Vehicle Excise Tax News

[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..