Will u buy Diesel or Petrol Cars in SG

[merc280v6]

More taxes for diesel will really make new buyers raise their arms in despair..

There have been quite a few new buyers, and for those with mileage, the better FC will negate such taxes slightly, but for the casual user, it will be a painful tax to swallow.

I have a friend who just bought a a new 116d, and I don't think her mileage will be more than 10k a year.

She also won't get as much back due to the 15k CEVS.

 

Resale prices of these cars may also be affected if the new diesel tax comes on, and 2nd hand car buyers may frown on a diesel if the cost savings have been wiped out.

 

Add that to the cost of filers, urea additives and diesel clatter, and this may effectively kill diesel car sales in SG.

 

For the commercial buyer, I don't think the government will want to punish them as much, especially in the downturn. It's not PC and we do want SMEs to drive our economic revival.

 

So it's obvious the private car buyer is being targetted..

I'm not sure that there is even a market for used, diesel private cars in SG. Many dealers could be reluctant to take in such cars, due to protracted holding periods and thus, holding costs.

[Motokia]

I'm not sure that there is even a market for used, diesel private cars in SG. Many dealers could be reluctant to take in such cars, due to protracted holding periods and thus, holding costs.

 

why uber & grab didn't rent out these resale diesel cars?

[merc280v6]

why uber & grab didn't rent out these resale diesel cars?

Cos they know got no/low demand lor!

[Blueray]

In Europe, Diesel Falls Slowly Out Of Favor

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/bertelschmitt/2016/10/13/in-europe-diesel-falls-slowly-out-of-favor/#6039941b88a5

[merc280v6]

Like I had said before in MCF, the oil majors have already been seeing the trend of falling diesel imports into Europe, over the past 5 years.

 

The EU had been a net-importer of automotive diesel in the last decade, with net movement of US diesel into Europe and vice versa, with net movement of Euro gasoline into the US. But not anymore now, by any significant amount.

[Beehive3783]

Every recent policy change is about more money to their coffers.

 

Don't tell me you don't know?

 

 

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.

 

[fungyee77]

Every recent policy change is about more money to their coffers.

 

Don't tell me you don't know?

Haha even if you take that cynical view, it makes more sense to either tax private petrol or commercial diesel ...

[Beehive3783]

Taxing commercial diesel vehicles will touch a raw nerve with a lot of people, especially those ministars who have links to businesses. So that is not likely to happen.

 

Taxing private petrol? We already have it. COE.

 

Haha even if you take that cynical view, it makes more sense to either tax private petrol or commercial diesel ...

 

[fungyee77]

Taxing commercial diesel vehicles will touch a raw nerve with a lot of people, especially those ministars who have links to businesses. So that is not likely to happen.

 

Taxing private petrol? We already have it. COE.

Fair points.

 

I suppose the point I'm making is no matter if your policy objective is to reduce pollution (what's the point of targeting a negligible source of pollution?) or raising funds (what's the point of levying a one time tax on a tiny proportion of vehicle owners), targeting private diesel just makes very little sense from a policy perspective.

 

Just doesn't move the needle on either front.

[Kangadrool]

Oxygen tax coming...

 

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

 

 

[Beehive3783]

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.

 

 

Fair points.

I suppose the point I'm making is no matter if your policy objective is to reduce pollution (what's the point of targeting a negligible source of pollution?) or raising funds (what's the point of levying a one time tax on a tiny proportion of vehicle owners), targeting private diesel just makes very little sense from a policy perspective.

Just doesn't move the needle on either front.

 

Edited October 14, 2016 by Beehive3783

[fungyee77]

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.

Agree with much of what you have said, which is presented very logically.

 

But where I disagree is that the government should act even if the expected returns from the policy changes are only incremental, just because an option to act presents itself conveniently.

 

A policy change is not a near term game, it is a middle to long term game. Once you change policy, you cannot quickly u turn without looking uncoordinated.

 

Hence, the policy objective must be clear from the onset and the expected returns must be commensurate in regards to the stated objectives.

 

So a policy amendment targeting private diesel just because it's convenient, even though the returns are marginal, is not sound policy.

 

If the government wants to target meaningful pollution reduction from diesels but is cautious not to cause too much business disruption, one option is to encourage businesses to switch to cleaner forms of vehicles going forward.

 

This could take the form of one off grants for companies upgrading their old diesels for newer, cleaner diesels / electric vehicles / hybrid vehicles etc. Or the government can work with taxi companies to change their fleet composition over time. All these ideas will be more effective than targeting private diesels.

 

Imagine : if I can convince 1 taxi driver to upgrade, from a mileage perspective, it is equivalent to getting 7 to 10 private diesel owners to switch.

 

That way, you tick all the boxes ie clear policy objective, meaningful returns, minimal business interruption etc.

[whiskerless]

Petrol and pump in Johor!

[Beehive3783]

What I observe these recent years about the garment in general:

 

1. Stop-gap policies

2. Reactive instead of being proactive

 

There are very few policies that are drawn up for the long term, if there are any at all.

 

Here you are talking about taxis in particular. We are already seeing some Priuses on the road. Electric private hire cars are coming soon. Hydrogen fuel cell Merc was undergoing testing many years ago but failed to pick up due to unknown reasons (infrastructure problem).

 

Noted your points about giving rebates for commercial diesel owners to switch. There is already ETS (Early Turnover Scheme) to entice owners to switch to cleaner Euro 5/6 commercial diesel vehicles. From what i see, it has failed to take off because:

 

1. Cost of a new Euro 5/6 commercial vehicle is still high even after ETS rebate

2. From what I see, the ETS is only a scratch on the surface and not a sincere move by LTA to really move these owners to Euro 5/6

3. They still want to line their own pockets, hiding behind the ETS facade

 

There are at least two commercial diesel owners here, you can ask them what they think about the ETS.

 

@Kb27 @Mustank

 

Again, I want to highlight that nothing good can come out from "forcing" old diesel owners to switch to Euro 5/6 before their vehicle lifespan expires.

 

Anything that uses commercial diesel will experience price hikes, if taxes are imposed on commercial diesel.

 

1. Public transport (buses)

2. Logistics (hauling the containers/cargo that contain the essentials that you eventually buy)

 

And then what will happen? The costs will trickle down to consumer level and we will still be the ones paying for these taxes.

 

There are valid reasons why cost of living in SG is going up every year.

 

Agree with much of what you have said, which is presented very logically.

But where I disagree is that the government should act even if the expected returns from the policy changes are only incremental, just because an option to act presents itself conveniently.

A policy change is not a near term game, it is a middle to long term game. Once you change policy, you cannot quickly u turn without looking uncoordinated.

Hence, the policy objective must be clear from the onset and the expected returns must be commensurate in regards to the stated objectives.

So a policy amendment targeting private diesel just because it's convenient, even though the returns are marginal, is not sound policy.

If the government wants to target meaningful pollution reduction from diesels but is cautious not to cause too much business disruption, one option is to encourage businesses to switch to cleaner forms of vehicles going forward.

This could take the form of one off grants for companies upgrading their old diesels for newer, cleaner diesels / electric vehicles / hybrid vehicles etc. Or the government can work with taxi companies to change their fleet composition over time. All these ideas will be more effective than targeting private diesels.

Imagine : if I can convince 1 taxi driver to upgrade, from a mileage perspective, it is equivalent to getting 7 to 10 private diesel owners to switch.

That way, you tick all the boxes ie clear policy objective, meaningful returns, minimal business interruption etc.

 

[fungyee77]

What I observe these recent years about the garment in general:

 

1. Stop-gap policies

2. Reactive instead of being proactive

 

There are very few policies that are drawn up for the long term, if there are any at all.

 

Here you are talking about taxis in particular. We are already seeing some Priuses on the road. Electric private hire cars are coming soon. Hydrogen fuel cell Merc was undergoing testing many years ago but failed to pick up due to unknown reasons (infrastructure problem).

 

Noted your points about giving rebates for commercial diesel owners to switch. There is already ETS (Early Turnover Scheme) to entice owners to switch to cleaner Euro 5/6 commercial diesel vehicles. From what i see, it has failed to take off because:

 

1. Cost of a new Euro 5/6 commercial vehicle is still high even after ETS rebate

2. From what I see, the ETS is only a scratch on the surface and not a sincere move by LTA to really move these owners to Euro 5/6

3. They still want to line their own pockets, hiding behind the ETS facade

 

There are at least two commercial diesel owners here, you can ask them what they think about the ETS.

 

@Kb27 @Mustank

 

Again, I want to highlight that nothing good can come out from "forcing" old diesel owners to switch to Euro 5/6 before their vehicle lifespan expires.

 

Anything that uses commercial diesel will experience price hikes, if taxes are imposed on commercial diesel.

 

1. Public transport (buses)

2. Logistics (hauling the containers/cargo that contain the essentials that you eventually buy)

 

And then what will happen? The costs will trickle down to consumer level and we will still be the ones paying for these taxes.

 

There are valid reasons why cost of living in SG is going up every year.

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.

[Mustank]

What I observe these recent years about the garment in general:

 

1. Stop-gap policies

2. Reactive instead of being proactive

 

There are very few policies that are drawn up for the long term, if there are any at all.

 

Here you are talking about taxis in particular. We are already seeing some Priuses on the road. Electric private hire cars are coming soon. Hydrogen fuel cell Merc was undergoing testing many years ago but failed to pick up due to unknown reasons (infrastructure problem).

 

Noted your points about giving rebates for commercial diesel owners to switch. There is already ETS (Early Turnover Scheme) to entice owners to switch to cleaner Euro 5/6 commercial diesel vehicles. From what i see, it has failed to take off because:

 

1. Cost of a new Euro 5/6 commercial vehicle is still high even after ETS rebate

2. From what I see, the ETS is only a scratch on the surface and not a sincere move by LTA to really move these owners to Euro 5/6

3. They still want to line their own pockets, hiding behind the ETS facade

 

There are at least two commercial diesel owners here, you can ask them what they think about the ETS.

 

@Kb27 @Mustank

 

Again, I want to highlight that nothing good can come out from "forcing" old diesel owners to switch to Euro 5/6 before their vehicle lifespan expires.

 

Anything that uses commercial diesel will experience price hikes, if taxes are imposed on commercial diesel.

 

1. Public transport (buses)

2. Logistics (hauling the containers/cargo that contain the essentials that you eventually buy)

 

And then what will happen? The costs will trickle down to consumer level and we will still be the ones paying for these taxes.

 

There are valid reasons why cost of living in SG is going up every year.

Damn well said

The ets only give substantial benefits to heavy vehicles - 95% coe discount

For light goods vehicle, 5%

Besides if we convert to euro 5 models, we become sitting ducks for the expected diesel tax

For we all the euro 2 fellows, when they chut diesel tax, we pump bunker fuel lor

[Beehive3783]

Bunker cheaper or biodiesel cheaper?

 

Biodiesel got bonus can smell fried chicken from xos

 

Damn well said
The ets only give substantial benefits to heavy vehicles - 95% coe discount
For light goods vehicle, 5%
Besides if we convert to euro 5 models, we become sitting ducks for the expected diesel tax
For we all the euro 2 fellows, when they chut diesel tax, we pump bunker fuel lor

 

[Kb27]

Bunker cheaper or biodiesel cheaper?

 

Biodiesel got bonus can smell fried chicken from xos

 

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.

Edited October 14, 2016 by Kb27