CycleScheme...........?(confused)
Comments
-
After 13 payments there is a "one off payment" to extend the hire period for a further 2 years.
This is 7% of the bike retail price for all bikes over £500 and 3% for sub £500 bikes.
Do they give you the bike after this?0 -
TBH its about time the govt closed this scheme its a total tax fiddle and it has allowed retailers to increase the purchase cost of bikes under 1000 quite considerably, because people are effectively getting it up to half price.
The extension of the hire period is again a total tax fiddle designed to get around the HMRC rules on benefit transfer which were ignored when the scheme first started.0 -
diy wrote:TBH its about time the govt closed this scheme its a total tax fiddle and it has allowed retailers to increase the purchase cost of bikes under 1000 quite considerably, because people are effectively getting it up to half price.
The extension of the hire period is again a total tax fiddle designed to get around the HMRC rules on benefit transfer which were ignored when the scheme first started.
I haven't seen any evidence of your first point in the slightest. The retailer still gets the £1000, they don't make any less money (well, I think they get charged about 10%, which is why they exclude sale bikes for the most part).
When the scheme first started, it was set to 3 years anyway. They then relaxed it to 12 months but increased the amount you had to pay to "buy" the bike from your employer. So most employers allowed you to extend it back to the 3 years to make it cheaper for their employees.
It's hardly a tax "fiddle" if it's intentionally designed to lower your tax!0 -
I've always wondered what happens if the bike gets stolen while its still being payed for. Since it's not yours then surely you can't claim on insurance for it & if you do, who owns the replacement?Statistically, Six Out Of Seven Dwarves Aren't Happy0
-
Deputy Dawg wrote:I've always wondered what happens if the bike gets stolen while its still being payed for. Since it's not yours then surely you can't claim on insurance for it & if you do, who owns the replacement?
Yes, you can claim insurance for it as you have an insurable interest in the bike.
You're expected to either buy the bike at the end of the scheme, or hand it back, so it's up to you to insure it. If it was stolen and you didn't replace it, you'd *have* to buy it at the end of the scheme as obviously you wouldn't be able to hand it back.0 -
supersonic wrote:After 13 payments there is a "one off payment" to extend the hire period for a further 2 years.
This is 7% of the bike retail price for all bikes over £500 and 3% for sub £500 bikes.
Do they give you the bike after this?
Yes, after the extended 2 year period the bike is "legally" yours, or if you wish you can give the bike back at any time and claim your one off 13th payment back (like a deposit as such)
Having looked again it's actually 3 years, not 2 years, my bad0 -
KitsuneAndy wrote:I haven't seen any evidence of your first point in the slightest. The retailer still gets the £1000, they don't make any less money...
It's hardly a tax "fiddle" if it's intentionally designed to lower your tax!
Cycle to work has boosted the industry as many more people spend more on a bike or buy a bike as a result of the savings. That means retailers are benefiting from the increased demand.
Had I not had the benefit of the scheme I would not have spend 1200 quid on a new bike, I would have spend 500 quid on an equivalent used bike. In addition its not fair for people who are unable to benefit, as they are effectively paying tax that others are avoiding paying, because their employers are not in the scheme.
IMO it should have been open to everyone and there should have been a major focus on ensuring people used their bike to for work.
How many people actually comply with the requirement to use it as their primary form of transport to work?0 -
diy wrote:KitsuneAndy wrote:I haven't seen any evidence of your first point in the slightest. The retailer still gets the £1000, they don't make any less money...
It's hardly a tax "fiddle" if it's intentionally designed to lower your tax!
Cycle to work has boosted the industry as many more people spend more on a bike or buy a bike as a result of the savings. That means retailers are benefiting from the increased demand.
Had I not had the benefit of the scheme I would not have spend 1200 quid on a new bike, I would have spend 500 quid on an equivalent used bike. In addition its not fair for people who are unable to benefit, as they are effectively paying tax that others are avoiding paying, because their employers are not in the scheme.
IMO it should have been open to everyone and there should have been a major focus on ensuring people used their bike to for work.
How many people actually comply with the requirement to use it as their primary form of transport to work?
I agree with them benefiting from increased demand, but you implied in your previous post that this has meant they've inflated the cost of the bikes in the first place. At least that's how it read to me. That's what I was saying I haven't seen any evidence of.0 -
In business one tends to follow the other - i.e. where a market is will to pay x, the price tends to be x or very close to x. Where demand decreases, then x has to decrease to make the price acceptable and maintain demand, where demand increases x can increase also.
Even "must haves" like fuel are subject to this, with demand reducing as price increases and vice a versa. So the requirement would be to show evidence that increase demand did not increase price, rather than the other way round, as the former is the norm. If that makes sense.0 -
The prices have stayed closely to a trend of the last few years though, with well known causes.0
-
I got a bike close to the £1000 limit.
At the end of the 12 months I paid it off and took ownership. I worked out I had saved £180.
If I had extended I think it would have increased the saving to more like £300-350.0
