Why have VAT on bikes?
- Thread starter knonist
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Arch
Married to Night Train
- Location
- Salford, UK
jay clock said:
The possibilities are endless...
I wonder how much it would help persuade people to start cycling. I've listened to people listing why they don't cycle to work for example, and cost isn't often high up - there's danger, the weather, no showers, I'm not fit enough.... You can get a bike, second hand, say, for relatively little money (or even new, for a few hundred), and the amount of kit you really NEED is minimal - lock, pump, basic tools, lights. Still way cheaper than driving or public transport, even if you have the bike serviced by a pro every year.
The winners would be those who spend most, and that's going to be people who are already hooked, so the country pays (via the reduction in tax revenue) for people to enjoy their hobby. In fact I get the feeling this happens a fair bit with the current tax break scheme.
Sure it would be nice if bike stuff was cheaper, but then it would be nice if good booze was cheaper, or chocolate, or meals in restaurants.
beanzontoast
Guru
- Location
- South of The Peaks
Garz said:
My understanding is that if you work for a charity, you are unable to take part in the scheme because of the VAT issue. This seems very unfair.
MacB
Lover of things that come in 3's
- Location
- Farnborough, Hampshire
nigelnorris said:
You also need to factor in that there won't be any discounts etc, you'll pay full list price.
beanzontoast said:
Organisations can only lose the VAT if they collect it from their customers/clients, so the savings are less for non VAT organisations like large parts of the public sector and charities, possibly food producers.
My, civil service, employer also recovers finance costs. The saving is 23.54% before the 3-5% final payment.
If you shop around and maybe buy last year's model you my well do better
nigelnorris
Well-Known Member
- Location
- Birmingham
I''ve not heard that before, must depend where you go. Evans charge you the shop floor price, sale stuff is sold to you at sale price with the exception of short term voucher type deals. For example I bought my bike just after the Birmingham store had opened and they had an introductory 10% off all bikes bought from that store for the first month via a voucher printed in the loacal paper. I asked but it was quite clearly printed on the voucher that this 10% wouldn't be factored into the C2W price, however any across-the-company discount such as those featured in it's website is included in the C2W price. So bikes just in a regular fixed length sale are sold at the sale price.MacBludgeon said:
MacB
Lover of things that come in 3's
- Location
- Farnborough, Hampshire
nigelnorris said:
it's generally perceived that a cash buyer will be able to do some sort of deal. If you've got a C2W voucher the shops won't offer the same deals. This can further reduce your savings down to maybe 20%. Still worth doing but very different from headline savings like 60%.
jmaccyd
Well-Known Member
I have always wondered about the effect of tax on changing behaviour. It does seem logical to encourage activites that add to the general good of society as a whole (sorry, an old socialist writing here) So lower the cost of biking, give a milage allowance (however small) to those that commute by bike, allow the self-employed to claim back the cost of fitness activites. So, as a self-employed person why can't I claim back the cost of GYM membership or even the decent running shoes I have to buy every year on my self-employed tax form? What about funding it, well simple stick VAT on the fatty foods and activities to finance it!
My point is: if there is already a government scheme to offer approx 30% discount on bikes, instead of one must participate the scheme though their employer; why can’t the government waive the VAT/ discount at source to make things simpler and more widely available to EVERYONE in the country?Miquel In De Rain said:
nigelnorris
Well-Known Member
- Location
- Birmingham
Maybe because there is a likelihood that the savings would mostly be garnered from the genuinely luxury end of the market, high end road bikes, tourers, TT bikes, mountain bikes and assorted exotica rather than than the intended target of commuting kit. Yes I know you can argue that any of the above can be used to commute but [I think that] in most cases they wouldn't, they would be bought by experienced cyclists to carry out their intended purpose rather than would-be commuters looking to invest in day-to-day transport. So instead of getting cars off the street all that would happen is that us leisure cyclists would be riding round on more expensive road bikes etc. I'd have Ultegra by now instead of Tiagra, nice. By compelling employers to maintain the various schemes they are attempting to police the use of the bikes that are bought and ensure that they are getting people out of cars.knonist said:
I presume that's why they legislated the £1000 cap also.
They could just get you to sign up to a club/scheme directly vetted by the government. A body could be chosen to provide the 'loan' and privately agree the total fee and payback methods. Nigel is correct though as the commuters really only need to spend under £500 for a decent bike, anything over £1000 would seem greedy and be more difficult to pay off in times where redundancy is higher.
It's still not flexible enough and encouragement to get people to ditch the cars hasn't scratched the surface if they want to make a bigger impact.
It's still not flexible enough and encouragement to get people to ditch the cars hasn't scratched the surface if they want to make a bigger impact.
