auction?

For drugs, destruction makes sense since they're inherently illegal. But since you can legally own guns, they should be auctioned off.

the people that collect that money, now have enough income to be car owners at that price

[dupe]

Some more discussion over here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37770533

Reply on news.ycombinator.com