Will u buy Diesel or Petrol Cars in SG

[Beehive3783]

What I think:

 

1. They want 99% of private cars to run on petrol, so they can collect petrol tax

2. They imposed 3/4 tank rule to prevent cheapos from running to JB

3. Commercial diesels are for work and livelihood of the citizens, therefore hard for them to tax (chain reaction is real)

4. Private diesels are for pleasure. Why tax only private diesel? Refer to point 1. And they don't want any citizen with high mileage to skirt the system by buying private diesel cars

 

This is why there is special diesel tax for private cars and not uniform tax on all diesel vehicles.

 

This is also why, it is better to say, "Thanks but no thanks" when asked to give feedback on current policies or when some itchy mouths ask for policy changes.

 

 

Good points. No easy solution. But still do not see meaningful rationale to target private diesels.

Literally a drop in the ocean both from a revenue and a pollution reduction perspective.

Let's see how it plays out.

 

I don't even have bike licence. Jialat.

 

Then what about your business? Not possible to use bike right?

 

Biodiesel is expensive. I pump a couple of times.

 

Anyway, ours don't last long. Next year Q1, most going to graveyard.

 

COE for commercial vehicle will chiong again.

 

I'm probably out of this game. Going back to bike is all I can afford.

 

[Kb27]

I don't even have bike licence. Jialat.

 

Then what about your business? Not possible to use bike right?

 

Yes, can use bike.

Just need to scale down business.

[Mkl22]

Yes, can use bike.

Just need to scale down business.

 

bike with sidecar? but cannot use expressways.

[Kb27]

bike with sidecar? but cannot use expressways.

 

No, not sidecar. Just a bike with boxes.

Although it will restrict what I can carry.

[Mkl22]

No, not sidecar. Just a bike with boxes.

Although it will restrict what I can carry.

 

add a sidecar lor. can carry much more but speed slower.

[fungyee77]

What I think:

 

1. They want 99% of private cars to run on petrol, so they can collect petrol tax

2. They imposed 3/4 tank rule to prevent cheapos from running to JB

3. Commercial diesels are for work and livelihood of the citizens, therefore hard for them to tax (chain reaction is real)

4. Private diesels are for pleasure. Why tax only private diesel? Refer to point 1. And they don't want any citizen with high mileage to skirt the system by buying private diesel cars

 

This is why there is special diesel tax for private cars and not uniform tax on all diesel vehicles.

 

This is also why, it is better to say, "Thanks but no thanks" when asked to give feedback on current policies or when some itchy mouths ask for policy changes.

 

 

 

 

I don't even have bike licence. Jialat.

 

Then what about your business? Not possible to use bike right?

Hmmm, that's scarily plausible. Now half suspect that you are correct.

 

But that also suggests that the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. On one hand, you promote diesel cars by CEVs rebates and reducing diesel tax for Euro V cars. Then once your policies start to gain traction, you move the goal posts on the very people which made a success of your initial policy amendments.

 

In any case, if the above supposition is correct, they should just be upfront and say that this is a revenue consideration and justify to the citizens on that basis.

 

And not hide behind the rationale of pollution reduction because there is very little business case for that if the intention is to target private diesel.

[flashbang]

Question is what is the policy objective.

 

If you raise diesel taxes, you kill off the 10k per year super clean bmw diesel driver. But the 100k per year diesel taxi is still going. And the old polluting diesel lorries are still chugging along.

 

So you say you want to solve pollution, but you address 2% of the problem and ignore 98% of the sources. That's disingenuous.

 

It's akin to wanting to eradicate organised crime by only targeting the loan shark runners and ignoring the kingpins because they have guns. Does not make much sense to me.

 

Unless you are doing it so that you can tell the clean air lobby, "Hey look, I'm doing something !". If so, then it's not effective policy making, it's wayang kulit and I hope the policy makers are above that.

The policy objective is to screw sinkies over. That's the KPI

[merc280v6]

Tax regulations on different car types will need to be equitable, across the board.

Govt policies cannot be seen to provide special tax 'concessions' only to private diesel cars such that only one group of car owners enjoy unique benefits, over all others.

The cost of car ownership ought to be based on an "equal misery" concept and implemented as such.

So whether one buys a gasoline or diesel engined private car, there has to be some semblance of taxation parity.

After all, diesel engine exhaust is more damaging to the environment - re PM and NOx emissions per mole of fuel burnt, by virtue of its higher carbon number and PAH (polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons) c.f. gasoline!

[therock]

An interesting article, which spells the death knell of diesel:

http://www.businesstimes.com.sg/transport/carmakers-forced-back-to-bigger-engines-in-new-emissions-era

 

The real world emissions of small turbo charged engines may be a lot more than what is measured in the labs.. 

[fungyee77]

Tax regulations on different car types will need to be equitable, across the board.

Govt policies cannot be seen to provide special tax 'concessions' only to private diesel cars such that only one group of car owners enjoy unique benefits, over all others.

The cost of car ownership ought to be based on an "equal misery" concept and implemented as such.

So whether one buys a gasoline or diesel engined private car, there has to be some semblance of taxation parity.

After all, diesel engine exhaust is more damaging to the environment - re PM and NOx emissions per mole of fuel burnt, by virtue of its higher carbon number and PAH (polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons) c.f. gasoline!

 

I think for the most part, the current tax system for private diesel does not discriminate against private petrol. 

 

Look diesel isn't for everyone. Its noiser, maintenance is more expensive, there is still a perception issue, and it tends to have lower horsepower. But it tends to have better fuel economy and low end torque. 

 

For specific situations (ie (1) large cars, (2) high mileage drivers etc), it is cheaper to run because the cost savings exceed the diesel tax AND the additional maintenance cost (literally double that of petrol cars for C&C).

 

For MANY other situations, it is NOT cheaper to run because the cost savings CANNOT cover the diesel tax and additional maintenance cost (ie (1) compare a small BMW diesel vs an Audi A41,4L, (2) compare a small diesel against any equivalent car when the mileage is 10-15k per year etc).

 

Despite potential cost savings, many people will still avoid diesel because of the downsides of noise, perception, lack of power etc. Example closer to home - a Merc 280 V6 driver will never choose diesel anyways because it probably does not suit your lifestyle needs 

 

So having chosen petrol for all the advantages it conveys over diesel, to look to the government to take away the one advantage of diesel (which only applies for very specific situations as outlined above) is a little disingenuous 

 

Remember, in a thread like this, you get a skewed perception of the advantages of diesel because of selection bias ie only those people who are saving money will come in and post. The folks that have bought a BMW 116d and driving 10k per year are not coming on to to boast. 

[Carbon82]

Hmmm, that's scarily plausible. Now half suspect that you are correct.

 

But that also suggests that the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. On one hand, you promote diesel cars by CEVs rebates and reducing diesel tax for Euro V cars. Then once your policies start to gain traction, you move the goal posts on the very people which made a success of your initial policy amendments.

 

In any case, if the above supposition is correct, they should just be upfront and say that this is a revenue consideration and justify to the citizens on that basis.

 

And not hide behind the rationale of pollution reduction because there is very little business case for that if the intention is to target private diesel.

 

I have to correct you on the point about government promoting diesel cars by granting CEVS rebate. CEVS rebate is meant for those with lower CO2 emissions, which is many case happened to be diesel (small cc engine, hybrid & electric cars are more often missed out in the discussion). And this created a "loophole" for AD to get past the additional 97KW/130HP requirement for cat A vehicle. Mercedes, BMW, Volvo, Peugeot, Renault, etc, start introducing diesel variant, in bid to have a share of pie in the larger cat A market.

 

Just like not to long ago, green car rebate is given to hybrid car, and at the later stage, we start to see > 3.0L car with very small hybrid motor enjoying $20K rebate, while bread and butter cars have nothing to gain. The same goes to the initial weekend car scheme, where car owner (regardless of engine capacity) pay a flat fee of $20/day to drive their car on a weekday. We suddenly see a lot of RR, Bentley, and other high cc car changing their registration plate from black, white, yellow to RED colour... ...

 

I felt that this time round, the changes in tax regime are better planned, in the $en$e that in the past 2 years, the population of diesel car has grown to a substantial size (close to 9,200 passenger cars as of Sep 2016), thus any tweak in special tax for diesel tax will yield more $$$. Assuming an average special tax of $700 per diesel car per year, doubling the the same tax will contribute ~$6mil to the government per year, and these are generated basically out of nothing!

 

I think I don't need to repeat what many others have said here, we are not going green just to be environmental friendlier, but $$$...

[Carbon82]

Oxygen tax coming...

 

Those who need oxygen to survive, please pay up promptly... Else, mati koon curry....

 

Oxygen tax a bit to far stretch, and less convincing. "General tax" such as Carbon credits are more plausible. General in the sense that all sorts of activities generating CO2 will be charged, including electricity generation, driving, and even manufacturing, transportation, etc.

 

Singapore happily endorsed on Paris agreement is a sign... and it cannot be ignored!

[Carbon82]

Honestly speaking, they want their cake and eat it too.

 

Let's look at COE. Perhaps its original, primary purpose is really to control vehicle population.

 

But over the years, it has evolved into a money making tool for the garment.

 

Petrol tax was just increased last year (in case you forgot) and taxation on commercial diesel vehicles is not feasible, so they are left with private diesel cars.

 

Let's be really open and think about it. Increased taxation on commercial vehicles will cause a huge chain reaction and essentially everyone who depends on commercial diesel vehicles, be it directly or indirectly, will be affected.

 

COE generate a revenue of ~$4 - $5 bil per year, a figure too much for government to give up. And we have not open the pandora box of ERP charges yet, probably another couple of bil!!

 

I fully agreed that we should not touch commercial vehicles, as inflation figures will first be hit, and in the current economy situations, it shall drag down our GDP further (and businesses retreating from Singapore due to higher overhead - think of the chain effect, not just a few cents in diesel tax).

[fungyee77]

COE generate a revenue of ~$4 - $5 bil per year, a figure too much for government to give up. And we have not open the pandora box of ERP charges yet, probably another couple of bil!!

 

I fully agreed that we should not touch commercial vehicles, as inflation figures will first be hit, and in the current economy situations, it shall drag down our GDP further (and businesses retreating from Singapore due to higher overhead - think of the chain effect, not just a few cents in diesel tax).

Fair comments.

 

Look, for the avoidance of doubt, am not advocating increase in commercial diesel tax. My point earlier was only in response to the commentary in Today ie Singapore signed Paris agreement --> need to reduce pollution --> diesel not as clean as we think--> solution is to impose taxes on private diesel

 

Hence my basic point was that if we want to reduce pollution, then targeting private diesel isn't the right answer.

 

Now if there is some hidden revenue agenda in there, let's bring it out for open discussion.

 

In other words, if you are dating a girl that looks like a gorilla (ie policy decision), who just so happens to be the only daughter of a billionaire, please don't tell me it's because you love her exquisite dress sense (ie policy objective).

[Beehive3783]

That's what they have been doing all along. For the past decade at least, on most major policies.

 

On the surface they talk about good things and paint a rosy picture, behind the back they are already planning how to increase revenue collection.

 

Take CNG for example, it died a very unjust death due to CNG taxes.

 

So, it's all bullsh1t from the garment, make no mistake about that.

 

Now I am starting to learn to read between the lines, and not just literally read and digest the words that they publish.

 

Hmmm, that's scarily plausible. Now half suspect that you are correct.

But that also suggests that the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. On one hand, you promote diesel cars by CEVs rebates and reducing diesel tax for Euro V cars. Then once your policies start to gain traction, you move the goal posts on the very people which made a success of your initial policy amendments.

In any case, if the above supposition is correct, they should just be upfront and say that this is a revenue consideration and justify to the citizens on that basis.

And not hide behind the rationale of pollution reduction because there is very little business case for that if the intention is to target private diesel.

 

[Lala81]

quite interesting.

 

http://www.mycarforum.com/blog/12/entry-4680-upsizing-of-engine-displacement-is-the-way-forward/

 

 

 

Reuters has just published a report saying automakers will be reversing the recent downsizing trends for both petrol and diesels engines as the small engines have trouble passing real-world emissions test. 

While the turbocharged small engine capacity provided decent power for everyday driving, it is said that small petrol engines 'spew fine particles and carbon monoxide' and that the heat generated by small turbodiesels result in NOx readings over 15 times the legal limit. Renault's 0.9-litre engine was found to inject excess fuel in an effort to stop overheating which would leading to high emissions 'of unburned hydrocarbons, fine particles and carbon monoxide'.

Brands which are going towards the 'upsizing' route include Volkswagen, Renault and General Motors. Analysts say that moving forward, strict new emissions tests will kill petrol engines below 1.2-litre and diesels that displace less than 1.5-litre. 

 

[Blueray]

quite interesting.

 

http://www.mycarforum.com/blog/12/entry-4680-upsizing-of-engine-displacement-is-the-way-forward/

So diesel emissions was actually a scam ?

[Lala81]

So diesel emissions was actually a scam ?

Edited October 19, 2016 by Lala81