Vehicle Excise Tax News

[Suzuki-san]

You have a point there. Probably, people who like Honda find the vehicle to be "worth the buy".

Personally, I prefer Suzuki than any other vehicles in its class. That's why my name is Suzuki-san. Peace...

[pissword]

ndi ko gets..anu ba ang value engineering?? oo nga naisip ko din kung yung rav and other suv eh d tax exempted eh bakit konti lang ang angat ng price nila...although mas konti din nga sakay.. hmmmmm

[HBOY]

price we pay for product marketing.... honda marketed their cars well... kahit overpriced.. and yet.. people still buy them.

[boybi]

i commend honda for being very good in marketing. kaya their brand sounds prestige to most people.

[C24]

.

[pissword]

C24 un nga eh san nakuha nung nagsabi ng 980+ ata un 316 hehe wala na bumili altis nyan hahaha... toyota din naman galing marketing ahh bwitney nga o vios

[mbt]

kevinp,

i think (and you don't have to agree with me here) social responsiblity is a moot point here since Honda had to get the approval of the government for its CR-V bid. it is the government that has no sense of social responsiblity by ridiculously approving the clearly obnoxious bid.

it can even be argued as well that Honda is actually doing the government a favor by bringing in more net taxes than if it "played by the rules" and brought the government just a fraction of the taxes (this point is debatable, i know, although i think it actually makes more sense than the government's ramblings). arguing that the government is hopeless anyway so it's up to the consumers to protect the law begs the question, "if that is so, then why do have to pay taxes in the first place?," and avoids the basic question: what if the law fails to serve the people, as is clearly the case with the excise tax laws? Honda, in a sense, made the law work for the people (again, this point is controversial, i know)

my position is that the law itself is senseless (the law "should" be followed, but that doesn't mean it's for the good of all): why make a 10-seater the basis for a tax exemption? in other words, what's the point of promoting high-capacity vehicles anyway (this just makes the vehicles extremely unsafe)? an expedition in no way qualifies as an "AUV" but is exempt from tax (under the previous law, at least) by virtue of seating ten (in sardine-can comfort)...

it is my opinion that this whole deal about a "magic" passenger capacity of ten is completely stupid... the new tax law rectifies this by removing it (and rightly so), HOWEVER, the new tax law is in itself stupid as well since the tax levels are so incredibly high that just about no one could buy them anymore. in the end, the government loses by not collecting any taxes (since nothing is sold), the manufacturers lose because they can't sell a thing, and the consumer loses because his choices are severely limited.

mazdamazda,

imo, whether or not Honda is overpricing the CR-V is beside the point, because people are buying it anyway. similarly, everyone knows a Rolex is overpriced and yet no one complains. by that, i'm not saying Honda is a prestige brand or anything like that (:D), but Honda has every right to sell at whatever price it thinks the market is willing to pay for.

as for the comparison, i will compare it to the Ford Escape XLS since that is the closest configuration to the CR-V (2.0L engine, etc -- the RAV4, i believe, is taxed lower because of the 1.8L engine). 1.15 M is significantly more expensive than the 900,000 CR-V (a difference of 215,000). had the 2wd CR-V been a 5-seater, i think it would sell for around this range, i.e. the 1.15-1.25M range.

there is another thing about the CR-V and RAV4 that i do not understand: the government said that once the CR-V's exemption is lifted, it will sell for 1.2+ to 1.3M or thereabouts. however, this is for a 2wd model. under the present tax law, 4wd is automatically slapped with a huge tax (right?)... and yet a 4wd RAV4 or a 4wd Forester sell for 1.3M too. so how can a 2wd 5-seater CR-V have a price that is similar to that of a comparable 4wd RAV4 (that includes a huge tax for 4wd)?

does 4wd still carry a huge additional tax in the new (still inane) tax system?

[boybi]

in the end, the government loses by not collecting any taxes (since nothing is sold), the manufacturers lose because they can't sell a thing, and the consumer loses because his choices are severely limited.

the government will not lose because most buyers of the crv are determined to buy a vehicle anyway. hindi naman siguro lumabas lang yung crv tsaka lang sila bumili ng car? majority ng mga kakilala ko who bought a car in the past year bough a crv. it was not one of their choices before this new model came out. their choices were either revo, crosswind, or altis.

so if the crv was marketed as a 4wd mini-suv like the rav4, hindi kaya mas me makukuhang revenue dito ang gov't? those who have bought the auv crv would have bought other cars and legitimate auv's. madami pa rin naman bibili ng 4wd crv dahil sigurado naman na mass loaded ito compared to the one their selling here.

[mbt]

that is a good point, but that was not the point i was trying to make. by that quoted statement, i was not referring to the CR-V in particular, but to the new tax scheme as a whole.

should an average middle-class buyer need (or want) a high-riding vehicle or a truck for whatever purpose, he now has pretty much no choice except to look in the second-hand market (i think only the jimny remains as an affordable truck?... or kasama pa rin yung mga compact pickups... anyway, these types of vehicle may not suit a buyer's needs). and sales of pre-owned units, of course, don't earn the government or manufacturers any revenue.

[boybi]

sori at nagkamali ako ng pagkaintindi. wag nalang iconsider yung post ko as a point of argument but as another of my point of view nalang. tama ba itong pinagsasabi ko?

status quo ata ang mga pickups.

[usokpower]

Originally posted by mbt
kevinp,

it can even be argued as well that Honda is actually doing the government a favor by bringing in more net taxes than if it "played by the rules" and brought the government just a fraction of the taxes

my position is that the law itself is senseless (the law "should" be followed, but that doesn't mean it's for the good of all): why make a 10-seater the basis for a tax exemption? what's the point of promoting high-capacity vehicles anyway (this just makes the vehicles extremely unsafe)? ? an expedition in no way qualifies as an "AUV" but is exempt from tax (under the previous law, at least) by virtue of seating ten (in sardine-can comfort)...

it is my opinion that this whole deal about a "magic" passenger capacity of ten is completely stupid... the new tax law rectifies this by removing it (and rightly so),
HOWEVER, the new tax law is in itself stupid as well since the tax levels are so incredibly high that just about no one could buy them anymore. in the end, the government loses by not collecting any taxes . (since nothing is sold), the manufacturers lose because they can't sell a thing, and the consumer loses because his choices are severely limited.

You just said that the government is stupid for having a 10 seater law that compromises the safety of the passengers. But one of your statements said that " it can be argued that Honda is actually giving the government a favor by paying net taxes"

Another one is, you said that the new tax law (IMO, it will promote the safety of the passengers since hindi na exempt ang 10 seater "sardine" exemption) is stupid because car sales will be greatly affected and raising of revenues for the government will decline.

So what is your position?

1. The government should continue its current tax law for the benefit of the majority (including the government) But safety is compromised.

2. The government should amend the current tax law and promote the safety of the passengers however majority will be affected since not everyone can afford to buy a SUV.

[mbt]

the CR-V argument and the 10-seater argument are on two different levels, two different matters. one is about whether or not Honda was "right" (or wrong) in AUV-izing the CR-V in relation to the government's allegation of being cheated of tax revenue; the other is a commentary about the inanity of the tax law in general.

the first is my opinion regarding Honda's gambit with the CR-V, and i'm saying that Honda is giving the consumer a good value *under the current circumstances*. as a result of the cheaper price, more units were sold and so the net collection of the government is increased compared to if the CR-V were sold at 1.3M to begin with. however, my argument for the merits of the AUV-ization of the CR-V is only in terms of tax revenue; i hold that the CR-V has become a much inferior vehicle by being made AUV-ized. bottom line: the 10-seater CR-V brought it within reach of the market (which is good), but it is not the optimal solution, and is in fact, an unsafe one, but car manufacturers really have no choice.

the second is my opinion that removing the 10-seat rule is the proper way to go (because cramming 10 seats into a vehicle designed for 5 or 7 at most [this includes such vehicles as a patrol, a venture, a pajero, etc... not just the cr-v] destroys comfort and makes the vehicle more unsafe for passengers). however, putting prohibitive taxes as a replacement is definitely NOT the way to go for the reasons i cited above.

therefore, my position may be better summarized as (emphasizing safety since you do):

1) Honda did consumers (and also the government, in a sense, but this is debatable) a service with the CR-V AUV. but safety is compromised by the AUV-ization

2) The government should amend the current tax law and promote the safety of the passengers however majority will be affected since not everyone can afford to buy a SUV

3) therefore, what government should do is to impose equitable levels of taxation for ALL types of vehicles and not give preferential option to sedans at the expense of SUVs. what would thus happen is that the vehicles would all be safe (since passengers are sitting as they should) and the government would collect greater net tax since the volume of sales would increase.

at least, that's what i think is wrong, and what i think should be done, and why.

[OTEP]

I'm not arguing. Pero before the Pajero was 'AUV-ized' every passenger had a seatelt. Ngayon, lima na lang ata sa kanila ang meron and the traction benefits of all wheel drive has been lost.

Ayun lang po. Back to regular programming.

[boybi]

leche din yang tax sa 4wd. 4x2 lang tuloy patrol ko.

[mbt]

buti may pag-asa pang maconvert iyang Patrol hehe :D

[kevinp]

mbt, the government will not impose higher taxes on 4WDs/SUVs. The bill is titled "A Bill Rationalizing the Excise Tax on Automobiles." And I believe it indeed does that. It taxes vehicles based on the actual value of the vehicle and not its drivetrain/engine displacement/no of doors/no of passengers/etc. If you missed my previous post, if the auto manufacturers were to come up with bare-to-the-bones models of their SUVs, the retail price would be lower and therefore the tax would be lower also.

Take a look at the SUVs in the market nowadays. Almost all of them have got leather seats, a flashy stereo, power windows, power locks, power steering, blig bling mags and so much more that adds to the retail price of the vehicles. This, I think, is because the auto manufacturers target their SUVs specifically at the upper spectrum of society (they wanna be known as a prestige brand siguro) thus preventing the introduction of basic models and making the SUV out of the reach of the middle-class person. This new law is not to blame for the unaffordability of the SUVs, I say the manufacturers are to blame for putting too many amenities in their products that drive up the selling price.

Under the new law, in fact, it no longer matters whether the CR-V can seat 5, 10 or 20 people. The basis of taxation would still be the value of the vehicle. I think after this, Honda might as well remove the last row of seats on the CR-V and put 3 seatbelts instead of four on the second row thereby promoting passenger safety and perhaps lowering the cost of production a little.

[Beefy]

Originally posted by kevinp
san kaya nakuha nung writer yung SRP details ng 316? Ang alam ko ang selling price ngayon ng 316 is around 1.75M na. yung 323 nasa 2M na.

Does anyone know how much the 323 or the 316/8 will cost after implementing the bill?

[mazdamazda]

Originally posted by Beefy
Does anyone know how much the 323 or the 316/8 will cost after implementing the bill?

BMW phil has issued an advisory that prices of its vehicle might increase after the implementation of the excise tax, contrary to what inquirer published.

[Beefy]

Originally posted by mazdamazda
BMW phil has issued an advisory that prices of its vehicle might increase after the implementation of the excise tax, contrary to what inquirer published.

So there's no chance for the price of the 3 series to go down? sayang.. i guess it's better to buy now than wait for the law to be implemented..sayang

[wowiesy]

to mazdamazda on pricing of auv..

good observation.. at present.. the AUVs enjoy excise tax exemption,, but they're priced higher or at level with sedans (which are excise taxed).. production cost difference between sedans and AUVs i believe isn't much... that just shows they have a big margin on AUVs, hence the intense lobbying to protect their margins... and all those yak-yak about killing the automotive industry because of lost jobs is just an after thought...

to all,

the "strategy" of selling a barebones vehicle and then adding on some packages is agreeably the next thing that would be done by the dealers... but if we think about it.. that's how the US dealers do it... have a base model.. then have a package to upgrade the engine, the transmission, accessories, etc...

keep in mind that the DOF has based it's projected tax collection on excise taxes (and in the same way, the excise bills passed at the House and the Senate) all run with the assumption that sales levels would remain... maybe for the initial year sales would go down.. but once the consumer gets used to the idea... sales may pick up again...


now if and when sales doesn't pick up after that.. then the possibility of the government taxing the auto accessories market isn't too far fetched..