VES 2018

[Spidey10]

It depends if it is a fail or conditional-pass. Fail => cannot renew road tax => cannot drive on public road.

 

Conditional pass => need to go back and re-test until pass.

So every 3 years have to change new

[Nlatio]

The final effect will only be known when every local car's emission figures are known.

As for the effect on COE, that depends.

If prices of cars increase across the board, then we may see COE fall since the net total people are willing to pay will remain quite level. But if there are a few cars with neutral or lower surcharge, buyers may gravitate towards them. 

 

Think maybe Honda Vezel Hybrid, Honda simi Hybrid will huat!!!

[therock]

I think there will more cars with neutral or better levels under the new scheme, let's see..

[Ben5266]

So far, I read only Altis and e200 will remain neutral ie no increase when the scheme changes from CEVS to VES. Have yet to hear a car actually benefiting from this scheme. Anyone knows of any existing car which will have higher rebates or decrease in surcharges?

Last time CEVS was invented to encourage green car.

Now, the VES is created to ......... collect more money.

[therock]

What green initiative?

CEVS was a money shuffle.. they take back the money at the end.

[Leo22]

What green initiative?

CEVS was a money shuffle.. they take back the money at the end.

They have realized that better don't wait so long, walau, wait for 10 years then can take back. might as well collect at the beginning.

 

Who knows when near next erection, intro some 'patch up' scheme to sayang sayang (actually wayang) and buy back more votes.

[Benarsenal]

In time to come. @50k already so many renew. If coe maintains come 2023-2027. Many more renewals will come. Then $$ collected from new cars via arf and custom duties will drop.

 

We will see lah. Still long way to go.

Was thinking, won't it be ironic should the revised VES brings back CNG vehicles?

As in what if CNG cars (sorry no figures here to prove it) actually are able to "meet" the new standards? Like no surcharges.....?

 

CNG probably won't la. Cos end of the day they are (mostly) still regular engined cars with an extra tank, so the emissions are more or less the same as normal car also.

[fungyee77]

It is clear that the the VES is a disguised tax increase under the excuse of going green - this is clear because the taxes went up by $10-20k on average across the board rather than a redistribution of incentives with prices mostly staying flat if the intention was indeed to encourage people to go green. 

 

But as currently drafted, it is also not very effective at encouraging people to go green.

 

Firstly, there is mostly a stick and not much of a carrot. The old system was more fair in terms of providing rebates or surcharges. For instance, if I were in the market for a 7 seater SUV in the old scheme, and most options were in the $5k rebate to $5k surcharge zone, there is no way I will pay for a Toyota Fortuner, which attracts a $30k surcharge. There is a big differentiation which clearly pushes me to go for the "greener" option. Under the new VES scheme, most vehicles are in the $10k or $20k surcharge zone, so end result is that I am not particularly incentivized to buy green when the difference between the mainstream option and the very dirty option is maybe only $10k. 

 

Secondly, it adopts a charge by the dirtiest pollutant method, rather than holistically looking at how clean/green a car is (fuel efficiency, average emissions of the various pollutants etc). The problem with this is that it mis-characterises many green cars, with one example being the Toyota Prius. So assume a kid takes 4 subjects, and you adopt this approach, then a kid which scores 100, 100, 100, 75 will be graded less capable than a kid who scores 76, 76, 76, 76. So this approach achieves your revenue boosting objective, but clearly not your green objective. 

 

So if you want to use going green as an excuse, you need to at least make sure that your policies are effective in encouraging people to go green, otherwise its just too obvious that its all a bit of a ruse. 

Edited March 14, 2017 by Fungyee77

[Mkl22]

It is clear that the the VES is a disguised tax increase under the excuse of going green - this is clear because the taxes went up by $10-20k on average across the board rather than a redistribution of incentives with prices mostly staying flat if the intention was indeed to encourage people to go green. 

 

But as currently drafted, it is also not very effective at encouraging people to go green.

 

Firstly, there is mostly a stick and not much of a carrot. The old system was more fair in terms of providing rebates or surcharges. For instance, if I were in the market for a 7 seater SUV in the old scheme, and most options were in the $5k rebate to $5k surcharge zone, there is no way I will pay for a Toyota Fortuner, which attracts a $30k surcharge. There is a big differentiation which clearly pushes me to go for the "greener" option. Under the new VES scheme, most vehicles are in the $10k or $20k surcharge zone, so end result is that I am not particularly incentivized to buy green when the difference between the mainstream option and the very dirty option is maybe only $10k. 

 

Secondly, it adopts a charge by the dirtiest pollutant method, rather than holistically looking at how clean/green a car is (fuel efficiency, average emissions of the various pollutants etc). The problem with this is that it mis-characterises many green cars, with one example being the Toyota Prius. So assume a kid takes 4 subjects, and you adopt this approach, then a kid which scores 100, 100, 100, 75 will be graded less capable than a kid who scores 76, 76, 76, 76. So this approach achieves your revenue boosting objective, but clearly not your green objective. 

 

So if you want to use going green as an excuse, you need to at least make sure that your policies are effective in encouraging people to go green, otherwise its just too obvious that its all a bit of a ruse. 

 

well said. but for your last paragraph, do you think they give a rats ass whether you think its ruse or not.

 

 

[Kyrios]

It is clear that the the VES is a disguised tax increase under the excuse of going green - this is clear because the taxes went up by $10-20k on average across the board rather than a redistribution of incentives with prices mostly staying flat if the intention was indeed to encourage people to go green. 

 

But as currently drafted, it is also not very effective at encouraging people to go green.

 

Firstly, there is mostly a stick and not much of a carrot. The old system was more fair in terms of providing rebates or surcharges. For instance, if I were in the market for a 7 seater SUV in the old scheme, and most options were in the $5k rebate to $5k surcharge zone, there is no way I will pay for a Toyota Fortuner, which attracts a $30k surcharge. There is a big differentiation which clearly pushes me to go for the "greener" option. Under the new VES scheme, most vehicles are in the $10k or $20k surcharge zone, so end result is that I am not particularly incentivized to buy green when the difference between the mainstream option and the very dirty option is maybe only $10k. 

 

Secondly, it adopts a charge by the dirtiest pollutant method, rather than holistically looking at how clean/green a car is (fuel efficiency, average emissions of the various pollutants etc). The problem with this is that it mis-characterises many green cars, with one example being the Toyota Prius. So assume a kid takes 4 subjects, and you adopt this approach, then a kid which scores 100, 100, 100, 75 will be graded less capable than a kid who scores 76, 76, 76, 76. So this approach achieves your revenue boosting objective, but clearly not your green objective. 

 

So if you want to use going green as an excuse, you need to at least make sure that your policies are effective in encouraging people to go green, otherwise its just too obvious that its all a bit of a ruse. 

 

A question on my mind is why doesnt the gahmen tax the manufacturer or importer or authorised dealer for bringing in 'dirty' vehicles. And then the AD/importer will decide whether to pass all the costs to us consumers. But under such a system where the tax is thrown at the AD instead of us consumers, the AD might not pass all the tax to the consumer for fear of competition.

 

Right now, the tax comes directly to the consumer, who has no way of deflecting it. 

 

At the wet market for example, one stall is singled out for selling rotting fish.  Is AVA going to go after the malaysian importer lorry truck which brought in the fish (the source) or is AVA going after the hapless consumers who bought the rotting fish?

 

Ruse it is indeed by the gahmen to fatten their......

Edited March 14, 2017 by Kyrios

[Khng8]

It is clear that the the VES is a disguised tax increase under the excuse of going green - this is clear because the taxes went up by $10-20k on average across the board rather than a redistribution of incentives with prices mostly staying flat if the intention was indeed to encourage people to go green.

 

But as currently drafted, it is also not very effective at encouraging people to go green.

 

Firstly, there is mostly a stick and not much of a carrot. The old system was more fair in terms of providing rebates or surcharges. For instance, if I were in the market for a 7 seater SUV in the old scheme, and most options were in the $5k rebate to $5k surcharge zone, there is no way I will pay for a Toyota Fortuner, which attracts a $30k surcharge. There is a big differentiation which clearly pushes me to go for the "greener" option. Under the new VES scheme, most vehicles are in the $10k or $20k surcharge zone, so end result is that I am not particularly incentivized to buy green when the difference between the mainstream option and the very dirty option is maybe only $10k.

 

Secondly, it adopts a charge by the dirtiest pollutant method, rather than holistically looking at how clean/green a car is (fuel efficiency, average emissions of the various pollutants etc). The problem with this is that it mis-characterises many green cars, with one example being the Toyota Prius. So assume a kid takes 4 subjects, and you adopt this approach, then a kid which scores 100, 100, 100, 75 will be graded less capable than a kid who scores 76, 76, 76, 76. So this approach achieves your revenue boosting objective, but clearly not your green objective.

 

So if you want to use going green as an excuse, you need to at least make sure that your policies are effective in encouraging people to go green, otherwise its just too obvious that its all a bit of a ruse.

Can't praise you enough.

[inlinesix]

It is clear that the the VES is a disguised tax increase under the excuse of going green - this is clear because the taxes went up by $10-20k on average across the board rather than a redistribution of incentives with prices mostly staying flat if the intention was indeed to encourage people to go green. 

 

But as currently drafted, it is also not very effective at encouraging people to go green.

 

Firstly, there is mostly a stick and not much of a carrot. The old system was more fair in terms of providing rebates or surcharges. For instance, if I were in the market for a 7 seater SUV in the old scheme, and most options were in the $5k rebate to $5k surcharge zone, there is no way I will pay for a Toyota Fortuner, which attracts a $30k surcharge. There is a big differentiation which clearly pushes me to go for the "greener" option. Under the new VES scheme, most vehicles are in the $10k or $20k surcharge zone, so end result is that I am not particularly incentivized to buy green when the difference between the mainstream option and the very dirty option is maybe only $10k. 

 

Secondly, it adopts a charge by the dirtiest pollutant method, rather than holistically looking at how clean/green a car is (fuel efficiency, average emissions of the various pollutants etc). The problem with this is that it mis-characterises many green cars, with one example being the Toyota Prius. So assume a kid takes 4 subjects, and you adopt this approach, then a kid which scores 100, 100, 100, 75 will be graded less capable than a kid who scores 76, 76, 76, 76. So this approach achieves your revenue boosting objective, but clearly not your green objective. 

 

So if you want to use going green as an excuse, you need to at least make sure that your policies are effective in encouraging people to go green, otherwise its just too obvious that its all a bit of a ruse. 

 

Singapore has nvr advocate clean energy as Singapore too small to have any impact.

 

We are only good at taking in whatever shit that government throw at us.  Other than that, what can we do?

 

I always have the option of going car-less.  My life has nvr build around commuting via car.

 

If tu lan, either LL suck thumb or suck it up.

 

I will still buy a car as my wk end toy.

 

[leehock13828]

It is clear that the the VES is a disguised tax increase under the excuse of going green - this is clear because the taxes went up by $10-20k on average across the board rather than a redistribution of incentives with prices mostly staying flat if the intention was indeed to encourage people to go green.

 

But as currently drafted, it is also not very effective at encouraging people to go green.

 

Firstly, there is mostly a stick and not much of a carrot. The old system was more fair in terms of providing rebates or surcharges. For instance, if I were in the market for a 7 seater SUV in the old scheme, and most options were in the $5k rebate to $5k surcharge zone, there is no way I will pay for a Toyota Fortuner, which attracts a $30k surcharge. There is a big differentiation which clearly pushes me to go for the "greener" option. Under the new VES scheme, most vehicles are in the $10k or $20k surcharge zone, so end result is that I am not particularly incentivized to buy green when the difference between the mainstream option and the very dirty option is maybe only $10k.

 

Secondly, it adopts a charge by the dirtiest pollutant method, rather than holistically looking at how clean/green a car is (fuel efficiency, average emissions of the various pollutants etc). The problem with this is that it mis-characterises many green cars, with one example being the Toyota Prius. So assume a kid takes 4 subjects, and you adopt this approach, then a kid which scores 100, 100, 100, 75 will be graded less capable than a kid who scores 76, 76, 76, 76. So this approach achieves your revenue boosting objective, but clearly not your green objective.

 

So if you want to use going green as an excuse, you need to at least make sure that your policies are effective in encouraging people to go green, otherwise its just too obvious that its all a bit of a ruse.

I doubt their policies are towards for the greater good of the environment. To me, its for the greater good of their pockets. All the talk about less pollution, clean environment are just paper talk only

[Mockngbrd]

 

 

I will still buy a car as my wk end toy.

 

 

 

 worst case back to these lo

 

znng also no scare LTA

 

[ccc888]

On side note, LTA never shrink the COE quota when they should have.

Edited March 14, 2017 by ccc888

[inlinesix]

On side note, LTA never shrink the COE quota when they should have.

 

Are you sure about that?

 

[DACH]

Actually looking at the series of changes to taxes, it go against the government policy to promote multi-generation living.

 

1) You pay more and get less rebate for staying in multi-gen flat (conv charges, utilities, property tax, etc.)

2) Lesser or no grant from government since household income will likely exceed the set limits

3) And buying a MPV to get the whole for a proper outing is going to cost more from now (ok, from next year to be precise)

 

I am not anti-gov, but I just cannot get the rational behind all these contradicting policies... unless $$$ is really the only objective.

Don't have kids. That's what I have been telling the people. Have one if YOU want one, not have one when OTHER people tell you to have one.

This place is getting less and less family friendly to live in. Having a mouth more to feed means you have to pay more.

Better to have no kids so that your salary is enough to pay for these additional tax for car, house, water, electricity, etc.

How much do the above policies makes sense to you?

They are only keen in making more money from the people than anything else, and hope to have more people to give them more. So why give them more people at the expense of ourselves?

Last generations of leaders make policies mostly to make things work, this generation cares more about making money for themselves.

Look further and at the big picture.

[Ahgong]

just share what I think, I might be wrong hor .

 

If aiming for greener one, no brainer decision, wait for next year when new scheme kicks in.

 

If think get those not very green this year can avoid the additional surcharge, think again. How this group will fare when the scheme to make sure owner 'upkeep' their vehicle kicks in. Able to benchmark well compared to the greener ones? If owner cannot take it at that time and want to sell before the next 'checkup', imagine how the resale value of this group will turn out.

Maybe I think too conservatively.

 

So how if die die must buy this year? Anyone wants to share your view?

 

well, this will really depend on the "penalties" that will be meted out for those non-green cars

if the calculation is still cheaper than the upfront offset to get a "green" car, there will still be that group that will be willing to bear the "penalties" to stretch out the running cost of owning a car.

 

i for one, am those. to me, a car is just a tool for bringing the family around from point A to point B at my convenience due to my needs.

the total cost of owning must make cents (pun intended). otherwise, no matter how green the car is, if the running cost is something my wallet cannot swallow, if i have to burn coal to run a steam engine to fetch my family around, so be it!