The government should overhaul its antiquated vehicle tax system, especially as Taiwan faces growing pressure from the US to reduce trade barriers amid the threat of a 32 percent “reciprocal” tariff on Taiwanese exports to the US. A logical starting point would be to reduce the excessively high commodity tax on vehicles, followed by a gradual lowering of tariffs on imported cars on a par with those levied by Taiwan’s trading partners.
For years, new car retail prices in Taiwan have been significantly higher than in many other countries. The reason is straightforward: Steep taxes on vehicles inflate retail prices and the overall cost of ownership. Despite this, the government has long resisted calls for reform. That stance is no longer sustainable. A comprehensive overhaul is long overdue.
Taiwan imposes duties of up to 52.5 percent on imported vehicles, comprising a 17.5 percent tariff, a 25 to 30 percent commodity tax and a 5 percent business tax, according to the Ministry of Finance. In addition, a 10 percent luxury tax is levied on vehicles with a retail price of more than NT$3 million (US$100,150).
Since joining the WTO in 2002, Taiwan has reduced its vehicle tariffs from 60 percent to 17.5 percent to meet WTO commitments. However, to protect the fragile domestic auto industry, it continues to maintain high import duties — 17.5 percent on vehicles, and between 8.1 and 15.8 percent on auto components. These rates are far higher than those of its major trading partners, including the US (2.5 percent) and Japan (zero).
Yulon Motor Co president Hsu Kuo-hsing (許國興) has said that abrupt or sweeping changes to these policies could significantly impact the domestic auto sector, which includes 2,500 manufacturers and supports about 300,000 workers and their families.
Lowering or removing the tariff to match the US’ 2.5 percent would erode the price competitiveness of locally produced vehicles, he said.
Another automaker said that vehicles and auto components make up less than 2 percent of Taiwan’s total exports to the US, so drastically cutting vehicle duties would do little to meet the US’ primary goal of reducing its trade deficit.
A more balanced and effective approach would be to cut the commodity tax, with current levies of up to 30 percent. Such a move would lower the cost of car ownership across the board, regardless of whether a vehicle is imported or domestically manufactured. This would offer fair benefits to foreign and local automakers alike.
The government could also consider easing import quotas on foreign vehicles. At present, Taiwan allows only 75 units of each US car model to be imported, a restriction that significantly limits market access.
The Ministry of Economic Affairs is reportedly considering reducing import duties on auto components and proposing a 50 percent cut in the commodity tax on vehicles. It is also proposing to phase out tariffs on imported vehicles entirely in 10 to 15 years, as support for a zero-tariff policy is gaining traction among different trade groups.
While these proposals appear sensible, they would result in a significant decline in tax revenue, an issue that requires approval from the Ministry of Finance. The ministry might not find the idea amenable, as it collected more than NT$130 billion last year from vehicle-related import duties and commodity taxes.
To strengthen Taiwan’s hand in negotiating lower “reciprocal” tariffs and alleviate the heavy tax burden on domestic car buyers, concerned government agencies should collaborate to reform the existing tax structure to better reflect the evolution of Taiwan’s industries.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS