The Instigator
Con (against)
2 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
4 Points

Raising tax on cars with big volume of engine.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/25/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 656 times Debate No: 38070
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




According to the site, in Kazakhstan increasing in the range of over 3 up to 4 cause by ensuring a smooth growth and observance of the principle "Pollute more, pay more".
Raising tax rates proposed to take the following gradation:
-from 3.0 to 3.2 - 35 MCR (from 60 585 to 61 985 tg, about 395$)
-from 3.2 to 3.5 - 46 MCR (from 79 626 to 81 726 tg, about 528$)
-from 3.5 to 4.0 - 66 MCR (from 114 246 to 117 746 tg, about 760$)
-from 4.0 and up - 117 MCR (202527 tg, about 1323$)
Nowadays tax on cars with volume of engine ranging from 3 to 4 is 15 MCR (25 965 tg, about 170$).Also It is proposed to repeal benefits for vehicles with a volume of more than 4000 cc.Exemptions were introduced as a tool for social support certain categories of citizens.Number of cars with four-liter and up is 37619 (about 8809 cars use exemptions).
I think this method is wrong.I have two arguments to support my idea:
-The middle layer of the society will be equal to the top. In our country about 15% of the middle layer of the population has a car with this volume of engine (3 l. and up). For example, tax for Toyota Land Cruiser 4.2 l. (1991, 16000$) will be the same like on new Toyota Land Cruiser 200 4.7 l. (2013, 70000$) - 1323$. But salary of these two men will be not the same.It can cause reduction of family income for not rich people.
-This law does not take into account also this fact - business trips. For example, some people can go abroad, for a long time for example 1 year, and they have to leave their car in their garages.These cars are not used by anybody, they don't pollute air, but when their owners will come back home, they will have to pay this tax although they don't use them at all.
I have found one solution to this problem: instead of raising the tax our government need to raise up price on gasoline. With help of this method we will follow the principle "Pollute more, pay more".



(The middle layer of the society will be equal to the top. It can cause reduction of family income for not rich people.)

-Logic will tell us that they do not belong to the middle class because they also own luxury cars. And, if they don’t want to pay for car tax like the rich people, then why they bought luxury cars in the first place if they want to save money?

(This law does not take into account also this fact - business trips)

-Whether or not rich people with big engine cars go to abroad and not using their cars do not matter. This is because middle class people may also go to abroad but still paying their due tax payment.

(I have found one solution to this problem: instead of raising the tax our government need to raise up price on gasoline.)

-Increasing the price on gasoline is beyond the control of the government because of the oil deregulation law. And if it can control fuel prices and increase the same, it would affect the entire community that depend on car transport whatever the size of the engine.


1. Encourages alternatives. People will think twice on choosing their cars so to avoid paying higher tax. If this happens, gas emissions from big engine cars will reduce.

2. Raises Revenue. If people continue using big engine cars without thinking of the tax, then the government can raise revenues, which in turn can be used in other projects that protect the environment. Also, the revenue can be used for road, bridges, and building constructions.

3. Leads to a socially efficient outcome. It makes people pay the social cost and overcomes the excess consumption.
Debate Round No. 1


Firstly, in our country car with volume of engine from 3 and up are very popular, especially in rural area. They are not expensive, they also have, for example, 4000 cc engine. It is not a luxury, it's one way how to sirvive. In Kazakhstan, 9087 kilometers, or 43.1 percent of the total road has defective coating the roadway. According to the analysis of the state of roads, 2,504 kilometers, or 11.9 percent of all surveyed sites have dangerous defects. Potholes are fixed at 824.9 thousand square meters, the lack of road markings found for 6.5 thousand kilometers. 6443,2 km. or 30.6 percent of the roads in Kazakhstan are in the process of destruction and need major repairs. Only one kind of cars can survive on this roads - suv. And as you know this kind of cars has a big volume of engine. The most important problem is that Such families are unable to pay such a tax. In our villages people don't earn such a sum of money.
Secondly, the main reason why our government want to introduce this tax is to reduce gas emmisions from these cars. But, if I am going, for example, to Germany for 1 year, why I should pay this tax, I left my car in garage and that's all. The government want us to follow the principle "Pollute more, pay more", but if my car don't emit dangerous fumes, what should I do in this case?



***They are expensive for most middle class people, and if even they are not expensive, they can choose a car that is cheaper in price and smaller engine to avoid paying additional (carbon)tax.

***Another, you cited Kazakhstan as your example not to increase tax on cars with big engines, which I believe is not representative to the world. You stated the road problems in Kazakhstan as the reason why people prefer SUV; however, road problems can be fixed so people can use other cars. In fact, China has already implemented an increase of tax with this issue.

***You’re like saying why should I pay all my taxes(income, property, etc) when I am not even present in my country. Well, the answer is obvious: it’s your obligation, you cannot escape from it by going to other country.

***Also, there are people with small engine cars who may travel to abroad but pay their taxes regardless of whether or not they use their cars, so having big engine cars and going to abroad does not exempt you.

Rationale of the proposal: it considers every car as polluting the environment every day.

Lastly, you should rebut one by one the reasons why the proposal should stand
1. Encourages alternatives.

2. Raises Revenue.
3. Leads to a socially efficient outcome.

Debate Round No. 2


BimSalim forfeited this round.


Let us vote!
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Tulbakra 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made interesting arguments, but did not bring any info or sources to defend it. S and G tied, Pro gets conduct because con forfeited.