-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Will the crony HK Gov reverse idiotic FRT decision?
- Thread starter garethmchau
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Hong Kong
Not a chance... the pressure from the oil majors and the car dealers lobby groups is greater than a handful of EV advocates can apply in HK.
Look no further than how ridiculous that the government is handling the cold telemarketing calls regulations by way of example. The public outcry on regulations is deafening, and the government is simply pi$(56% on people's wish.
It's not a co-incidence that SG is both a Tesla desert and an oil hub.
Look no further than how ridiculous that the government is handling the cold telemarketing calls regulations by way of example. The public outcry on regulations is deafening, and the government is simply pi$(56% on people's wish.
It's not a co-incidence that SG is both a Tesla desert and an oil hub.
I feel like the reputation of Tesla drivers in HK is getting worst because the media like to portray us as rich people with no driving skills or uber drivers. So good luck changing the public opinion, we are not the majority. The majority would care less if FRT exemption was reverted or not. For most countries, a $10k USD rebate/exemption is still decent. You should be blaming the FRT for pricing the Tesla out of HK rather than FRT exemption. I would argue for a fossil tax on top of FRT.
In Hong Kong, leaded petrol is taxed at $6.82 per litre and unleaded petrol at $6.06 per litre
Fuel tax - Wikipedia
Annual Licesnse Fees from TD are also based on ICE engine displacement.
Transport Department - Fees & Charges
What really needs to happen is that the act and cost of registering a new ICE vehicle needs to be made more cumbersome and expensive.
People wanting to keep their current ICE can drive it until the wheels fall off, and purchase/ registration of a new car will make EV alternatives more attractive. Government probably won't want to do this drastically as it will result in a lot of lost tax revenue the way fuel and ICE are currently taxed, so the best and easiest thing to do was to kill the FRT exemption for EV's in an effort to slow the transition.
The market will still favor this direction though, as the price of EV's come down (with range/ charging solutions going up) consumers will slowly start to drop ICE if simply for the sake of running costs.
Last edited:
IMHO, government has shown good support for charging, in HK, we rarely pay for electrons. It is property management that is hurdling us with red tape. In fact, the removal of FRT exemption gives us/Tesla a breather as charging is struggling to catch up. The government is easy to blame but don't forget that we have 5000+ Tesla in HK because of the original tax exemption.
Tesla is a victim of its own success in a way, and its commercial success over the past 3 years virtually guarantee a "backlash" from the ICEs and the oil majors as their market shares eroded.
IMHO there is absolutely nothing wrong with discontinuing the original tax emption on EVs, except the contrived excuse that the government (or just the idiotic Bo Su) come up to explain the shift in policy by blaming the EVs for an increase in HK vehicle registrations.
If we were to follow the government's logic of reducing car ownership in HK, would it make greater sense of taxing the budget people movers such as Honda Freed or Toyota Noah out of the market? If it's government policy imperative to reduce car ownerships in HK, should they be targeting the more elastic and more numerous first time car owners (which more often than not purchased this type of vehicles); i.e., new demand vs. replacement demand of an EV?
This is not intended to be a discriminatory or scientific statement, but based on my casual and unscientific observations, most of the new MS and MX of my neighbors are replacement purchases, plus a few replacing 2 ICE vehicles with one MS or MX.
Bo Su can do better (and won my respect) by stating that he simply caved to the lobbying pressures of the oil majors and the dealers lobby groups.
IMHO there is absolutely nothing wrong with discontinuing the original tax emption on EVs, except the contrived excuse that the government (or just the idiotic Bo Su) come up to explain the shift in policy by blaming the EVs for an increase in HK vehicle registrations.
If we were to follow the government's logic of reducing car ownership in HK, would it make greater sense of taxing the budget people movers such as Honda Freed or Toyota Noah out of the market? If it's government policy imperative to reduce car ownerships in HK, should they be targeting the more elastic and more numerous first time car owners (which more often than not purchased this type of vehicles); i.e., new demand vs. replacement demand of an EV?
This is not intended to be a discriminatory or scientific statement, but based on my casual and unscientific observations, most of the new MS and MX of my neighbors are replacement purchases, plus a few replacing 2 ICE vehicles with one MS or MX.
Bo Su can do better (and won my respect) by stating that he simply caved to the lobbying pressures of the oil majors and the dealers lobby groups.
We live in a communist dictatorship, nothing will change fro the benefit of the people.
Competition for the MS is coming:
The 2018 Karma Revero Exhumes Fisker's Tesla-Fighting Sedan from Its Grave
Again...
The 2018 Karma Revero Exhumes Fisker's Tesla-Fighting Sedan from Its Grave
Again...
technically, we were free to write to express our opinions on all budget-related topics in a given period, which i did.
obviously tho, it's all for show. since when is a lowly peasant's opinion of any importance?
i have charging at home and know where to charge for "free". But just went to YOKO mall the other day and found out SHKP charges 6HKD/15 mins for charging at the "slow/medium" ports..... Also, Aberdeen Marina Club charges sth like 60HKD/hr for charging. Where else in HK that charges for charging now?
There are some chargers at emax that are pay to use as well. No one uses them. I was also wondering, if those emax pay to use chargers, they have a clause that says $60 but for 3 hours? or is it per hour? There seem to be a clause that give you like 3 hours or let you charge till the car is full. IMHO, something like $60/hr for fast charger is reasonable or something like <$20/hr for mid charger, as long as I don't have to queue.
They won't change the decision. If anything they may reduce the waiver cap again.
The FRT in my opinion should be formulated on emissions rather purely value (they use engine displacement for the licence fee). It should be a 50/50 weight based on CO2 and NOx emmissions per 100km. In the end, the goal is to reward manufacturers with the cleanest cars while still achieving the same revenue.
The FRT in my opinion should be formulated on emissions rather purely value (they use engine displacement for the licence fee). It should be a 50/50 weight based on CO2 and NOx emmissions per 100km. In the end, the goal is to reward manufacturers with the cleanest cars while still achieving the same revenue.
Similar threads
