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.