C2W Scheme - Proof of 50% worth of commuting??

[Paul99]

I get really f****d off with many people, possibly you as well, attempting to and succeeding in abusing this scheme. The whole point of C2W is that you ACTUALLY ride the bike that you buy on the scheme to and from work. It was not intended to be a scheme to buy a nice bike you like the look of just because you can get it a lot cheaper through tax deduction, with no intention of riding it to or from work or perhaps only on a very occasional basis and then quite a few weekend rides of 50 miles where you are not commuting. To me this is fraud plain and simple. It is the likes of me who do commute everyday to work on my bike and whose employer does not offer this scheme that end up paying for this deception. If any one at the HMRC had a half a brain they would put a quick stop to this flagrant deception. The wording of the guidance needs tightening up considerably as people are just taking the p155.

I think the wording needs to be relaxed to stop people like you from getting bent out of shape.

How about the person that only commutes to the office once or twice a week? Can they not use the bike at other times? Should they be forced into their cars or onto public transport?
How about the person who physically can only manage one or two commutes a week but could do several smaller non-commutes? Should they not be allowed to have a bike on the scheme?
How about if i get ill or an injury and can't use my bikes? Am I then committing fraud because I am not following the rules to your satisfaction?

Is this more about you being jealous that your place of work doesn't provide the scheme?

As a cyclist (and a relatively new one who would never had even considered commuting by bike if it wasn't for C2W), I'll be happy if the minimum requirement was one commute (or part commute) a week. The health benefits to everyone, and the possible reduction in costs in healthcare, make it a worthwhile incentive for the govt to offer.

 

[w00hoo_kent]

never used the c2w scheme.. so just how much do you save from a 1000 bike over the 18 month

13 payments over 12 months and a little bit. Not sure of the saving, maybe £2-300 or so but off a full price bike.

 

[Peteaud]

If you buy last years model, new and get 0% finance then you will save more than the C2W anyway in most cases.

 

[w00hoo_kent]

In 2004 HMRC had a similar "employer buy a computer and let an employee use it at home" schemer, which gave tax free use of a computer. That was quickly stopped after a couple of years, partly due to the widespread use of cheap computers generally, but also due to them realising it was being abused.

So the more people brag about abusing the bike scheme and buying bikes which they don't use for commuting at all, then it's bound to be stopped completely.

There was a need to get more computers in to households, this did the job and the wasn't needed any more. The amount of government that needs internet access to use has shown that. Once a decent percentage was out there it wasn't so important. More people need to get healthy, new target, similar solution, similar success criteria?

 

[PK99]

I

As a cyclist (and a relatively new one who would never had even considered commuting by bike if it wasn't for C2W), I'll be happy if the minimum requirement was one commute (or part commute) a week. The health benefits to everyone, and the possible reduction in costs in healthcare, make it a worthwhile incentive for the govt to offer.

you are exactly the sort of "non-cyclist" the scheme was aimed at and the hurdle for such as you should be very low.

The cycling enthusiasts who use the scheme build up a stable of bikes are thieves and cheats.

 

[Paul99]

you are exactly the sort of "non-cyclist" the scheme was aimed at and the hurdle for such as you should be very low.

The cycling enthusiasts who use the scheme build up a stable of bikes are thieves and cheats.

At what point do I become a cycling enthusiast and how many bike constitutes a stable? Is this written down somewhere other than your diary?

I'd hate to be labelled a thief or cheat just because I hadn't followed your interpretation of the guidance.

 

[winjim]

The cycling enthusiasts who use the scheme build up a stable of bikes are thieves and cheats.

Or maybe they are exercising a form of protest against the way their tax money is collected and spent.

 

[CopperBrompton]

never used the c2w scheme.. so just how much do you save from a 1000 bike over the 18 month

The repayments are taken from your gross salary, so you save the tax you would have paid. The saving thus depends on whether you're a standard- or higher-rate tax-payer.

 

[Crankarm]

I think the wording needs to be relaxed to stop people like you from getting bent out of shape.

How about the person that only commutes to the office once or twice a week? Can they not use the bike at other times? Should they be forced into their cars or onto public transport?
How about the person who physically can only manage one or two commutes a week but could do several smaller non-commutes? Should they not be allowed to have a bike on the scheme?
How about if i get ill or an injury and can't use my bikes? Am I then committing fraud because I am not following the rules to your satisfaction?

Is this more about you being jealous that your place of work doesn't provide the scheme?

As a cyclist (and a relatively new one who would never had even considered commuting by bike if it wasn't for C2W), I'll be happy if the minimum requirement was one commute (or part commute) a week. The health benefits to everyone, and the possible reduction in costs in healthcare, make it a worthwhile incentive for the govt to offer.

The clue is in the title C Y C L E TO W O R K scheme. Commuting suggests a regularity or greater frequency than not and as the wording states greater than 50% so if you decided to ride to your office only once a week and used your bike for journeys other than riding to and from work yes you would be fraudulently reducing your tax bill as you wouldn't be entitled to the tax relief. The other thing that is most galling is that higher rate tax payers are the ones who benefit most from the scheme, the ones who can easily afford to buy a bike anyway or who already possess numerous bikes who are more than likely to think I need yet another which I have no intention of commuting to work on but to ride on the club run or just out on a weekend as no one will check. As pointed out you can generally get last year's model in a sale and not even bother with the scheme and save yourself even more. The C2W would not influence me whether I bought a bike for commuting to work, the thing that annoys me is that many who do choose to buy a bike through the scheme see it as an easy rouse, a formality with next to no checks, to get another bike with no intention of riding it to work which is dishonest and I don't like subsidising cheats and fraudsters. Period.

 

[vickster]

Not all high rate tax payers have a high disposable income as you suggest

 

[PK99]

Or maybe they are exercising a form of protest against the way their tax money is collected and spent.

May be jimmy Carr etc were doing that too, would you consider their behaviour acceptable?

 

[w00hoo_kent]

May be jimmy Carr etc were doing that too, would you consider their behaviour acceptable?

In the scheme of things, yeah. Individuals may be great news stories, but when you look at the big picture and project screw ups or corporate wheezes this or that famous person dodging some tax doesn't vex me. I'd prefer the effort put in to lambasting them was used to tighten up the rules. Especially when they are pretty much playing by them. I also don't grump at people who own nice houses, or Ferraris, or musicians who sign music deals and start earning real money.

I'm a big fan of the American view of someone else's success being a thing to be applauded and find the British approach of distrust and annoyance quite depressing

 

[PK99]

In the scheme of things, yeah. Individuals may be great news stories, but when you look at the big picture and project screw ups or corporate wheezes this or that famous person dodging some tax doesn't vex me. I'd prefer the effort put in to lambasting them was used to tighten up the rules. Especially when they are pretty much playing by them. I also don't grump at people who own nice houses, or Ferraris, or musicians who sign music deals and start earning real money.

I'm a big fan of the American view of someone else's success being a thing to be applauded and find the British approach of distrust and annoyance quite depressing

So, paying tax is voluntary?.... And only mugs pay for your NHS?

 

[w00hoo_kent]

Nope, I don't think anyone is saying Jimmy Carr paid 0 tax. But the little bits here and there that everyone likes to make loud noises about amounts to significantly less money out of the NHS than, say, a 5 year over due totally mismanaged software project has.

 

[winjim]

May be jimmy Carr etc were doing that too, would you consider their behaviour acceptable?

I find it more acceptable than some of the ways the government chooses to spend my money.