Pollution tax?

sulavaca · March 7, 2007, 9:41am

[quote=“Sly”]總排汽量牌照稅額（全年）燃料稅(二年)
150cc $0 $900
151cc - 250cc $1,650 $1200
251cc - 500cc $2,200 $1800
501cc - 600cc $4,500 $2400
601cc - 1200cc $7,200 $3600
1201cc -1800cc $12,000 $3960
1801cc以上 $23,000 -----

indeed taxing on cc is very silly.[/quote]

Isn’t the plate fee the same as road tax in Taiwan? I mean that if one doesn’t pay the fee, I suppose that they ask for the licence plate? I really should be finding these things out.
Pollution tax? Well they are being rather silly then. I’m sure bikes are just the same as cars, in that when it comes to pollution, “The bigger the engine the pollution” is what many government leaders who have no knowlege of vehicles keep bleating on and on…Well that simply isn’t true. We should be taxed on pollution and so should the manufacturers, but engine size is no indicator of pollutant production. A great example would be a two stroke 50cc versus a 1,300cc four stroke motorcycle. I am fairly possitive that if the two were both in fine working order, then the 50cc would be pumping out far many more pollutants than the 1300cc four stroke, even at full throttle. I know two strokes are supposedly banned from production in Taiwan now, but hey! Aren’t there still thousands and thousands of them on the road? And aren’t they only putting out more smoke now than when they were produced those years ago? The whole pollution tax thing simply makes no sense. At least in Japan they have some sort of system that taxes older vehicles more heavily, although again, that doesn’t work properly either. You see the production of a new vehicle costs the earth a lot in the way of toxins and carbon emmissions through production, which is why the Toyota Prius is not neccesarily the most earth friendly vehicle as it uses far too many plastics, even though they may be largely recycled as well as paint, batteries, tyres, etc etc. An older vehicle doesn’t cost the earth much more after several years as when it was first produced, and so the service and repair of older vehicles should be more of a primary goal, than producing more of the same, but newer internal combustion cars. The only types of cars which may make up for their production costs in terms of earth pollutants over a lifetime of use may be fully electric cars, but again depending on their production techniques and usage of materials.
Anyway, the point I suppose I was trying to make brief in the first place was that tax on engine size is really, really silly and makes the government look like they have no idea of what they are doing. Does anyone think that they know that?

Joesox · March 7, 2007, 3:27pm

[quote=“sulavaca”]We should be taxed on pollution and so should the manufacturers, but engine size is no indicator of pollutant production. A great example would be a two stroke 50cc versus a 1,300cc four stroke motorcycle. I am fairly possitive that if the two were both in fine working order, then the 50cc would be pumping out far many more pollutants than the 1300cc four stroke, even at full throttle. I know two strokes are supposedly banned from production in Taiwan now…[/quote]I don’t think they are. As far as I know, two-strokes are permitted, provided they comply with the emissions regs applying to new vehicles, which are very strict indeed. I think there’ll be an increasing number of bikes on the road with EFI, catalysts, and/or fancy exhuast pipe materials as used on the CPI company’s two-stroke scooters.

More on this topic in this thread:
forumosa.com/taiwan/viewtopi … 905#483905

[quote=“sulavaca”]I don’t quite understand this “fuel tax” thingy. Don’t we pay tax on fuel when we purchase it already? How can they assume a fuel tax, when they don’t even know if we use any or how much of it?[/quote]The fuel tax only applies to cars, doesn’t it?

I agree with you on the general point that it’s not entirely reasonable to say that the tax bands equate to a pollution tax. Would it make you feel more comfortable if it were described as a “luxury vehicle” tax? Like it or not, big bikes here are still pretty much seen as instruments of leisure rather than daily workhorses.

sulavaca · March 8, 2007, 2:02am

[quote=“joesax”][quote=“sulavaca”]We should be taxed on pollution and so should the manufacturers, but engine size is no indicator of pollutant production. A great example would be a two stroke 50cc versus a 1,300cc four stroke motorcycle. I am fairly positive that if the two were both in fine working order, then the 50cc would be pumping out far many more pollutants than the 1300cc four stroke, even at full throttle. I know two strokes are supposedly banned from production in Taiwan now…[/quote]I don’t think they are. As far as I know, two-strokes are permitted, provided they comply with the emissions regs applying to new vehicles, which are very strict indeed. I think they’ll be an increasing number of bikes on the road with EFI, catalysts, and/or fancy exhaust pipe materials as used on the CPI company’s two-stroke scooters.

More on this topic in this thread:
forumosa.com/taiwan/viewtopi … 905#483905

[quote=“sulavaca”]I don’t quite understand this “fuel tax” thingy. Don’t we pay tax on fuel when we purchase it already? How can they assume a fuel tax, when they don’t even know if we use any or how much of it?[/quote]The fuel tax only applies to cars, doesn’t it?

I agree with you on the general point that it’s not entirely reasonable to say that the tax bands equate to a pollution tax. Would it make you feel more comfortable if it were described as a “luxury vehicle” tax? Like it or not, big bikes here are still pretty much seen as instruments of leisure rather than daily workhorses.[/quote]

“Luxury Vehicle Tax” I like that much better as a means to describe the tax, but then why should I be paying tax to live in luxury? Surely it isn’t distasteful, bad or a sin to live in luxury is it? I mean I live in Chungho, so can I get a larger tax break over, let’s say anyone that lives in Daju or Tienmu? And then if I bought an old knacker of a Suzuki, and let’s say I purchased it really cheap, as it has been used as a butchers delivery vehicle. then can I get to pay no tax at all? It isn’t right anyway we look at it.

I have had a revelation however. What if there was a pollution chart and the higher any vehicle using an internal combustion engine makes it on the chart according to its pollution output, the greater its tax, regardless of vehicle age or type? On first thought it sounds like I have a good idea, but I only just came up with it. See if you can pick holes with that one…
Vehicles could simply have their exhaust emissions tested and then the owners have the choice to either pay the tax in order to obtain a “payment collected” sticker, which would have to be displayed at all times on the license plate, or they could spend time and money first, trying to make the vehicle more efficient, bringing down their tax charge. It seems to me like there are already the facilities in place to do this, and people with large engined hybrid cars or larger engine motorcycles which put out less pollution than smaller engines won’t feel as hard done to.
Based on cars this might also curb the interest in Diesel at this time. Many diesel engines on the market at present are gaining grounds in terms of sales, yet they are perhaps more polluting than most modern petrol engined vehicles, especially in terms of low level ozone. These engines are frowned upon by some developed countries and heavier fuel tax has been placed upon these cars to try and curb the trend. A simple emission tax based on a scale would again both remind people and car manufacturers that short cuts in money savings and profit won’t be tolerated, until cars become more environmentally friendly.

Joesox · March 8, 2007, 4:44am

[quote=“sulavaca”]“Luxury Vehicle Tax” I like that much better as a means to describe the tax, but then why should I be paying tax to live in luxury? Surely it isn’t distasteful, bad or a sin to live in luxury is it? I mean I live in Chungho (Zhonghe), so can I get a larger tax break over, let’s say anyone that lives in Daju or Tianmu? And then if I bought an old knacker of a Suzuki, and let’s say I purchased it really cheap, as it has been used as a butchers delivery vehicle. then can I get to pay no tax at all? It isn’t right anyway we look at it.

I have had a revelation however. What if there was a pollution chart and the higher any vehicle using an internal combustion engine makes it on the chart according to its pollution output, the greater its tax, regardless of vehicle age or type? On first thought it sounds like I have a good idea, but I only just came up with it. See if you can pick holes with that one…
Vehicles could simply have their exhaust emissions tested and then the owners have the choice to either pay the tax in order to obtain a “payment collected” sticker, which would have to be displayed at all times on the license plate, or they could spend time and money first, trying to make the vehicle more efficient, bringing down their tax charge.[/quote]That’s a good idea. I guess that to truly measure total pollution you’d also have to include stuff such as tyre sizes, engine oil capacity, etc. but that would be too much hassle really. The idea of basing tax on exhaust emissions is a good one.

I was just coming from a more cynical perspective. I think the government may be seeing the tax on bigger bikes as a kind of “luxury tax” regardless of what you or I think of that.

sulavaca · March 8, 2007, 9:26am

I agree that is what it seems they are doing, but isn’t that kind of thinking the old communistic type that is/was frowned upon? They need to face facts and get modern I think. If they can’t produce big bikes themselves in Taiwan, then it is rather unfair to discourage the importation of foreign bikes, just because they are foreign products. The W.T.O. has something to do with that, but of course cannot fight the Taiwan tax system, so perhaps this is why Taiwan chooses this taxation line of defense?!?

Yes, of course vehicles should also be accounted for their various types of pollutant emissions and tyres, various oils and production techniques will have to be considered, but those things are as you said, more difficult to measure annually and so might require another system of taxation. It may be that an allowance might be the way to go. For example if the average mileage, let’s say is 12,000KM per year, then a car tyre through normal wear and tear should last at least three years. If that’s the case, then perhaps an allowance could be set at 4 tyres per three years or 1.3 tyres per year, meaning that any purchase over that could result in a taxation payment that cannot be refunded. Of course I am going over the top one might say, but then I think that in situations where there is sufficient public transport anyway, having a car may be considered as being over the top. If it’s the planet or the environment that we are trying to save, then over the top of what we are presently doing is what is going to be called for.
Big bikes are extravagant perhaps, although is there a valid argument that nobody needs one? I could argue that a large motorcycle being allowed on a freeway could save pollution over a car driving the same route. Unless there is enforcement that all cars must carry a minimum number of passengers, then I don’t see why large engined motorcycles should suffer heavier taxation than smaller engined motorcycles, when the larger engines are arguably reducing emissions, if not by simply being more efficient, then by reducing traffic jams and increasing the rate of traffic flow, as well as requiring less space to park. The more I think about it, the more I believe the government should be doing more to encourage the use of larger motocycles on freeways, by lowering the tax for them. Of course all of this is without taking fatality rates and traffic safety into consideration. I don’t know where to start on that one.

x08 · March 8, 2007, 1:26pm

I thought ‘pollution tax’ was a mis-translate… and meant more like ‘emissions test fee’…~~