Cyclescheme repeat?

robbols

Does anyone know if there are any restrictions on repeating the cyclescheme? I completed my 12 payments on a Brompton this month and would like to get another voucher, this time for a proper road bike. I think my employers should be fine with this as long as it is not against the rules!
Thanks.

Anonymous

Yes, no probs but check the new regs regarding final buy out cost!!

robbols

Thanks. Yes, I've seen HMRC have 'clarified' the regs. Typical - set up a successful scheme to encourage people to cycle more on one hand and then change the rules to negate the incentive with the other! This from the government that is driving for efficiency savings!

benpinnick

£1000 per year is the only limit.

Anonymous

benpinnick wrote:

£1000 per year is the only limit.

Depends if the employer has a Credit Licence... I know someone who has done £2.5k...

Radioactiveman

The way to look at is 0% finance with a little bit of discount depending how your employer implement it.

Granted the potential savings arent as good as they were/could be but try and find a bike shop offering 12 months interest free credit now. I think my friend has done it 3 years in a row.

EKIMIKE

NapoleonD wrote:

I know someone who has done £2.5k...

And people wonder why HMRC are getting tough :roll:

Anonymous

My thoughts too...

Lagavulin

Was it here (might of been WW) where someone was on their 3rd or 4th bike on one of the schemes and was getting a TT bike through it.
Personally I think a TT bike is taking the p!ss - or perhaps working for HMRC I'm just jealous as f**k that I can get away with nowt - but if you're going to commute on it, even occasionally, then I say good luck.

I’ve seen Ribble audax/winter trainers fastened up at work but none of the typical £999.99 bikes you see pushed such as Planet X SL Pro Carbons, Tiagra CAAD9s or sub-£1k Dolans. Philistines up here it seems. Mountain bikes and the occasional heavy tourer.

rjh299

Just make sure you use a different email address from the first time.

Headhuunter

EKIMIKE wrote:

NapoleonD wrote:

I know someone who has done £2.5k...

And people wonder why HMRC are getting tough :roll:

However it's perfectly legal and why not? Far better that people cycle and spend £2k+ on a bike than the ridiculous car scrappage scheme which subsidised the motoring industry waaaaay more than C2W subsidises the cycling industry.

The car scrappage scheme was totally contrary to previous government policy, on the one hand governments the world over claim that they are trying to get people out of cars and reduce world reliance on oil and then they go and instigate a system which effectively pumps millions into car manufacturers...

At the same time, London gets fined several mill by the EU for having the worst air quality in the community and over set healthy levels. Now that something to elicit a :roll:

ugo.santalucia

When the scheme was introduced, I thought it was a good idea, although it seemed to me at the time that 1000 pounds was a bit too much for a commuting bike. In fact the scheme has been used by enlarge by cyclists who already own several bikes for various upgrades. Personally, I do not know anyone who has used the scheme for what it was supposed to address and I would be quite happy to see it scrapped, or at least reduced to a more realistic 4-500 pounds for the cost of the all bike (and not as part exchange).

zippypablo

ugo.santalucia wrote:

When the scheme was introduced, I thought it was a good idea, although it seemed to me at the time that 1000 pounds was a bit too much for a commuting bike. In fact the scheme has been used by enlarge by cyclists who already own several bikes for various upgrades. Personally, I do not know anyone who has used the scheme for what it was supposed to address and I would be quite happy to see it scrapped, or at least reduced to a more realistic 4-500 pounds for the cost of the all bike (and not as part exchange).

Personally I know lots of people who have bought their 1st bike using the scheme or had a mtb and then bought a road bike for commuting. £1000 doesn't seem excessive to me.

amaferanga

I spent £1200 on my bike and I have commuted on it probably 2 days out of 3 all summer. There may be tax relief on it, but I still paid for it so I don't see the problem. And don't forget that the scheme is making a massive difference for many an LBS.

Usually its folk who can't take advantage of the scheme that complain about it.

EKIMIKE

Headhuunter - for one where did i mention the scrapage scheme? Jog on.....

My view is that if someone has the money to drop 2.5K on the cyclescheme then they have enough money of their own to buy a perfectly decent commute bike without a Tax Break.

For me it's the question of what is the cyclescheme about? Tax breaks or Riding to work? For me, it should be the latter.

That's why i think being able to purchase a tax free bike year on year is missing the point. The first bike you get on the cyclescheme should do you for at least 2 years, probably more like 4. I mean if you're actually using it to ride to work you're not going to be doing MASSIVE mileage, you don't even have to ride it every day, so it should last a fair old while.

If someone gets a bike on C2W scheme 3 years running then they no doubt could've afforded the first without a tax break. Obviously the tax break is an incentive though so whilst i'm not sayin people who can afford a bike shouldn't get a tax break, i am saying the scheme should prevent those who have plenty of cash from taking advantage of it.

EKIMIKE

amaferanga wrote:

Usually its folk who can't take advantage of the scheme that complain about it.

Lol, no sh1t. If i could spend my dispoable income, tax free, on bike gear then i wouldn't complain would i.

I should point out that whilst i think the scheme loopholes needed attention from the HMRC, i think they chose the wrong loophole. It's those who buy sparkly 1k wheelesets on the scheme or those who but 1K bikes year in year out on the scheme that should be paying the extra. Not everyone and anyone who decides to participate. Although that was the most easily implemented measure for the HMRC to impose.

ugo.santalucia

amaferanga wrote:

I spent £1200 on my bike and I have commuted on it probably 2 days out of 3 all summer. There may be tax relief on it, but I still paid for it so I don't see the problem. And don't forget that the scheme is making a massive difference for many an LBS.

Usually its folk who can't take advantage of the scheme that complain about it.

The rumours I've heard are that the scheme will be scrapped (or at least massively reduced) in view of the same considerations I've made earlier, so, you might be right, but it seems that the vast majority of people using it, do not use it for commuting into work. That said, long live the bike shops (except for Halfords)

Headhuunter

EKIMIKE wrote:

Headhuunter - for one where did i mention the scrapage scheme? Jog on.....

My view is that if someone has the money to drop 2.5K on the cyclescheme then they have enough money of their own to buy a perfectly decent commute bike without a Tax Break.

For me it's the question of what is the cyclescheme about? Tax breaks or Riding to work? For me, it should be the latter.

That's why i think being able to purchase a tax free bike year on year is missing the point. The first bike you get on the cyclescheme should do you for at least 2 years, probably more like 4. I mean if you're actually using it to ride to work you're not going to be doing MASSIVE mileage, you don't even have to ride it every day, so it should last a fair old while.

If someone gets a bike on C2W scheme 3 years running then they no doubt could've afforded the first without a tax break. Obviously the tax break is an incentive though so whilst i'm not sayin people who can afford a bike shouldn't get a tax break, i am saying the scheme should prevent those who have plenty of cash from taking advantage of it.

I know you didn't mention the scrappage scheme, I mentioned it to contrast excessive tax relief on car purchases at taxpayers expense with the relatively minor cost to the taxpayer of the C2W scheme which actually helps to get people out of cars, creating less greenhouse gas and pollution in general and helping improve fitness (hopefully reducing the strain on the NHS of obesity related illnesses).

Personally I view the C2W scheme as a way to get people out of cars and onto bikes, and whether the bikes cost £200 or £1000. It really doesn't matter to me if those bikes are specifically used for cycling to work as long as it helps improve fitness and reduce congestion and pollution to the benefit of everyone. Cycling to work is just one way to get people to start to use bikes more and more.

This contrasts with the car scrappage scheme which costs the taxpayer way more and simply encourages fat and unfit people to drive everywhere and increases pollution. If you're actuially concerned what the government spends our hard earned tax on then there are far, far greater and more controvesial drains on public finance than a few £1000 bikes! Put into perspective with the enormous cost of, say, having troops in Afghanistan it is tiny, tiny pocket change.

EKIMIKE

....and it could go on but that's not what we're talking about is it.

By contrast there are plenty of people in this country who could desperately do with tax breaks far more than people earning decent salaries, so much so, they can afford a salary sacrifice year on year and in some cases the the tune of 1k+ (those who can spend 2.5K on the C2W scheme).

My issue isn't so much the money, it's the morals. Well off people getting tax breaks year on year (<note the context).

amaferanga

EKIMIKE wrote:

amaferanga wrote:

Usually its folk who can't take advantage of the scheme that complain about it.

Lol, no sh1t. If i could spend my dispoable income, tax free, on bike gear then i wouldn't complain would i.

I should point out that whilst i think the scheme loopholes needed attention from the HMRC, i think they chose the wrong loophole. It's those who buy sparkly 1k wheelesets on the scheme or those who but 1K bikes year in year out on the scheme that should be paying the extra. Not everyone and anyone who decides to participate. Although that was the most easily implemented measure for the HMRC to impose.

So your employer doesn't run a bike to work scheme then and you'd therefore like to see the scheme scrapped for the rest of us?

amaferanga

EKIMIKE wrote:

....and it could go on but that's not what we're talking about is it.

By contrast there are plenty of people in this country who could desperately do with tax breaks far more than people earning decent salaries, so much so, they can afford a salary sacrifice year on year and in some cases the the tune of 1k+ (those who can spend 2.5K on the C2W scheme).

My issue isn't so much the money, it's the morals. Well off people getting tax breaks year on year (<note the context).

Well off and not so well off people getting tax breaks to encourage them to cycle and live a healthy lifestyle and therefore reduce the burden of obesity on the NHS?

EKIMIKE

Did i say i wanted it scrapped? No. I said there are loopholes which probably need closing. FWIW I think the HMRC chose the wrong loophole.

Good luck solving the obesity problem with tax free bikes. So is everyone who doesn't ride a bike is obese? No. Because it's not that simple is it you nimrod.

Headhuunter

EKIMIKE wrote:

....and it could go on but that's not what we're talking about is it.

By contrast there are plenty of people in this country who could desperately do with tax breaks far more than people earning decent salaries, so much so, they can afford a salary sacrifice year on year and in some cases the the tune of 1k+ (those who can spend 2.5K on the C2W scheme).

My issue isn't so much the money, it's the morals. Well off people getting tax breaks year on year (<note the context).

But the point is that world governments are trying to reduce the impact of car travel on the environment of our cities and this is a very laudable way to do this. Whether or not people need the tax breaks they are useful to encourage people to do what's best for us all.

I'm sure that plenty of "wealthy" families don't "need" tax breaks and credits associate with having kids but they get them anyway. I'm sure that non dom workers earning 6 figures + don't "need" tax relief on their salaries, but they get it. Who would you suggest "needs" a tax break at the expense of encouraging people to ride bikes? Why are their morals assoctiated with tax breaks for the purchase of bikes but no morals attached to giving people relief on buying a new car (car scrappage)?

C2W has an aim which ties well into what is required in the world at the moment.

amaferanga

EKIMIKE wrote:

Did i say i wanted it scrapped? No. I said there are loopholes which probably need closing. FWIW I think the HMRC chose the wrong loophole.

Good luck solving the obesity problem with tax free bikes. So is everyone who doesn't ride a bike is obese? No. Because it's not that simple is it you nimrod.

And there was me thinking that all the Government had to do was offer tax incentives on bikes and in 5 years time there'd be no obesity problem :roll:

Muppet.

ride_whenever

Tax breaks shouldn't be used to try to equalise poverty levels, that's a stupid way to do things when there is a simple way in terms of increased benefits and higher income tax.

Tax breaks are to encourage behaviour that the government sees as useful, it's a fine tool for that, it also saves businesses money which allows for greater growth.

As for the spending 2.5k on a bike issue, that doesn't really come into it. 2.5k for a sunday best bike means you are still using the car less as you probably ride to work anyway, and the bill for the car could easily exceed 2.5k...

EKIMIKE

amaferanga wrote:

And there was me thinking that all the Government had to do was offer tax incentives on bikes and in 5 years time there'd be no obesity problem :roll:

Muppet.

Well yes, that was essentially the argument you were making. There's no denying it now. :arrow:

Headhuunter

EKIMIKE wrote:

amaferanga wrote:

And there was me thinking that all the Government had to do was offer tax incentives on bikes and in 5 years time there'd be no obesity problem :roll:

Muppet.

Well yes, that was essentially the argument you were making. There's no denying it now. :arrow:

No real response to my points then....

EKIMIKE

Sorry but i don't know where exactly Amaferanga and Headhuunter are getting the idea that i want the C2W scheme scrapped? My username is not Ugo.Santalucia.

Maybe i should give up as i clearly had no idea that the C2W scheme was all about car scrappage, the war in afganistan, reducing the burden on the NHS and Non-Dom residents in of the UK.

Or are you guys just getting a little bit too defensive? Am i going a bit close to the bone?

Headhuunter

EKIMIKE wrote:

Sorry but i don't know where exactly Afaramenga and Headhuunter are getting the idea that i want the C2W scheme scrapped? My username is not Ugo.Santalucia.

Maybe i should give up as i clearly had no idea that the C2W scheme was all about car scrappage, the war in afganistan, reducing the burden on the NHS and Non-Dom residents in of the UK.

Or are you guys just getting a little bit too defensive? Am i going a bit close to the bone?

The C2W scheme is not "all about" car scrappage etc, those were merely arguments I used to demonstrate my point. Do you actually understand what I am trying to say? We're having a "discussion", or "debate". I make my point and you make yours. It isn't about putting words in people's mouths! I'm not being defensive, I am genuininely interested in your point of view, if you have one.

EKIMIKE

No not in that post, because that one was in response to amaferanga.

Thing is, you proved my point with your post. The C2W scheme isn't or rather shouldn't be about tax breaks. Rich or poor.

EKIMIKE

I made my point, and you missed it totally with your arguments about Non-dom residents and wars.