c2w - should you have to actually cycle to work?

[Paul99]

Paul - you provide the detail behind your anecdotes and I'll tell you. I suspect you can't, because I suspect that (in the grand scheme of things) there is no increase in purchases that wouldn't have happened anyway.

Seriously? Do you honestly think that these things don't happen? I said in my first post that you must factor in the additional tax revenues generated in before you can say that the governments tax take is down on the C2W scheme. You chose to only take a portion of the increased revenues into account when you declared that the government is a pretty substantial net loser.

Of course if you take into account the decreased revenues from fuel duty because people are cycling rather than driving to work, then I will admit that the government tax take is down. But can you prove that?

 

[Paul99]

And

Yeah, but you'd probably have blown all the cash you've spent on accessories on other stuff anyway. The Gov was going to get it's VAT etc back anyway.

Given that a significant percentage of people (like me) either work for employers who wont consider the scheme, or are otherwise ruled out I think the better solution would be to get rid of the scheme altogether, and simply scrap VAT on sports goods (or at least bikes).

No I can safely say I wouldn't have. I did forgo a holiday this year, but the government would not have seen very much of my money there either.

 

[martint235]

One thing that the tax argument is neglecting (although srw did obliquely mention it in his 30%-50% bit) is that the C2W scheme is more attractive to those paying 40% tax. I think in this group the bike would most probably have been bought anyway so the Govt is on a loser here.

 

[wiggydiggy]

I can say, for absolute certainty, without the scheme I would have used my old BSO special (borrowed from my dad so I never invested anything of my own up front) for the commute to work/train station and that would be that. I know that also once my job moved further afield I would have (instead of cycling to train station, and then catching a train) completed my whole journey on the train as I wouldnt have had a bike I wanted to ride as much as possible.

Basically without the scheme I only started commuting by bicycle as I couldn't afford another way, once that obstacle (£££) was removed I'd have never considered continuing by bicycle and have happily (at the time) gone back to public transport. Chances are now my job is further away I'd be sat in a car all the time.

In those 3.5 years I cant say how much Ive spent on my bicycle life, a bit of an estimate is £300 on clothing, £300 on accessories, £200 on parts keeping (2 bikes) going. There's other things like I spent £££ on a maintenance course, I pay for secure parking, I rent bikes when I visit places on holiday/work. I've had multiple days out where I visited places and spent £££ I never would have on my bicycle. I've stayed in B&B's on holidays and 2 touring trips planned this year.

What else? I've become a member of a local club and advocate cycling to my friends and peers, I'm involved in local issues like transport. I've a interest in cycling as a sport and am lookign forward to getting involved (hopefully!) as a volunteer for the Yorks Grande Depart in 2014. Because I now think more environmentally I recycle more, thats a side effect I didnt even consider when I started.

I'm not even a huge mileage cyclist either, I did (just!) 2500 miles in my first full year, and a little less the second. About the same the 3rd.

So. Is it worthy?

Well what that depends. If we consider 'what would I have spent my £££' on instead. Most likely I'd still be smoking, I'd be drinking more at home and going out. I'd have likely bought and be running a car (unnecessarily) as I passed my test after starting cycling. Mostly likely then the government would have had more £££ from me but at what cost? My health would be worse and the enviornmental impact I have would be greater, commuting would be that little bit worse for everyone with me sat in my car doing the grind to work daily.

So. I ask again is it worthy?

Yes. There are many things that the government can and does get wrong, but this isnt one of them.

 

[srw]

So. I ask again is it worthy?

Yes. There are many things that the government can and does get wrong, but this isnt one of them.

I agree. It's a net subsidy from non-cyclists to cyclists. But it's a good thing.

Since this is a government project, and government is obsessed by assessing the impact of legislation, there is almost certainly a series of fairly rigorous cost-benefit analyses, undertaken both before and after the implementation. If they're not already published they'll be available from a FOI request.

 

[redcard]

One thing that the tax argument is neglecting (although srw did obliquely mention it in his 30%-50% bit) is that the C2W scheme is more attractive to those paying 40% tax. I think in this group the bike would most probably have been bought anyway so the Govt is on a loser here.

It's bizarre so many of you are talking about this being the government's money.

 

[snorri]

So. I ask again is it worthy?
Yes. There are many things that the government can and does get wrong, but this isnt one of them.

There are degrees of worthiness, who is to judge ?
I have to say I find it a little galling to hear of the scheme being used to get a 4th or 5th bike at a reduced rate, to hear of a bike never used, or to get a new bike every year or two.
The original idea was good but monitoring of the scheme seems somewhat lax.

 

[Trickedem]

I think there is something to be said for
The health benefits in getting more people riding bikes. This reduces the burden on the tax payer in other ways.

 

[wiggydiggy]

There are degrees of worthiness, who is to judge ?
I have to say I find it a little galling to hear of the scheme being used to get a 4th or 5th bike at a reduced rate, to hear of a bike never used, or to get a new bike every year or two.
The original idea was good but monitoring of the scheme seems somewhat lax.

Of course, I dont disagree with your or any of the other detractors concerns about it being abused. I do agree with the scheme perhaps needing some tightening up in terms of 'use the bike to commute'. It doesnt even have to be daily either, once a week is a start to get off the petrol and onto the weetabix (so to speak!).

 

[BSRU]

There are degrees of worthiness, who is to judge ?
I have to say I find it a little galling to hear of the scheme being used to get a 4th or 5th bike at a reduced rate, to hear of a bike never used, or to get a new bike every year or two.
The original idea was good but monitoring of the scheme seems somewhat lax.

There seems to be no monitoring, no one, my employer or the taxman, has every asked me how often I use my C2W bike for commuting or leisure.

 

[srw]

It's bizarre so many of you are talking about this being the government's money.

Why? It is.

 

[Ningishzidda]

I know many cyclists who have used the C2W scheme to obtain a new bike for Audax, never to be seen in the company's bike shed.
They ride to work on a tatty old MTB they bought out of the local newspaper.

 

[screenman]

Why can the self employed not get it?

 

[wiggydiggy]

Why can the self employed not get it?

Thats a question for someone other than myself I'm afraid, I dont know. Best guess is they can buy a bike anyway but declare it for business purposes to save tax?

 

[Flying Dodo]

Why can the self employed not get it?

It's because the C2W scheme is only through employers operating PAYE. However, as wiggydiggy says, then a sole trader can buy a bike and claim capital allowances on it, providing the bike will actually be used for business use.