Do you think the Government should give tax discount on fuel economy cars?

**webmiester** · October 28th, 2007 11:59 AM

Originally Posted by empy

heehee, wouldn't the drastically lower cost of ownership be reason enough? i wonder who still would consider an economy car for a little more incentive...

I think they should give incentives like cheaper registration costs to cars running on alternative fuels like LPG, CNG, and or whatever else comes along.

This is what they did in London. Aside from cheaper registration costs, they also have cheaper streetside parking, etc.

If that happens though, Im pretty sure maraming magfafake ng car conversions nila. Just pay the LTO guys to mark their cars as "LPG" or something like that.

**MAXBUWAYA** · October 29th, 2007 11:34 AM

Originally Posted by webmiester

I think they should give incentives like cheaper registration costs to cars running on alternative fuels like LPG, CNG, and or whatever else comes along.

This is what they did in London. Aside from cheaper registration costs, they also have cheaper streetside parking, etc.

If that happens though, Im pretty sure maraming magfafake ng car conversions nila. Just pay the LTO guys to mark their cars as "LPG" or something like that.

Nows thats Being both a good idea and a bad idea hehehehehe

**niky** · October 29th, 2007 12:17 PM

That kind of thinking just encourages people to go for "alternative" fuel vehicles just for the heck of it, not based on fuel economy or in view of saving gasoline.

Sort of like the Hybrid Carpool exemptions. Hybrids with just one passenger (namely, the driver) are allowed to use carpool lanes in some states and cities.

How does this save the US gasoline? How does this promote the economy? It doesn't.

It just allows people to offset the fuel savings of hybrids by driving alone.

A better way to do it would be a "gas guzzler" tax. Manufacturers would have to pay a tax based on fuel economy of the vehicle versus the number of passengers it can carry.

This would not be added onto the current tax, but made part of it.

There would be a different tax on four seaters (determined by width... for example, the Alto and Picanto would count as four seaters, but the Corolla would be five), five seaters, seven seaters and full-on vans.

This would allow manufacturers to sell hybrids for less here, and would also encourage them to push the lower-displacement variants of their cars with more luxuries... as the adjusted tax would allow them to sell them at a good price. Note how much shaving Ford did to the options list of the Focus TDCi to get it under that 1.1 million peso ceiling.

This would also help manufacturers push seven seaters like the Carens for nearly the same price, while leaving in safety equipment like ABS and airbags.

But the value-based tax we have is good enough for the meantime... we're hardly taxing "economical" vehicles, as it is, yet most people can't afford them, anyway. What we need to do instead is to raise the economy of the country to the point wherein more people can actually afford cars.

**webmiester** · October 29th, 2007 09:08 PM

Originally Posted by niky

That kind of thinking just encourages people to go for "alternative" fuel vehicles just for the heck of it, not based on fuel economy or in view of saving gasoline.

Sort of like the Hybrid Carpool exemptions. Hybrids with just one passenger (namely, the driver) are allowed to use carpool lanes in some states and cities.

How does this save the US gasoline? How does this promote the economy? It doesn't.

It just allows people to offset the fuel savings of hybrids by driving alone.

I can get a seven-seater van but have only myself to ride in it. I think the idea behind the hybrid car exemptions is to have more people use one car. 5 cars carrying 1 person each stuck in traffic uses up 5x more gasoline than 1 car with 5 persons stuck in traffic. Promoting the use of larger capacity vehicles via tax exemptions is useless without promoting carpooling.

Shifting to alternative use saves gasoline. That's for sure. The simple fact that gasoline is no longer used means that a lot of it is saved. For the economy, Malampaya produces CNG, we can save a lot of $$$ and produce local jobs by using local resources. Another reason why they promoted the reduce taxes on LPG in london was for ecological reasons. Global warming is destroying our agriculture, livestocks, etc. The government spends millions daily for cloud seeding and other measures. Reducing CO2 load by shifting to other fuels will save us these costs in the future, or help slow them down considerably.

Even if people shift to alternative fuels for the wrong reason, the benefits to the environment, and to us, and to their savings is still there.

Originally Posted by niky

A better way to do it would be a "gas guzzler" tax. Manufacturers would have to pay a tax based on fuel economy of the vehicle versus the number of passengers it can carry.

This would not be added onto the current tax, but made part of it.

There would be a different tax on four seaters (determined by width... for example, the Alto and Picanto would count as four seaters, but the Corolla would be five), five seaters, seven seaters and full-on vans.

This was done before. We would find 10-12 seater Ford Excursion trucks classified as 12 seater and getting exempted. Seating capacity determined by another means lead to the miraculous 10-seater CRV which was also tax exempted. Finally, we find that these large Ford Explorer trucks usually having only one passenger on-board so its full capacity is rarely used, yet consumes gasoline like a V6 or a V8. It would have saved us more gasoline if the same driver used a suzuki alto instead.

Yes, I agree with the gas-guzzler tax. During Cory's time gas guzzlers werent even allowed in the country. The difficulty is determining what a gas-guzzler is. Should it depend on engine displacement or mileage studies done by DOE?

**webmiester** · October 29th, 2007 10:15 PM

Addendum:

The hybrid car exemptions on carpool lanes were not meant to negate the effects of carpooling. I think they were meant to promote the sales of hybrid cars. Hybrid cars might be the future, only if supported properly today. Since they're pretty pricey, legislators have to come up with other means to give them support - including giving them priority lanes such as in the carpool lanes.

**niky** · October 30th, 2007 12:20 PM

But that's where they went wrong.

By that logic, any car that gets 40 mpg or more should be allowed in the carpool lane, as it's saving gas. A Honda Civic 1.8, a Honda Fit, or a Toyota Yaris should be allowed in the carpool lane with one passenger.

Yes, the economy versus seating rule can be abused, but I can't see any way around it. See, you're trying to make people buy more practical cars... but then, the exemptions for the Excursion and the CRV were due to the fact that the law was based strictly on seating and not economy. It's a good thing Honda pointed out how ridiculous the AUV-law is... A Revo VX200 is not a working truck, and it's not fuel efficient (hell, it's worse than the CRV).

Which is why America is truck-heaven. Gas-guzzler exemptions meant to make it easier for farmers to buy big vehicles for work help prop up SUV sales, irregardless of their engine size. Modify the gas guzzler tax to allow for big vehicles, but to still penalize them for worst-in-class economy (I guess it should be measured on a dyno at various engine speeds and loads, to eliminate bias), and you will encourage manufacturers to make more fuel efficient vehicles.

On the highway? make them pay more toll for bigger vehicles! Make a subclass for small cars and motorbikes on the highway... give them 50% off, or something. A Suzuki Alto (0.8 tons) does not wear down the road as badly as a porky Ford Focus (1.4 tons) or a Toyota Camry (1.6 tons) or even an Isuzu Crosswind Sportivo (1.9 tons).

As for alternative fuel, CNG is a good one, LPG another, but biofuels and other alternatives still require the use of fossil fuels in their manufacture, and biofuels negatively affects food prices... whichever fuel we end up using, we have to ensure we use it wisely.

And, in this case, it's all up to the consumer. If you give the consumer no reason to conserve, they won't. (Hence the US problem... cheap gas, cheap big vehicles)... If you give them every reason to... (take the UK... expensive vehicle tax and registration, expensive fuel, congestion charges, etcetera), then they'll start motorbiking, cycling, walking or commuting on trips that they'd otherwise use their cars for.

**MAXBUWAYA** · October 30th, 2007 01:07 PM

Thinking it again regarding small cars..

We are Pilipinos Damn it!

We dont want small cars, we dont wanna be seen driving with just a Puny alto or an Picanto. We want it big! Like the suburban or a hummer. Never mind the Gas or the narrow roads Whats important is status.

Because if we pinoys get shot in the car, Am sure everybody here would wanna get shot dead inside a big V8 or V10 SUV, not inside a fuel efficient, small, everybody has one car

Reading everybodys post makes me say that the idea Sucks!

We are Pilipinos Damn it! (again)

**webmiester** · November 5th, 2007 11:07 PM

Originally Posted by MAXBUWAYA

Thinking it again regarding small cars..

We are Pilipinos Damn it!

We dont want small cars, we dont wanna be seen driving with just a Puny alto or an Picanto. We want it big! Like the suburban or a hummer. Never mind the Gas or the narrow roads Whats important is status.

Because if we pinoys get shot in the car, Am sure everybody here would wanna get shot dead inside a big V8 or V10 SUV, not inside a fuel efficient, small, everybody has one car

Reading everybodys post makes me say that the idea Sucks!

We are Pilipinos Damn it! (again)

Yeah, the italians are big people and yet they drive small cars...

Really, people here are obsessed with being big: From making sure their titles sound big, to having big loud cars. Its really a way for the Filipino to try and uplift his ego in these ways.

**squala** · November 6th, 2007 08:10 AM

Philippine government, tax cuts? Hahahahaha! :lol:

**webmiester** · November 12th, 2007 11:15 PM

Originally Posted by niky

But that's where they went wrong.

By that logic, any car that gets 40 mpg or more should be allowed in the carpool lane, as it's saving gas. A Honda Civic 1.8, a Honda Fit, or a Toyota Yaris should be allowed in the carpool lane with one passenger.

I think the move was meant to promote the research into cars which will have alternative powerplants aside from gasoline. Hybrid so far is the most feasible marketwise at the moment. Support for hybrid cars may eventually lead into the development of electric-powered, solar-powered, and hydrogen-powered cars. Again, I think it was wise for the government to offer other incentives for projects trying out in this direction irregardless of how well the current research has gone.

Maybe currently a Honda Fit or Toyota Yaris can match the Prius' fuel consumption (I doubt this though), but if the Prius' development is given more support, future developments will make future models far far more efficient than future yarises or Honda Fits.

This is actually like the age when Steam Engine Locomotives were up against Diesel Locomotives. Steam engines used to rival the earlier Diesel engines in speed and power. But eventually, steam engine technology reached a point when it no longer could improve, while diesel engine technology was developing tremendously, where later on the steam engines could no longer touch them. Our current gasoline engines are nearing that point where inovations to them are slowing down, support must be given to technologies which have more potential for growth, and the hybrid cars and the alternative fuel cars might still have this potential.