Cycle to Work Sceme Cheats

bianchimoon

shm_uk wrote:

Q: What's the difference between fraudulently claiming benefits and buying a bike on the C2W scheme but never using it to commute?

A: Nothing


Fraud is fraud is fraud
There's no "if's" or "but's"


Just because nobody's enforcing the C2W rules evertybody thinks "wa-hey, cheap stuff" without ever thinking they're extorting the Govt out of tax revenue.

and when the many thousands, who otherwise wouldn't have bought a bike (or a bike as expensive) spend £££'s on spare parts, tyres, upgrades, clothing, equipement etc, etc who gets the benefits of the 20% VAT not to mention the much needed business your LBS gets in maintenance and sales, not to mention the healthier lifestyles that people have that benefit the NHS, It's a much bigger picture than certain people think

Pep

All those who took a bike with C2W where I worked before.

I'm not bothered by C2W. First, I already have 4 bikes, second, I don't think it would be any cheaper than just walking to the shop and buying one.

bruce225

I use mine for commuting....

Ever Sunday cycle to work, to find where closed.....Not my fault

mudcow007

my voucher maxed out at £1000 or £999 my bike cost me £1500 plus i had to pay an admin fee of £100 to bike shop (winstanley cycles) to "process" the voucher i paid tax on the additional £600, which would probably cover what i saved in the scheme!

sketchley

bianchimoon wrote:

... and when the many thousands, who otherwise wouldn't have bought a bike (or a bike as expensive) spend £££'s on spare parts, tyres, upgrades, clothing, equipement etc, etc who gets the benefits of the 20% VAT not to mention the much needed business your LBS gets in maintenance and sales, not to mention the healthier lifestyles that people have that benefit the NHS, It's a much bigger picture than certain people think

I get all of that. As I said in earlier post tax free bikes for all would be good. As i also said I could not give a toss about people who do not use the scheme as intended, I'm certainly not beating myself up about lost tax revenes (they are next to insignificant anyway). But you have to accept that breaking the qualified journey's rule for C2W is tax evasion. You can think this is justified, without consquence or evan an acceptable consquence of the scheme; but it still tax evasion.

robz400

dilemma wrote:

But the adnecdotal evidence is that many are buying bicycles and never using them to cycle to work.. Many are using the scheme to increase their fleet of bikes. These people are presumably already cycling, so C2W or not, they would still be doing so. I think the scheme was set up to get those who have never cycled or gave up years ago and who may have become really unhealthy or obese to take up cycling, not those who are already cyclists . But how you would administer this I don't know. Perhaps everyone should be entitled to a one off once only voucher that covers the VAT and tax you would pay on a bike if buying with your income net of tax.

This maybe true but it also supports the whole cycling indusrty, more bike sales in turn leads to bigger revenues for the indusrty, more advertising and therefore more bike sales...

As often quoted the more people out on bikes the better for us all.

bianchimoon

Sketchley wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

... and when the many thousands, who otherwise wouldn't have bought a bike (or a bike as expensive) spend £££'s on spare parts, tyres, upgrades, clothing, equipement etc, etc who gets the benefits of the 20% VAT not to mention the much needed business your LBS gets in maintenance and sales, not to mention the healthier lifestyles that people have that benefit the NHS, It's a much bigger picture than certain people think

I get all of that. As I said in earlier post tax free bikes for all would be good. As i also said I could not give a toss about people who do not use the scheme as intended, I'm certainly not beating myself up about lost tax revenes (they are next to insignificant anyway). But you have to accept that breaking the qualified journey's rule for C2W is tax evasion. You can think this is justified, without consquence or evan an acceptable consquence of the scheme; but it still tax evasion.

That's a very black and white argument, technically probably yes, though inadvertently the scheme has benefitted the tax system from the residual/associated future sales of related goods, so i would expect from a tax point of view the country is the winner after all

dhope

dilemna wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

dhope wrote:

It says nothing about how often you should cycle to work, just that 50% or more of the bike's use should be part of a journey to or from work.

Exactly - 1 mile commuting allows 1 mile leisure. You could get the bike on the scheme, stick it in your shed for a year, unused, and you'd still be complying with the rules!

I think you fundamentally misunderstand the guidance.
etc

Nope, you're fundamentally misunderstanding it.

It's the percentage bike use that is for travel to work
NOT the percentage of travels to work by bike.

3 uses a year, 2 to work is okay
130 rides to work (approx 50% of the 260 working days), 150 rides for other stuff, is, technically, not (though I doubt anyone would bat an eyelid at it).

And this makes sense, as it allows people that if I live 25 miles from work and decide that cycling in only twice a week would be feasible to use the scheme.

notsoblue

mudcow007 wrote:

just to make people feel a bit better i used my stinky to ride home and an came back in on it this morning....how wrong does it look with a saddle bag!!!





ive just realised i did use my stinky to commute as i didnt have my Trek when i bought my "Bona" so therefore im legal woohoo (first time ive said that in a while)

Christ, does that even have a chainring? Looks like you'd be spinning madly at anything over 10mph

W1

bianchimoon wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

... and when the many thousands, who otherwise wouldn't have bought a bike (or a bike as expensive) spend £££'s on spare parts, tyres, upgrades, clothing, equipement etc, etc who gets the benefits of the 20% VAT not to mention the much needed business your LBS gets in maintenance and sales, not to mention the healthier lifestyles that people have that benefit the NHS, It's a much bigger picture than certain people think

I get all of that. As I said in earlier post tax free bikes for all would be good. As i also said I could not give a toss about people who do not use the scheme as intended, I'm certainly not beating myself up about lost tax revenes (they are next to insignificant anyway). But you have to accept that breaking the qualified journey's rule for C2W is tax evasion. You can think this is justified, without consquence or evan an acceptable consquence of the scheme; but it still tax evasion.

That's a very black and white argument, technically probably yes, though inadvertently the scheme has benefitted the tax system from the residual/associated future sales of related goods, so i would expect from a tax point of view the country is the winner after all

You could argue that about many instances of tax evasion of course.

sketchley

bianchimoon wrote:

That's a very black and white argument, technically probably yes, though inadvertently the scheme has benefitted the tax system from the residual/associated future sales of related goods, so i would expect from a tax point of view the country is the winner after all

Yes tax scheme probally up in total. But the individual has still commited tax evasion, that is a fact so from that perspective yes it's a black and white argument.

Your argument mearly suggest that the C2W scheme is poorly thought out and is in fact an argument for "tax free bikes for all", or "No VAT on bikes" which I would agree with.

fenboy369

I love threads like this, all it needs are the comments "Jog on knob-head" and "Go fcuk your mum!" but now I've said them it is a complete thread.

To cut a long story short any cyclist should now be deemed to be a tax evading, RLJ'ing, no light using, helmet wearing/no helmet wearing*, kitten killing, peado! *

delete as appropriate depending on where you stand on the 'helmet' debate.

notsoblue

fenboy369 wrote:

I love threads like this, all it needs are the comments "Jog on knob-head" and "Go fcuk your mum!" but now I've said them it is a complete thread.

To cut a long story short any cyclist should now be deemed to be a tax evading, RLJ'ing, no light using, helmet wearing/no helmet wearing*, kitten killing, peado! *

delete as appropriate depending on where you stand on the 'helmet' debate.

Well it kinda exposes the ones that are more interested in the argument than the topic :P

daccordimark

Anyone who uses the CTW scheme to buy a bike other than for cycling to work is taking the p*ss as are the people who buy one CTW bike every year for 3 years running.

I bet more than a few folks ranted on about MPs and their expenses and then conned their way to a new "best bike" on the CTW scheme. Talk about double standards.

As for the "I pay more tax than I save argument" that's just purile self-deluding bullsh*t. Also an ISA is a legitimate tax-free scheme provided by the government to encourage saving. In no way can you compare it to the CTW scheme.

People who abuse CTW and other tax avoiders are ultimately ripping off the tax payers who live and work within the rules of the system/society.

tailwindhome

Sketchley wrote:

...... breaking the qualified journey's rule for C2W is tax evasion. You can think this is justified, without consquence or evan an acceptable consquence of the scheme; but it still tax evasion.

This

millimole

I have ridden to work on my C2W bike, but it is my 'Sunday best' - having it has enabled me to use what was my 'best' bike as the commuter, and relegate the old commuter to a 'last resort' or ultimately a donor-bike.

W1

daccordimark wrote:

Also an ISA is a legitimate tax-free scheme provided by the government to encourage saving. In no way can you compare it to the CTW scheme.

People who abuse CTW and other tax avoiders are ultimately ripping off the tax payers who live and work within the rules of the system/society.

I think you've got yourself a bit twisted up there.

C2W is a "legitimate tax-free scheme" if the eligibility criteria are met. Just like an ISA.

Both ISAs and C2W are tax avoidance schemes (albeit encouraged/sanctioned) in that both give the individual the choice to avoid paying tax should they wish. The individual is equally allowed not to use these schemes and pay more tax. I.e. there is a choice available, one of which avoids tax and the other doesn't.

The point in question is whether buying a C2W bike when there is no intention of complying with the eligibility criteria is tax evasion. Quite clearly it is, but it seems that it is of such little value, done by so many on here, and has other beneficial spin offs that it's OK. Apparently.

Mark Elvin

I wonder what C2W has done for LBS's, I expect it's helped a few through hard times.

mybreakfastconsisted

daccordimark wrote:

Anyone who uses the CTW scheme to buy a bike other than for cycling to work is taking the p*ss as are the people who buy one CTW bike every year for 3 years running.
.

Lots of people do exactly that with no problem, so the scheme allows you to buy bikes that you cannot possibly use according to the criteria. If the taxman was bothered why would he allow this?

“The Inland Revenue does not expect you to keep a record of mileage.”

You could have a new bike every year — people see the value in having a spare bike and are maybe going for a folding bike or a racing option.

http://www.cyclingactive.com/news/tried ... ork-scheme

The reasons why this is allowable are pretty clear when you think about it.

Less congestion, less burden on the NHS, less absenteeism, less pollution, less damage to the roads, and so on.

Comparing getting bikes under CTW to MPs expenses or benefit fraud is silly, because the DWP or police have not issued statements saying "It's ok to do this."

With CTW the taxman has made it clear what you can do.

W1

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

With CTW the taxman has made it clear what you can do.

From that article:

"If you are buying a bike through the Cycle to Work scheme it must be used predominantly for travelling to and from work, therefore it must be suitable for that purpose. However, it’s worth noting: “The Inland Revenue does not expect you to keep a record of mileage.” "

Nowhere does it say that HMRC have said it's OK to buy a bike on C2W that you have no intention of riding to work on.

HMRC may not be "bothered" about it, but that's very different to saying it's fine to do it.

Kieran_Burns

Can this entire thread be summed up by simply comparing the spirit of the law with the letter of the law?


Or are we the kind of people that when someone says "Shush!" half the people say "Why?" and the other half say "I can't hear anything"

dhope

Kieran_Burns wrote:

Can this entire forum be summed by simply comparing the spirit of the law with the letter of the law?

ftfy

W1

Kieran_Burns wrote:

Can this entire thread be summed up by simply comparing the spirit of the law with the letter of the law?


Or are we the kind of people that when someone says "Shush!" half the people say "Why?" and the other half say "I can't hear anything"

We managed to do 16 pages on "tax avoidance" previously. Something to aim for I suppose.

Mark Elvin

W1 wrote:

Kieran_Burns wrote:

Can this entire thread be summed up by simply comparing the spirit of the law with the letter of the law?


Or are we the kind of people that when someone says "Shush!" half the people say "Why?" and the other half say "I can't hear anything"

We managed to do 16 pages on "tax avoidance" previously. Something to aim for I suppose.

I do hope not, this thread is frightfully boring.

W1

Mark Elvin wrote:

W1 wrote:

Kieran_Burns wrote:

Can this entire thread be summed up by simply comparing the spirit of the law with the letter of the law?


Or are we the kind of people that when someone says "Shush!" half the people say "Why?" and the other half say "I can't hear anything"

We managed to do 16 pages on "tax avoidance" previously. Something to aim for I suppose.

I do hope not, this thread is frightfully boring.

No-one has forced you to read it I hope?

mudcow007

notsoblue wrote:

Christ, does that even have a chainring? Looks like you'd be spinning madly at anything over 10mph

it has two!! i think the first one has 8 teeth the "big" ring has about 12. it still refuses to climb up hills though

i think the fastest i have pedelled like a man too was about 15mph that was through the mersey tunnel (downhill for 1/2 a mile)

mybreakfastconsisted

Well, I finished poliching my duck house, now I'm off out on my TAX FREE bike.

Suck my shorts taxman.

DonDaddyD

What I want to know is this.

When in the supermarket I sometimes "test the grapes". Sometimes I like them and don't buy them anyway but go back and "test" some more.

Am I stealing?

mudcow007

DonDaddyD wrote:

What I want to know is this.

When in the supermarket I sometimes "test the grapes". Sometimes I like them and don't buy them anyway but go back and "test" some more.

Am I stealing?

yes you heathen! You grape snatchers make me sick

CiB

Nothing wrong with testing grapes. I do it with mushrooms if I'm particularly hungry - errr keen to know if they're ok, then move on to check that the cheese & bread sticks are ok, and usually finish off by checking that none of my intended bottles of wine are corked. That's not theft surely? I like shopping.