Taxing cars

Car park

Car park

So our government is thinking about increasing the taxes, duties and other fees levied on vehicles. I suppose that that, in some ways, is inevitable. The number of vehicles plying on our city roads has increased drastically. And it’s already difficult to find proper parking spaces. So, unless something serious is done about it, we would have to deal with many traffic problems, including regular traffic jams.

But I wonder if our government has thought about the most obvious way to control traffic congestion: scrap the import quota system. Import quotas, which are given only to public servants, are directly responsible for the growth in vehicle numbers. Every quota is used. And, it’s common knowledge that, many times, the quotas are sold, illegally, to private individuals.

So discontinue import quotas. And replace them with a sensible allowance built into the salaries of public servants. That would cause an immediate reduction in the number of cars we purchase.

However, that won’t be enough. So taxes and duties would also have to be increased. But be careful. If the increases are meant to address traffic congestion, then apply them where the problem exists – in Thimphu and Phuentsholing. And use the money to improve and expand subsidized public transport in these cities. Most other places do not have traffic problems. In fact, their problem is quite different. They do not have adequate traffic, particularly local public transport.


Facebook Comments:


  1. Dear OL,

    110% agreed!!!!

    Amazing the double standard of the DPT government!!!!!!!! Why wont they propose the scarping of the Import Quota for select group of civil servants as part of the exercise to control vehicle population? As you rightly pointed out, this quota breeds corruption at the senior levels of the civil service and it helps private sector people to escape paying import duty.

    Some one knowledgeable has said that the country is loosing roughly Nu.150,000,000.00 every year from loss of duty on these quota vehicles that the civil servants shamelessly sell to the private sector at commissions ranging from Nu.60,000 – to Nu.300,000 per quota.

  2. Well, did you do any analysis about number of civil servants eligible for vehicle quota? and how many of such vehicles purchased through quota system has contributed to current traffic problem in Thimphu and Phuntsholing?

    One important reason for explosion of vehicle number is availability of cheap indian cars, and mostly bought through loan scheme available from financial institutes. So if we want to solve this problem we have to do something about vehicle loan. Increasing tax is just one way to reduce or expect to reduce vehicle purchase. There is not much scope in broadening urban road network to accomodate more vehicles since the places where there is possibility of broadening road are used for building and other purposes. Increasing fuel cost is one option but then it will adversely affect the low income vehicle owners. Improving urban transport network has been talked a lot, but as yet there is no solution in sight. The current fleet of buses are always packed with commuters. More such buses must be put on road.

    Ultimately, it will boil down to personel life stle and choice. Sometimes choice is dictated by competition rather than by affordability. Judging from purchasing power of majority of Bhutanese owning vehicle is a last choice, but there are many people who by any means want to drive vehicle, perhaps due to necessity or as symbol of assumed wealth.

    personally, i do not own vehicle, but at times i feel like owning one; but on second thought it is not needed. Thimphu is not a big city, we can cover the whole town by walking. During emergency one can rely on friend or relative for transportation. Also for health and environment reason driving vehicle is a cause or part of the factor of increasing life style diseases and environment pollution, not to speak about drain on our meagre income.

    So fellow citizen, think hard before you decide to buy a vehicle.


  3. Your Excellency –

    One of the key assumptions in this proposal is that there will be a public transportation system. It is wrong to take for granted what we do not have.

    The numbers in the proposal require more convincing – the proposed increase in taxes based on the increase in the number of purchases last year. There is a lack of detail and I think it would be right to assume that the tax increase would most impact normal citizens like me.

    Most Bhutanese families, save a few, do not have a huge amount of disposable income. Our purses are already stretched. So if the Government is bent on decreasing the number of cars, they should begin by establishing a dependable public transportation system. As more people begin to rely on it, lesser cars will be bought.

    We need credible and practical reasons not philosophical (like incompatibility with GNH) reasons. A car definitely increases the happiness of an individual – it gives an individual a sense of pride, achievement and independence.

    And I totally don’t agree with implementing the tax increases immediately. This is a perfect recipe for the panic buying we observed last year as well. I wouldn’t be surprised if the car sales order aren’t increasing already in the last few days. See my thoughts at my blog –

    The Government should rather agree to implement it at a future date, say end 2010 or 2011, so that people are ready. This will also allow time for the Government to demonstrate its commitment to improve the public transportation system.

  4. First thing they need to do is up the public transport. I walk to work everyday because its pretty close. Why wouldn’t i use the bus even if i had a long distance to go? Because I cant for the life of me know when a bus is due, where to catch it from and where it will take me. Signboards, maps and timetables at stops could be useful. 🙂

  5. 1. Selling quota is a government sponsored tax evasion which should be stopped immediately.

    2. Increasing tax is short-sighted, narrow and the easy way out. It is a pity that journalist-turned secretary MoIC has only this much to offer.

    3. Who wants to buy cars if there is a good public transport?

    4. Which city has solved traffic congestion through tax raise?

  6. I would suggest:
    1. to improve the pedestrian and make it more safe. I remember walking to school as a kid but parents these days are reluctant to do so due to safety reason.
    2. Emersion tax could be introduce since there are negative externality related to pollution
    3. Fuel tax could also be increased
    I think that taxing could prevent lower income group from purchasing vehicle but not the higher income group, so there will definitely exclusion error…there is definitely no equity or justice in that.

  7. i dont find increasing tax will reduce in buying cars..this will effect low income group maximum… which will effect DPT govt…….equity n Justice.

    my suggestions are as follows.

    1. improve public transport service..fix up time table for office goers and school pick up and drop.
    2.Problem is in Thimphu only..Housing colonies of govt. should be located around Begana..people should have access to all types of facilities at cheaper rates. Office goers will not come to Thimphu town.
    3.Thimphu City corporation dont give importance to underground parking. Engineers pass the drawings in simple way.
    4.Banks should open more oulets..e.g babesa, Taba,semtokha, was good part of BOB to introduce sunday banking. Other banks should aslo learn from BOB..”Sunday Banking”.
    5. stop vechile quota system completly.This will generate govt. revenue also.
    6.pick up wholesellers(groceries of any trade)and allot plot similar like vechile workshop.
    6.Training should be given to our traffic policeman…..send them to foreign countries.when i find policeman controlling traffic i find problem(Traffic congestion). when i dont find them i can move smoothly.
    7.Make Norzin Lam free(move for health)…only tourist vechile,VIP’s,taxis.

    i think i have done home Work for MoIC.

  8. Traffic management is a science that requires a multi-pronged scientific approach. What MoIC failed to mention was another important aspect – town planning, which is a disaster. One important consideration in town planning is forecasting the movement of people. If this is not taken care, you don’t call yourself a planner. That’s why some years back I wrote in Kuensel that our town planning method, which categorizes residential areas, business districts, green zone etc. is outdated.

    The new variable to be taken into account is to reduce movement of people. Even the costly Structural Plan has not taken this into account.

    The new approach to town planning is creating satellite villages that have all the services so that people don’t have to move much. If you look at how Thimphu is planned, it is made in such a way that you have to drive round and round. To refuel you have to go to Lungtenzampa. To make your ID, you move to the other end – Dzong. To repair your vehicle, you drive back to the city and beyond. To go shopping you have to squeeze into Norzin Lam area. What the hell is this?

    You know, Lhatshog Tshongkang in Motithang that saves us from going to the town has been served with several threats from TCC to shut it down. When they refused, they were “ridiculously” told to decrease their size. Can you believe this?
    And adding to the messed up plan of the MoWHS and the City Corporation, we have the RSTA and the Police who have jointly screwed up the traffic flow with a series of one-way roads.

    Now, let’s raise the taxes….

  9. IF JYT was pm of any developed western country, he would have been sacked ny now. The only thing he does is spin.

  10. This shows how short sighted our lawmakers are.

    The traffic problem in Thimphu and Phuntsholing alone should not be the reason to raise the taxes in the entire country.

    Please deal it state-wise. The whole country need not necessarily have a uniform taxation system. Where is our vision of uniform development? Of the 20 Districts, 18 do not have enough vehicles to meet the transportation requirement.
    If it is indeed raised, it will greatly impact the lives of the people in the poorer regions.
    How many cars are there in Thimhu anyway? I think the real problem here is not in the number of cars (not atleast at this point) but in the space, how it’s developed, how it’s managed and how it’s used.
    Please do not raise the taxes. Not yet!

  11. The idea of import quota in general is to limit the import of cars so as to protect the domestic car producers. We have no car producers to protect. The outcome of this import quota is that we are protecting indian car producers, government earns no revenue, there is no producer surplus, there is no consumer surplus and over all national welfare is negative.Therefore, I would also agree on scraping it.

    Having said that, levying tariff or car tax does no good. It has same negative impact as that of quota. Consumers have to pay more and there are no producers to benefit from it. Only gain from it is that government would earn some revenue. However, over all national welfare gain is negative.

    Therefore, do away with import restrictions and levying taxes on cars. Let foreign car producers compete with Indian producers and let Bhutanese reap the outcome of cheaper and more reliable cars.

    However, if the purpose of restricting the import of cars is to address traffic congestion and environment, we have lot of other better ways of doing that. We would first need to establish good public transport system in terms of reliability, convenience, affordability and comfort. If we have good public transport system, the low-income and mid-income group will have no pressure or necessity to buy cars.

    N.B. Even if we increase tax on purchase of cars, we will have same number of cars plying in the city as we cannot increase tax on Indian cars. If you restrict importing more reliable and efficient cars from abroad,people will simply switch to Indian cars, which are less reliable and hasardous to environment.

  12. Dear Lobxang,

    I disagree that the taxation policy should be Dzongkhag based. That will leave room for explotaion. If varying taxation policy is to be introduced, we then need to place restrictions on one Dzongkhag vehicle from plying in another. That is just simply impossible and not desirable. This is not the answer.

  13. The proposal to increase vehicle tax is not new in Bhutan. It has been earlier proposed but somehow it did not come to the picture.

    It has come now because our people in the “rich and privilege” category own more than necessarily enough vehicles. Our Ministries, Secretaries, Dasho, Directors have vehicles that are underused, that increased the number of vehicles in the country unnecessarily and most of it have come through corrupt practices. I have heard our so called “honourable lyonpos and dashos” do not even fill up the Annual Asset Declaration Form honestly, concealing corruption. I wonder what ACC has to say about this.

    I think if we look from the positive perspective, it is no doubt a good policy to control the number of vehicles buying and traffic congestions. But at the sametime we need to look into our intentions. By this policy, it is definitly going to impact the poor, of course. They cannot afford a car so highly priced and taxed, whereas for our ministries, dashos and rich, it’s a peanut.

    We also need to look into public transport system. We have to make it efficient, so that there is a natural drive for people to use it and opt for owning car less…Presently, the public transport does not meet any of the standards as per my observation. There is not proper route, no dress code, cleaniness, medical aid box, reserve seats for disabled and elderly… and of all, attitudes of the driver which is a reflection of his commitment to the service

    Public transport in Bhutan are more of harassment than convenience. The first thing that should strike people while availing transport service is the “public transport” and not personal cars, government vehicles etc. At the current situation of the transport system, everyone feels to own a car, because if you ask how good our transportation, it is worse than one might have ever thought.

    Policies that come, comes with stringes of benefit to the rich lot and harassment to the poor. Bhutan has seen this and will keep on seeing this…

  14. pema tshering says

    It is absolutely alright to increase the taxes. Car taxes in the urban areas, and mule taxes in the rural areas without roads. Equity & Justice must be maintained. Whether taxees are increased or not, people with money can afford to pay 10 times more taxes. Just go on increasing the taxes, especially for the 1 or 2 percent of the rich peoples of Bhutan.

  15. There is a difference between solving the problem and remove the problem. I feel increase tax and removing the quota are removing the problem. The latest study in urban transportation show that the traffic should be about people and not be about vehicle. The capacity of the traffic is the number of people being transported through the specific road.
    Well, solving the problem,
    Step 1: I would find the need of a person to buy car.
    1. For transportation.
    2. Civil servant would think about the mileage
    3. Private people would think about their business
    4. MPs might think about the perks with the car
    5. Everyone would think the comfort, convenience, may be show and fit into society.
    Anyway there may be lots a reason depending on individually. But I think when is come to money, nobody will but car just because they have lots a money. That way money becomes the least factor affecting a person buy car.
    Step 2: finding the ways to provide the needs
    1. Improving the transportation system, buses or introducing other alternatives to travel etc.
    2. Let civil servant share car to claim for mileage or enforce pool vehicle.
    3. Enforce rule
    a. For ownership such as limited number of vehicle per household.
    b. No single occupancy in vehicle during peak hours that way number of people transported per vehicle will increase plus people will start sharing vehicle.

    Anyway a study would come out of this. Did our govt. actually conduct any study on this? I feel that it is a decision of some people who think that money will solve the entire problem. I think Bhutan needs better and capable people who actually solves problem and not just shift the problem from one area to another.

  16. I personally think that increasing the tax alone will not help ease traffic congestion and environmental problems. It will only pinch the lower income bracket people more.

    As some people have pointed out. The first thing to do might be to increase interest rates for car loans, decrease for bus/public transportation loans.
    Support the bus companies like the private ones or Bhutan Post to improve their efficiency.

    Look into school bus systems at the earliest. Most parents in Thimphu are losing a lot of time and resources in dropping children and picking them up. I have many friends and family who goes to pick up their children at 3.30pm and disappear from office for atleast 30mins. They are helpless and children have to be picked up.

    My 2 cents!

    • Some one should start a business in picking up and dropping students, especially for young children. It will be win-win to both entrepreneurs and parents. This kind of business is quite a lucrative one elsewhere. I can guarantee that it will thrive and prosper.

  17. This is my first reply on an issue on your blog, and I thought that I would share with the readers what I know a bit and my take on this issue.

    The recent news on the proposal of increasing tax on purchase of vehicle because the government is trying to restrict the purchase, as it is viewed as a threat to the already growing concern of traffic congestion and pollution, and challenge to the strong and stringent environment policy and the developmental philosophy of Gross National Happiness is a very short sighted vision and solution.

    Likewise, in August 2008, the government proposed to increase the tax on import of vehicles. This proposal stirred huge debate in the media and online forums, and became a major topic of discussion for newspaper, editorials, public and the government.

    Bhutan imports vehicles from countries such as India, Japan and Korea and the country does not have local car manufacturing industry. The Bhutanese currently pay 35 % tax on import of vehicles, which includes the 15 % Bhutan Sales Tax and the 20% import duty to the government. Around the second week of August, the Bhutanese media brought out stories about the government proposal to increase tariff on import of vehicles by 50-100 % on the actual cost of the vehicle. This story triggered people to rush to the banks for loans and purchase cars from the car dealers within and outside of Bhutan. Reports of 5-50% increase in car sale in the month of August were cited by the car dealers, within and outside (mainly the neighboring town, Jaigoan, India) of Bhutan. However, after a month, the government announced that the proposal of tariff increase was a speculation (Kuensel, September 11, 2008).

    As per the information gathered from various sources, the main rationales for such policy initiatives by the government are:
    1. To curb/control foreign exchange out flow
    2. Minimize environmental pollution
    3. Reduce road/traffic congestion
    4. Minimize accidents

    But the questions is, are the above reasons strong and hold enough ground to propose an increase in tariff and restrict the purchase of car?

    Firstly, because of the speculation, people rushed to buy cars, which drained out more foreign currency within a month, and the foreign car dealers profited more than the local dealers. Secondly, it also created more spending and poor investment into a non capital good, as many economists believe that private cars are not an asset but a liability. Thus, this speculation created a negative impact on the economy and increased the negative balance of payment.

    If the government plan was to discourage draining of foreign currency by increasing tax on the import of vehicles, then the increase is not a recommended alternative. The government instead should think about how to decrease the flow of money into the market and limit the purchasing power.
    On the other hand, the question one has to ask is: does the amount of foreign currency expended on import of vehicles warrant severe policy scrutiny?

    The latest statistics on import expenditure compiled by the National Statistical Bureau show import share figure of crude oil at 16.98% of the total commodity imported and ranked it as the second highest in import expenditure, whereas import of vehicles, along with other imports, ranked only fifth with 9.22% of the total import expenditure (Statistical Yearbook of Bhutan, 2007).

    Therefore, the amounts that is being expended on import of vehicle are not so alarming and necessitate immediate policy implementation, whereas serious thought has to be given to Bhutan’s dependency on crude oil.

    For a land area of 38, 394 sq. km., Bhutan has 4,544.73 kilometers of motorable road. As per the Road Surface Transport Authority of Bhutan, there are around 41, 268 registered vehicles in the country out of which 24,000 or 59 percent are light vehicles or passenger motor cars. Thimphu, the capital, alone has 23, 740 vehicles, followed by Phuentsholing, the border town with Indian State of West Bengal, with 13, 321 vehicles (Royal Safety Transport Authority, February, 2008). The estimated population of Thimphu was 98, 676 in 2007 and if a car-person ratio is to be calculated, then there is a car for every four persons (1: 4.15). The average annual growth rate of all types of vehicles between 2006 and 2008 was 11 percent.

    The Statistical Yearbook of Bhutan2007 projected the population for Bhutan at 6, 46,851 in 2006, so the car-person ratio would be 1: 16. If, economists believe, that car-person ratio is one of the indicators of the economic prosperity, then the above ratios indicate low economic prosperity in Bhutan.

    The Impact:

    Bhutan is a developing, landlocked nation, and the country is seeing a booming construction industry. The country’s import surpasses export. The 2006 statistic shows Bhutan’s balance of payment at negative 240 million Ngultrum (equivalent to 0. 49 million US $). Bhutan’s largest trade partner is India with almost 77.5% of export and 74% import. Road transport is the most economical and efficient way for importing and exporting goods.

    The demand for more import of vehicles does not only reflect the basic human desire for mobility but is also an indicator of the prosperity of an economy.

    If the government increases the import tariff from 35% to 50-100% then the social cost would be more than the social benefit. The economic cost of development would be very high, and the impact on different regions within the country would be varied and could be enormous. Some of the immediate effects would be:

    • A rise in transport cost would trigger the rise of price of basic and essential commodities and a rise in cost in all sections of economic activities.

    • The charges of public transport will also increase, and make mobility costlier and hamper economic activities and social wellbeing.

    • The limited local auto dealers would also suffer and have a decrease in their businesses and impact the economy.

    • The higher price of car would encourage people to own their older vehicles for a longer time. With age automobiles become less fuel efficient and contribute to more emission and pollution and incur higher cost for maintenance.

    • It can encourage people to use their cars more frequently because the perceived marginal cost of motoring is small at the present fuel and maintenance cost.

    • This could also encourage people to smuggle in automobiles in parts and encourage the growth of black market. This can contribute to social cost as the government’s role to combat such trade will increase.

    The Alternatives (Policy):

    Instead of increasing the tariff and restricting purchase of cars, long term policy alternatives of making the car use costly should be initiated. These kinds of alternatives would contribute to making the marginal cost higher, which would weigh more heavily on the consumers’ mind. Studies have confirmed that people respond much more strongly to costs that confront them directly than they respond to hidden charges. Therefore, some of the suggestive alternatives would be as follows:

    i) Increase Tax on gasoline
    The price of unleaded petrol is around US $ 3.4 per gallon in Bhutan. Compared to the United States of America, Bhutanese are paying almost double the amount per gallon at the present prevailing rate of $ 1.9 per gallon in the U.S. But as per the rush reported by the media for the purchase of cars, the costs of fuel do not seem to be discouraging people from buying vehicles.

    Therefore, a tax on fuel is a good option to reduce demand for car use and make people pay the social cost. This increases social efficiency and also raises revenue for the government. In the short run the tax will be an effective source of revenue because of the relatively inelastic nature of demand for petrol. This money can be spent on subsidizing alternatives to car use.

    The incidence, or burden, of tax is the final resting place of the tax and output type of tax, such as the gasoline tax, would burden the consumers. The use of gasoline depends on the price of elasticity of demand. A higher the tax on gasoline would shift the burden of tax from the producer to the consumers in the form of higher price, which means that over a period of time, people might consume less as the price increases. This would make people switch to alternatives such as using public transport, buying fuel-efficient cars, consolidating trips, carpooling, or just traveling less.

    However, whether the demand for petrol is elastic or not in the long run is an empirical question and the price elasticity of demand may change over time as, for example, new technologies and products which are substitutes and/or compliments to petrol become available.

    ii) Increase tax on emission, road tax, and taxing more on luxury car ownership
    Direct taxing on emission is another alternative to increase tariff on import of vehicles. Automobiles can be charged on the amount of their emission on mileage basis. Such initiatives would help control pollution and would also make people choose fuel efficient cars, install pollution control devices or drive less. This would contribute to the aggregate social benefit.

    An increase number of cars on the road would create many external costs and increase the social cost. This includes increased pollution, congestion, and accidents. Therefore, the social cost of using a road is greater than the private cost. However, social cost is difficult to measure; for example, it may depend on how serious the emission pollution is in Bhutan, which has more than 70% of its land as forest.

    In a free market, anything that has low direct cost leads to over-consumption. Therefore, when roads are free to use, people will ignore external costs and will drive more. This causes congestion and contributes to economic costs such as lost output. Thus, a road tax or road pricing is a solution for such external cost as it makes motorists pay the social cost. With road pricing, a higher tax can be charged on frequent users. This would discourage people from using their cars and make them dependent on common transport systems, and help limit pollution, congestion and accidents.

    Demand for road use is inelastic.

    Therefore, higher taxes may not solve the problem. Road pricing in the city center may cause a loss of business in the city center and encourage out of town shopping. This may lead to social costs within the city center. The government should look at providing alternatives to keep business within the city center.

    Taxing more on import of luxury cars is also an alternative. Luxury cars are not only more expensive but are also less fuel efficient. More tax on luxury cars would discourage people from buying them and encourage the import of economical low end, fuel efficient cars. This would help limit draining of foreign currency and dependency on gasoline.

    However, there are concerns about such policy initiatives. The cost and negative externalities of such policies should also be taken into account. Enforcing such policies would require higher government intervention, which means high administration costs. It would require the government to increase its man power and equipment, which means the size of government would increase and burden tax payers. Also, adopting such policies would require the hand of politicians, rather than economic bodies. Politics may well get in the way of the enactment of appropriate tax levels.

    iii) Better public transport system
    Since Bhutan, and especially its capital, do not have a good public transportation system, this could be one of the main reasons for the increase number of vehicles.

    Ideally, the long term solution to the ever increasing vehicle import is to develop an efficient, effective and reliable public transportation system. As Bhutan produces a large amount of hydro electricity, the government should explore the use of electric transport systems such as electric trams and public buses like in Switzerland.

    The advantages of having a good public transport system would, firstly, make mobility cheaper and more affordable, and create less pollution per traveler. Secondly, people are more likely to use public transport because of its convenience, cost and efficiency factor. This would, overall, have a positive impact on the economy as it would decrease dependency on the crude oil, contributing to less import and people would buy less number of automobiles. Lastly, a good public transport system can generate employment and income for people and the government.

    All the suggested alternatives are long term solutions to reduce car use and provide a role in overcoming market failure associated with car use as it makes people pay the social cost. These alternatives should not be used in isolation. To effectively reduce car use, it is necessary to provide alternative forms of transport. However, in order to bring a better transport system, higher taxes are necessary for building the transport infrastructure. Therefore, the concept of tax efficiency, which has less burden and neutral effect, should be kept in mind before embarking on any kind of tax increase issue.

  18. Dawa P analysis is well done and government should take note of it. I am really impressed by one idea in his analysis i.e. road tax. Is this being implemented in Bhutan and in what form. Does vehicle registration include road tax? I think this idea is worth implementing because people who use the road more pay more which also means he/she pays for environmental, congestion, pollution, fuel costs. etc. etc. In this way, people will think twice before taking his/her vehicle on the road. But the question is how? I think, like in many countries, we should have entrance and exist toll gates somewhere before entering and existing city like Thimphu. Road use pay toll fees and the fee collected can be used for improving road network and quality.

    At present, the traffic jam is confined to morning rush hour especially just when morning school hour starts and civil servants go to the offices. Here we should think of innovative ideas like introducing flexi time for civil servants. He/she need not rush to office exactly at 9.00AM.

    And during week ends people rush to the only vegetable markets in Thimphu. I think somebody suggested that we should think of establishing shooping complex and vegetable markets closer to population centers. In this way, people do not have to move far. The can just walk in and buy their necessities.

    My view is that traffic congestion due to increasing vehicle population is a common and collective problem that require collective solution. We should not blame Government if they come with some suggestion like increasing vehicle tax; instead we should try to convinve the government for alternative solution with proper analysis as done by Dawa P. Keep it up.


  19. Pardon me, but I think Dawa P has a very poor understanding of the issues. I know it is not fair to make a sweeping remark – but as I get time, I will submit my point of view.

    Even the suggestions you make are totally wrong and not useful.

    One simple example – luxury car tax. That makes no sense because those who can afford to buy cars can afford to pay whatever tax is levied. There are other flawed arguements – unfortunately I do not have the time right now to go point by point. I do hope though that I will have the opportunity to respond in due course.

  20. Regardless if it’s political or religious views, race, size, or orientation- everyone deserves to be and become who they are. Let’s not make anyone feel bad they’re something else.

  21. khendruk says

    the inability of the governement to confront the rupee drainage system is being pointed to quota far does it weigh true???? well, despite all this system in place, the govt. coffer will still be facing the problem in myriad of ways. why point finger to tghe fuel and the quota system onlyh. the other day i met an officer working in the civil society and feeling sorry for himdelf as he was just eligible for the quota and the denial of the media abolishing the quota system a really good way or are we trying to open up a pandora’s box?????
    coz’ the comments that we see still focuses on the need to have quyota but to put in place a stringent rule where people try to use it in a proper manner. rather than stopping it, make sure that people use it in a free and fair manner.

  22. Druk Yul says

    Taxing cars has created all the problems and people involved in it are not representing the people. Had it been as before I think we won’t have all this ….. problems and related issues. We are not in a position to manufacture our own so why increase tax on vehicles/cars?
    If I remember, after the vehicle tax rumors the people started ordering more vehicles. Now you can see the impact of taxing cars. I guess the policy implementers never thought of this, in fact assumed that from the vehicle tax they could generate revenue. Please stop taxing vehicle.


  1. […] taxes and other fees levied on vehicles to control the increasing number of cars. Tshering Tobgay opines that the import quota system for the bureaucrats should be abolished to control traffic congestion. […]

  2. […] taxes and other fees levied on vehicles to control the increasing number of cars. Tshering Tobgay opines that the import quota system for the bureaucrats should be abolished to control traffic congestion. […]

  3. […] Filed Under cars, education, sport |  Some one knowledgeable has said that the country is loosing roughly Nu.150000000.00 every year from loss of duty on these quota vehicles that the civil servants shamelessly sell to the private sector at commissions ranging from Nu.60000 – to Nu.300000 per quota. ….. Firstly, because of the speculation, people rushed to buy cars , which drained out more foreign currency within a month, and the foreign car dealers profited more than the local dealers Go here to read the rest:  Taxing cars – Tshering Tobgay's Blog […]

Leave a Reply