# c2w - should you have to actually cycle to work?



## Sandra6 (30 Jan 2013)

We have a fair few customers collecting bikes on the c2w scheme, I would hazard a guess that less than 10% of them have any intention of actually cycling to work.
They seem to fall into three categories- older chaps who do cycle wanting boardmans for weekend rides, 30 somethings wanting carrera's for two or three weekend rides before retiring the bike to the garage, someone's dad wanting a mtb "to go out with the lad" .
The only one's who absolutely do commute to work seem to be council workmen who do it partly out of sufference (wife has the car) and partly because they know it's doing them good in the long run. 
If we get a woman in wanting one the bike chosen often looks suspiciously like it's going to be a present for an older child, and there was one lady who couldn't understand why we wouldn't sell her a 12inch child's bike on the scheme!
Surely the point of the scheme is to encourage people to leave their cars at home, so shouldn't there be some insistence that participants do just that? 
I'd propose a penalty and if the bike wasn't used for the commute atleast four times a month then they would have to pay for it in full.


----------



## SquareDaff (30 Jan 2013)

I went for a Boardman as I wanted a bike that wouldn't get me beaten up by serious cyclists! 

I agree in principle with what you say. It's slightly irritating that people "bend" the rules for their own personal gain (i.e. get the son/daughter a cheap bike for Xmas) - especially if this results in a worsening of conditions for the intended beneficiary (i.e. cyclists who cycle to work). Just look at the way the scheme has changed (for the worse) the last couple of years. Unfortunately that's the way the world is now and everyone (mostly) looks out for themselves.

As for some sort of policing of the scheme - that would never get off the ground. See comment above about everyone looking out for themselves. No company would want to take responsibility and I suspect the costs involved would be prohibitive anyway!

Good idea in an ideal world though.


----------



## Sara_H (30 Jan 2013)

Sandra6 said:


> If we get a woman in wanting one the bike chosen often looks suspiciously like it's going to be a present for an older child, and there was one lady who couldn't understand why we wouldn't sell her a 12inch child's bike on the scheme!


Is it actually within the rules that you can't by a child's bike on the scheme? Because, one barrier to cycle commuting is that people often have a commitment to taking kids to school en route, so a child's bike could be considered to be part of the necessary commuting equipment.
I bought my mountain bike on the scheme, had no intention of commuting on it - discovered I didn't like mountain biking and turned it into a tourer/commuter with rack and mudguards!


----------



## redcard (30 Jan 2013)

Isn't the c2w scheme the only thing keeping Halfords alive?


----------



## Sandra6 (30 Jan 2013)

Tbh I don't know the full rules, t&c's etc, but as far as I'm aware the bike has to be for yourself. You can buy two bikes, but they both have to be for the same sex-two ladies, or two men's bikes, not one of each.
I know it could never be policed, it's just one of my pet hates at the moment. 
Bending the rules slightly - like buying a mtb as an "extra" - I don't think is too terrible, but buying as a gift to someone else I think is just wrong.


----------



## Sandra6 (30 Jan 2013)

redcard said:


> Isn't the c2w scheme the only thing keeping Halfords alive?


Funny!


----------



## Peteaud (30 Jan 2013)

But you are still paying for it out of your wages,


----------



## martint235 (30 Jan 2013)

HMRC website states:

"the employees must use the cycle or equipment mainly for qualifying journeys. 'Qualifying journeys' means the same as for the works bus exemption (see EIM21850). Other use of the cycle, for instance pleasure use or use by members of the employee's family will not disqualify the exemption provided that the other use is not the main use of the bicycle."

It goes on to say "Employees are not expected to keep detailed records of time spent cycling or miles travelled for the purpose of this 'main use' test. Accept that the test is satisfied unless there is clear evidence to suggest that less than half of the use of the cycle or equipment is on qualifying journeys. If it is clear that there is substantial use of the cycle for qualifying journeys, do not make special enquiries about the extent of any other use."

I assume it would then be up to the employer to re-instate tax on the loan if they felt that the above wasn't being applied. To be honest I can't see an employer bothering (apart from Govt Depts which seem to have a thing about these things).


----------



## martint235 (30 Jan 2013)

Peteaud said:


> But you are still paying for it out of your wages,


But you do get a tax break because of it so effectively the rest of the country is subsidising your bike.


----------



## snorri (30 Jan 2013)

Everyone is at it, Starbucks, bankers, MPs, cyclists.........


----------



## Peteaud (30 Jan 2013)

martint235 said:


> But you do get a tax break because of it so effectively the rest of the country is subsidising your bike.


 
I wish 


Yes thats true, and i am not in total disagreement with the op, but the vast majority is paid for by the cyclist / worker.


----------



## martint235 (30 Jan 2013)

Well you get 20% off more or less or 40% if you're a higher earner minus the final purchase cost which iirc can be deferred for years until it's minimal.

I have to admit I've not looked into C2W too much as yet but will probably use it to buy the next commuter.


----------



## Peteaud (30 Jan 2013)

martint235 said:


> Well you get 20% off more or less or 40% if you're a higher earner minus the final purchase cost which iirc can be deferred for years until it's minimal.
> 
> I have to admit I've not looked into C2W too much as yet but will probably use it to buy the next commuter.


 
I have as my work does it, but it's not for me.

It can be good, and no doubt its good for the industry and a good way of buying a decent bike.


----------



## Sara_H (30 Jan 2013)

martint235 said:


> HMRC website states:
> 
> "the employees must use the cycle or equipment mainly for qualifying journeys. 'Qualifying journeys' means the same as for the works bus exemption (see EIM21850). Other use of the cycle, for instance pleasure use or use by members of the employee's family will not disqualify the exemption provided that the other use is not the main use of the bicycle."
> .


 
Which seems to indicate that a childs bike could be bought on the scheme if it is to be used as I outlined.


----------



## Flying Dodo (30 Jan 2013)

Sandra6 said:


> We have a fair few customers collecting bikes on the c2w scheme, I would hazard a guess that less than 10% of them have any intention of actually cycling to work.
> They seem to fall into three categories- older chaps who do cycle wanting boardmans for weekend rides, 30 somethings wanting carrera's for two or three weekend rides before retiring the bike to the garage, someone's dad wanting a mtb "to go out with the lad" .
> The only one's who absolutely do commute to work seem to be council workmen who do it partly out of sufference (wife has the car) and partly because they know it's doing them good in the long run.
> If we get a woman in wanting one the bike chosen often looks suspiciously like it's going to be a present for an older child, and there was one lady who couldn't understand why we wouldn't sell her a 12inch child's bike on the scheme!
> ...


 
As a good citizen, you should report them to HMRC for tax evasion - online option shown here.


----------



## martint235 (30 Jan 2013)

Sara_H said:


> Which seems to indicate that a childs bike could be bought on the scheme if it is to be used as I outlined.


So long as the main use of the child's bike is for you to get to work, yes.


----------



## Sandra6 (30 Jan 2013)

If the child were cycling along with the adult - to nursery/school before work etc- then yes,in theory. 
I don't imagine anyone's employer has the time to grill them about how many miles they've done, or not done. 
And as it goes through the company HR or wherever, it's possible that your actual "boss" doesn't even know you've bought a bike.


----------



## martint235 (30 Jan 2013)

Rules in my place state that your boss has to actually see the bike and sign that they have done so. Obviously what happens after that will be outside their control.


----------



## Standoff (30 Jan 2013)

My friend and his wife both have bikes on this scheme. He lives on site and she works 120 miles away (stays away during the week).
Another example of one taxpayer subsidising another and government getting involved in areas it shouldn't!


----------



## sidevalve (30 Jan 2013)

The scheme is just another "let's all look as though we're doing something for the environment" government waste of tax payers money, like many cyclepaths that go nowhere or simply are more dangerous than the road they "replace".
Offering empoyers, large stores etc etc incentives to build [and monitor] safe cycle parking might be a better way forward.


----------



## wiggydiggy (30 Jan 2013)

I dont see how anyone can object to someone else getting a bike at all other than perhaps jealousy. The scheme is available anyone employed (full time?) in the uk and if your company doesnt do it, you can either request that they do or help implement it yourselves.

I'm not an expert on C2W, and its intricacies, but anything that gets more bums on saddles is a winner in my book.


----------



## carolonabike (30 Jan 2013)

I initiated our cycle to work scheme just over two years ago and four of us bought bikes. I genuinely thought (hoped) that it would encourage my co-workers to cycle to work especially as they all live less than a mile away. I live 5 miles away and I'm the only one who has ever used the bike for its intended purpose. One walked to work until he left, the other two drive in, every day. It probably takes longer to get the car out than it would to cycle. One of the bikes has been sitting in our basement untouched for the last 18 months . Very disappointing.
On the plus side, I'm fitter and richer than I was, or at least I would be richer but I've spent far more than I've saved on lovely bike related things.


----------



## Standoff (30 Jan 2013)

wiggydiggy said:


> I dont see how anyone can object to someone else getting a bike at all other than perhaps jealousy.


Me neither. Just stop asking me to pay for it!


----------



## wiggydiggy (30 Jan 2013)

Standoff said:


> Me neither. Just stop asking me to pay for it!


 
How are you paying for it? My bike cost £500, I had £500 deducted from my wages. Where's your contribution?


----------



## David Haworth (30 Jan 2013)

wiggydiggy said:


> The scheme is available anyone employed (full time?) in the uk and if your company doesnt do it, you can either request that they do or help implement it yourselves.



Oh if only! You can't get c2w if your employer refuses to do it. My employer claims that the changes to the HR system to accommodate this would be too expensive and won't do it. Not a lot I can do alas. 

What's worse is that I work for the government!

David


----------



## Standoff (30 Jan 2013)

wiggydiggy said:


> How are you paying for it? My bike cost £500, I had £500 deducted from my wages. Where's your contribution?



I apologise. I assumed there was some sort of tax incentive with c2w? Forgive me but if your bike cost £500 and you are paying that amount for it why on earth is government getting involved in this? Just buy the bike yourself!


----------



## wiggydiggy (30 Jan 2013)

David Haworth said:


> Oh if only! You can't get c2w if your employer refuses to do it. My employer claims that the changes to the HR system to accommodate this would be too expensive and won't do it. Not a lot I can do alas.
> 
> What's worse is that I work for the government!
> 
> David


 
Ah sorry to hear that, I could start saying 'well you could protest etc' but having argued with my own employer over things down the years I appreciate sometimes, you just dont get what you want.


----------



## martint235 (30 Jan 2013)

wiggydiggy said:


> How are you paying for it? My bike cost £500, I had £500 deducted from my wages. Where's your contribution?


Well there's the tax that you don't pay on that £500


----------



## wiggydiggy (30 Jan 2013)

Standoff said:


> I apologise. I assumed there was some sort of tax incentive with c2w? Forgive me but if your bike cost £500 and you are paying that amount for it why on earth is government getting involved in this? Just buy the bike yourself!


 
I still dont understand how you have paid for some of my bike?


----------



## wiggydiggy (30 Jan 2013)

martint235 said:


> Well there's the tax that you don't pay on that £500


 
What about it?


----------



## martint235 (30 Jan 2013)

wiggydiggy said:


> What about it?


That is money that is made up for the rest of the country. Ergo the taxpayer subsidises your bike.

Now before this gets out of hand, I actually think that although complicated, C2W is a good thing and a good use of tax funds. I do however have an issue with some of the things that the OP is on about where the bike is for someone else or for someone's sprog.


----------



## Standoff (30 Jan 2013)

wiggydiggy said:


> I still dont understand how you have paid for some of my bike?


Oh the government makes up for the tax reduction then? 
It's like the scrap page scheme. Someone's subsidising someone else. The government ain't got no money. So that will be the taxpayer! Me!


----------



## wiggydiggy (30 Jan 2013)

Standoff said:


> Oh the government makes up for the tax reduction then?
> It's like the scrap page scheme. Someone's subsidising someone else. The government ain't got no money. So that will be the taxpayer! Me!


 



martint235 said:


> That is money that is made up for the rest of the country. Ergo the taxpayer subsidises your bike.
> 
> Now before this gets out of hand, I actually think that although complicated, C2W is a good thing and a good use of tax funds. I do however have an issue with some of the things that the OP is on about where the bike is for someone else or for someone's sprog.


 
Thank you. I knew full well what Standoff was previously implying but I hoped we can debate this sensibly without the sarcasm from Standoff, so I was deliberately not playing so to speak. Sorry for being a bit awkward but I agree it doesnt need to get out of hand and we can talk about this sensibly.

Anyway, my point is there are many schemes, incentives, tax breaks - call them what you like - that we may or may not agree with. In this case Standoff's view is the scheme is unworthy and should not be subsidised, but yours (and mine) is that it is albeit we both acknowledge there are some flaws.

I do stand by my view that as a scheme, that costs the general taxpayer a % to run, this is worthy.


----------



## Beebo (30 Jan 2013)

At times like this we need Norm, our resident C2W expert to sort this out.

Oh! Why did Norm leave again?


----------



## Standoff (30 Jan 2013)

I apologise for any perceived sarcasm. 
I don't apologise for my dislike of such schemes! 
Someone once said..'government taxes it's people quietly...then gives some of it back flamboyantly!'
This is once such example among many. Got a great idea...don't take it off us in the first place!


----------



## DCLane (30 Jan 2013)

I've got a C2W bike and yes, it's to help reduce both the tax I pay _and_ to keep Child Benefit from being reduced by a bit.

I choose to cycle to work 80-100% of the time. The car hardly gets used as a result. However, the C2W bike isn't used much for the commute; I've 5 to choose from and vary them as needed. Does that make me a  tax dodger? I don't think so.


----------



## martint235 (30 Jan 2013)

There are flaws in the system it's accepted it's true. However once it's agreed that it is funded by taxation you can look at whether or not it's worthwhile. From a purely economical view, if say one in 5 bikes purchased helps prevent its owner from becoming obese and needing all the health services entailed in that, then I think it's safe to say it's working. That's before you get in to the more difficult to quantify stuff like how much more effective is a fit and healthy worker.

As I said, my gripe with the system are the people that abuse it and may make it more difficult or less attractive for those who wish to benefit from it in the proper way.


----------



## Sara_H (30 Jan 2013)

wiggydiggy said:


> I dont see how anyone can object to someone else getting a bike at all other than perhaps jealousy. The scheme is available anyone employed (full time?) in the uk and if your company doesnt do it, you can either request that they do or help implement it yourselves.
> 
> I'm not an expert on C2W, and its intricacies, but anything that gets more bums on saddles is a winner in my book.


Many of my colleagues have bought bikes on the scheme, most of whom were already dedicated cyclists.
However,I know of at least two who bought bikes intending to use then on tracks at the weeksends with the kids and ended up using the for commuting. That, to me, is a beautiful thing.


----------



## wiggydiggy (30 Jan 2013)

Beebo said:


> At times like this we need Norm, our resident C2W expert to sort this out.
> 
> Oh! Why did Norm leave again?


 
Did he leave? I didnt notice (embarrassed ), he was much better at C2W than I!



Standoff said:


> I apologise for any perceived sarcasm.
> I don't apologise for my dislike of such schemes!
> Someone once said..'government taxes it's people quietly...then gives some of it back flamboyantly!'
> This is once such example among many. Got a great idea...don't take it off us in the first place!


 
No probs I just wanted to cut through it, and you dont need to apoligise for not liking it as I know its not to everyone's taste!



martint235 said:


> There are flaws in the system it's accepted it's true. However once it's agreed that it is funded by taxation you can look at whether or not it's worthwhile. From a purely economical view, if say one in 5 bikes purchased helps prevent its owner from becoming obese and needing all the health services entailed in that, then I think it's safe to say it's working. That's before you get in to the more difficult to quantify stuff like how much more effective is a fit and healthy worker.
> 
> As I said, my gripe with the system are the people that abuse it and may make it more difficult or less attractive for those who wish to benefit from it in the proper way.


 
The abuse is I agree perhaps an issue, I dont have examples myself but that doesnt mean it doesnt take place. Personally I err towards the the ethical side so I've had 2 bikes in 4 years (I could have a different bike each year) but felt what I had was enough.



Sara_H said:


> Many of my colleagues have bought bikes on the scheme, most of whom were already dedicated cyclists.
> However,I know of at least two who bought bikes intending to use then on tracks at the weeksends with the kids and ended up using the for commuting. That, to me, is a beautiful thing.


 
Yup! Got a few examples of that and unfortunately some examples were they end up sitting in the shed, still you take the rough with the smooth!


----------



## PocketFrog (30 Jan 2013)

I think it's disingenuous to enter into the C2W scheme if you aren't going to adhere to the spirit of it. I have no problem with someone buying a bike but using another because they are still completing a qualifying journey that might otherwise be done in a car.


----------



## Paul99 (30 Jan 2013)

For all the people that think that having a tax break in the C2W scheme deprives the government coffers of money, please take into account all of the bikes that people have bought that probably wouldn't have been bought at all, and the tax revenues generated from these sales.


----------



## srw (30 Jan 2013)

Paul99 said:


> For all the people that think that having a tax break in the C2W scheme deprives the government coffers of money, please take into account all of the bikes that people have bought that probably wouldn't have been bought at all, and the tax revenues generated from these sales.


Very roughly, the government loses 30% to 50% of the purchase price (depending on marginal tax rates) in foregone income tax and NI. It wins 20% of the purchase price in VAT, and about 20% of 5% (1%) of the purchase price in corporation tax.

So the government is a pretty substantial net loser. And that assumes the bike wouldn't have been bought anyway - most people seem to be using the scheme to buy a bike they would have bought anyway.


----------



## Paul99 (30 Jan 2013)

srw said:


> Very roughly, the government loses 30% to 50% of the purchase price (depending on marginal tax rates) in foregone income tax and NI. It wins 20% of the purchase price in VAT, and about 20% of 5% (1%) of the purchase price in corporation tax.
> 
> So the government is a pretty substantial net loser. And that assumes the bike wouldn't have been bought anyway - most people seem to be using the scheme to buy a bike they would have bought anyway.


 
And the very busy bike shops, importers etc that have had to employ more staff to cope with the increased sales. What about their income tax and NI?

And all the accessories bought? I've probably spent about £500 since last November on extras, and will probably continue to spend on other cycling consumables.
And assuming that the bike wouldn't have been bought anyway. I had a perfectly servicable BSO but I bought my bike precisely because of the C2W scheme. I may not have otherwise. I don't think most people would have bought the bike at all, unless of course you are assuming that because of the amount of people on this forum that have done so.

Now how are your sums stacking up? Very roughly.

Edit: And then of course we have those that actually realise they love cycling and then spend £x thousands on N+1 etc.


----------



## srw (30 Jan 2013)

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.


----------



## Kestevan (30 Jan 2013)

And


Paul99 said:


> .
> 
> all the accessories bought? I've probably spent about £500 since last November on extras, and will probably continue to spend on other cycling consumables.
> And assuming that the bike wouldn't have been bought anyway. I had a perfectly servicable BSO but I bought my bike precisely because of the C2W scheme. I may not have otherwise. I don't think most people would have bought the bike at all


 
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).


----------



## Paul99 (30 Jan 2013)

srw said:


> 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 (30 Jan 2013)

Kestevan said:


> 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 (30 Jan 2013)

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 (30 Jan 2013)

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 (30 Jan 2013)

wiggydiggy said:


> 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 (30 Jan 2013)

martint235 said:


> 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 (30 Jan 2013)

wiggydiggy said:


> 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 (30 Jan 2013)

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 (30 Jan 2013)

snorri said:


> 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 (30 Jan 2013)

snorri said:


> 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 (30 Jan 2013)

redcard said:


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


 Why? It is.


----------



## Ningishzidda (30 Jan 2013)

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 (30 Jan 2013)

Why can the self employed not get it?


----------



## wiggydiggy (30 Jan 2013)

screenman said:


> 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 (30 Jan 2013)

screenman said:


> 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.


----------



## screenman (30 Jan 2013)

So the self employed can buy it as long as it is used for business, but the PAYE person can buy it to get to work on. Seems like one rule for one and one for another.

My accountants who happen to be a very large firm said I had no way of claiming it for business use due to the nature of my business.

I do know the rules, just I do not like them as they are open to far to much abuse.


----------



## Flying Dodo (30 Jan 2013)

Different rules for different circumstances. If a self employed person buys the bike, it's a business asset, the same as a van. However, they'd still have to justify the purchase as a legitimate expense, so if the person was running a business hand delivering nappies (for example), using the bike, then that would be acceptable. 

However, you're right that the rules are lax. Certainly in the O/P's comments, the employer should be taking more of an interest in making sure the use is genuine.


----------



## subaqua (30 Jan 2013)

DCLane said:


> I've got a C2W bike and yes, it's to *help reduce both the tax I pay and to keep Child Benefit from being reduced by a bit.*
> 
> I choose to cycle to work 80-100% of the time. The car hardly gets used as a result. However, the C2W bike isn't used much for the commute; I've 5 to choose from and vary them as needed. Does that make me a  tax dodger? I don't think so.


 thats one reason i may well get a bike on the C2W scheme this year. £1000 boardman please.


----------



## subaqua (30 Jan 2013)

screenman said:


> So the self employed can buy it as long as it is used for business, but the PAYE person can buy it to get to work on. Seems like one rule for one and one for another.
> 
> My accountants who happen to be a very large firm said I had no way of claiming it for business use due to the nature of my business.
> 
> I do know the rules, just I do not like them as they are open to far to much abuse.


 do you have a separate business premises that is away from your home?

Thats how one guy who I work with got his on C2W . valid argument that he left his van at the business premises and rode to and from home on it.


----------



## Standoff (30 Jan 2013)

srw said:


> Why? It is.


Cos governments don't have any money. It's our money! Taken from us by threat of jail. Now I can live with paying for hospitals, schools etc but please.....leave government out of schemes like this. Just dont take so much off us in the first place.


----------



## srw (30 Jan 2013)

Standoff said:


> Cos governments don't have any money. It's our money! Taken from us by threat of jail.


 No it's not. It's their money. In the same way that you pay Tescos for the privilege of shopping there, or BT for the privilege of having a phoneline, or your water company for the privilege of running water, so you pay the government for the privilege of living in the country and benefitting from the services you use.


----------



## screenman (30 Jan 2013)

subaqua said:


> do you have a separate business premises that is away from your home?
> 
> Thats how one guy who I work with got his on C2W . valid argument that he left his van at the business premises and rode to and from home on it.


 
I do have separate premises, however it still stands I cannot get relief on a bike. Likewise I cannot like all of us get tax relief on the fuel used to and from my premises.

In reality I have no problem with tax, I just wish everyone paid it to help me out a bit.


----------



## martint235 (30 Jan 2013)

Standoff said:


> Cos governments don't have any money. It's our money! Taken from us by threat of jail. Now I can live with paying for hospitals, schools etc but please.....leave government out of schemes like this. Just dont take so much off us in the first place.


Let's just assume for the moment that cycling to work is a good thing. Makes us fitter, happier, improves mental wellbeing etc. Now if our illustrious leaders said "Ok. What we're going to do is charge you all £80 a month less tax but we'd like you to buy a bike and commute to work", how many people would do so? I think a lot fewer than the number that have said yes to "If you buy a bike and commute to work, we'll give you a tax break that amounts to at least 20% of the cost of your bike AND we'll give you an interest free loan to pay for it"


----------



## carolonabike (30 Jan 2013)

screenman said:


> I do have separate premises, however it still stands I cannot get relief on a bike. Likewise I cannot like all of us get tax relief on the fuel used to and from my premises.
> 
> In reality I have no problem with tax, I just wish everyone paid it to help me out a bit.


You can claim 20 per mile for business travel though, so if you travelled 50 miles a week you could claim £10. Not much, but over a year it would pay for a bike.


----------



## subaqua (30 Jan 2013)

screenman said:


> I do have separate premises, however it still stands I cannot get relief on a bike. Likewise I cannot like all of us get tax relief on the fuel used to and from my premises.
> 
> *In reality I have no problem with tax, I just wish everyone paid it to help me out a bit*.


 
same here, will pay what i have to . C2W helps me reduce what i have to.


----------



## Standoff (30 Jan 2013)

'There money'? Who are 'they'


----------



## martint235 (30 Jan 2013)

carolonabike said:


> You can claim 20 per mile for business travel though, so if you travelled 50 miles a week you could claim £10. Not much, but over a year it would pay for a bike.


Same rules though, it would only apply to business travel not travel to and from the business. Unfortunately. It is one of the failings with C2W, it should be available to everyone. We'll just have to hope. However whilst it is being abused, it's more likely that HMRC will tighten up rather than widen the scope.


----------



## subaqua (30 Jan 2013)

Standoff said:


> 'There money'? Who are 'they'


 UK Plc run by HM Govt for us on our behalf


----------



## screenman (30 Jan 2013)

carolonabike said:


> You can claim 20 per mile for business travel though, so if you travelled 50 miles a week you could claim £10. Not much, but over a year it would pay for a bike.


 

Business travel is not too and from a permanent place of work. Can you tell me how your maths work? the 20p per miles bit.


----------



## Sara_H (30 Jan 2013)

srw said:


> And that assumes the bike wouldn't have been bought anyway - most people seem to be using the scheme to buy a bike they would have bought anyway.


Not me, I would never have been able to afford the bike I bought, the tax break and being able to spread the cost wrked very well for me.


----------



## redcard (30 Jan 2013)

srw said:


> No it's not. It's their money. In the same way that you pay Tescos for the privilege of shopping there, or BT for the privilege of having a phoneline, or your water company for the privilege of running water, so you pay the government for the privilege of living in the country and benefitting from the services you use.


 
Who do you think owns Tesco? Mr Tesco?


----------



## Ningishzidda (30 Jan 2013)

Whose money? The Bank of England.
Read what's printed on a banknote. Its a piece of paper that allows the bearer to use it as currency. A merchant may or may not accept it. 
The country's citizens get given these pieces of paper in exchange for performing manual labour or renting his/her employer their intellectual knowledge.
Private Banks ( Barclays et al ) buy the pieces of paper off The Bank of England with Gold or other precious metals. In order to do this, they buy and sell Gold etc for profit overseas.
With the lots of these pieces of paper they have, they can finance business ( at an interest rate ) so employers can employ employees to do the work making things ( or providing a service to others ).
The Government invent a system to take off the population a certain amount of these pieces of paper in order to provide defence, security, health care, dustbinmen etc.
The Government attempt to take more than they spend so there is a surplus if something dreadful happens, like a war. If there is no war, they spend some of the surplus keeping the population happy. An example is the C2W scheme.


----------



## ComedyPilot (30 Jan 2013)

I got one, and am one of about 20 people in my company that took part.

However, due to only 6 of us cycling to work regularly, my company now refuses to run the scheme again - and I don't blame them.

So, thanks to 14 tossers who bought bikes, used them to ride to work once, people like me have had this helpful tool removed from us - tossers.

Only me and another lad got bikes at my site, and he rode his in to work once, and gave up as it was hard work......knobber.


----------



## Standoff (30 Jan 2013)

subaqua said:


> UK Plc run by HM Govt for us on our behalf


Nonsense. Forced taxes, forced services! What sort of 'company' is that?


----------



## MrJamie (30 Jan 2013)

Sure it's a reduced price bike, but if they're getting a c2w bike and using it for weekend rides only, then they're probably paying plenty more back to the government in petrol revenue (and road tax ) than they would be if they used the bike as intended.


----------



## youngoldbloke (30 Jan 2013)

RE. the OP - yes the bike should be used for journeys to work.

#quote="Trickedem, post: 2284634, member: 17642"]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.[/quote]
Agreed - BUT why restrict concessions to those in employment. Why not bikes on prescription for the obese, and the unfit, VAT free bikes for pensioners?


----------



## Sandra6 (30 Jan 2013)

I never quite thought about it this way, but those who pointed it out are quite right, any cycling is better than no cycling, and I don't begrudge anyone who wants to ride using the scheme to buy a bike as such, but I do think that more should be done to encourage the actual cycling to work part.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (30 Jan 2013)

the rules in our place were that you had to use the bike for 50% of all commuting journeys you make whilst the bike is owned by the employer.

it was never followed up or checked though so the usual abuses were entirely possible. To be fair, of the 3 of us thaty did get bikes under C2W at roughly the same time 2 of us used them 100% of the time, barring the odd 'bring a batch of clean shirts to work' car days


----------



## Hip Priest (30 Jan 2013)

My company implemented the C2W scheme, but it also makes it very difficult for people to access the secure racks in the underground car park. This shows me that it's an environmental box-ticking thing for HR, and not a genuine attempt to get people cycling to work.


----------



## subaqua (30 Jan 2013)

Standoff said:


> Nonsense. Forced taxes, forced services! What sort of 'company' is that?


 have a google for the truck system


----------



## Standoff (30 Jan 2013)

subaqua said:


> have a google for the truck system


I don't need to google it. Fail to see the relevance. Google the fiat money system! We are slaves my friend!


----------



## subaqua (30 Jan 2013)

Standoff said:


> I don't need to google it. Fail to see the relevance. Google the fiat money system! We are slaves my friend!


 what services are forced on you BTW


----------



## Standoff (30 Jan 2013)

subaqua said:


> what services are forced on you BTW


Try not paying your council tax and you'll find out!


----------



## subaqua (30 Jan 2013)

Standoff said:


> Try not paying your council tax and you'll find out!


 you are linford and ICMFP

how are these services forced on you ?


----------



## Standoff (30 Jan 2013)

Lets see. I'd like to see if I could arrange to have my bin emptied in the open market....


----------



## tony111 (30 Jan 2013)

I'm gonna get me a c2w bike. When a motorist gives me the classic moan about not paying road tax, I'm gonna thank him for contributing towards the cost my bike. Can't wait.


----------



## summerdays (30 Jan 2013)

Mr Summerdays did it for one bike, but the next bike he bought he just preferred to buy it outright. 

I hadn't ever thought about getting a child's bike to be valid before but I like the idea that it aids the parent to be able to complete their journey by bike. I did used to do that but had bought the child's bike anyway, but would often see parents claiming they needed to get to work after dropping their children by car (in one case they lived on the same road as the school!!! - I don't think the scheme would have altered their views).


----------



## srw (30 Jan 2013)

Standoff said:


> Nonsense. Forced taxes, forced services! What sort of 'company' is that?



Name somewhere you can live without "forced" interaction with both public and private sectors...


----------



## srw (30 Jan 2013)

Standoff said:


> Lets see. I'd like to see if I could arrange to have my bin emptied in the open market....



Good luck in doing that for less than twice the price you pay for your entire council tax....


----------



## Standoff (30 Jan 2013)

srw said:


> Good luck in doing that for less than twice the price you pay for your entire council tax....


Well my friend in ROI pays about £2.50 to get his bin emptied!


----------



## subaqua (31 Jan 2013)

Standoff said:


> Well my friend in ROI pays about £2.50 to get his bin emptied!


 and look how fooked that economy is , not that ours is much better.


----------



## martint235 (31 Jan 2013)

Standoff said:


> Well my friend in ROI pays about £2.50 to get his bin emptied!


By an industry geared up for it. Go on, get a quote over here and share it with us


----------



## Standoff (31 Jan 2013)

martint235 said:


> By an industry geared up for it. Go on, get a quote over here and share it with us



Well the state has a monopoly on bin emptying at the moment! Open it up to competition and then lets see!


----------



## martint235 (31 Jan 2013)

Standoff said:


> Well the state has a monopoly on bin emptying at the moment! Open it up to competition and then lets see!


No it encourages companies to compete for council based contracts. There is a huge difference. So for example Bexley goes out to tender and gets a price of £1 per bin emptied. Mr Standoff will never, ever achieve that without organising a council sized collective. Oh that would be a council then.


----------



## srw (31 Jan 2013)

Standoff said:


> Well the state has a monopoly on bin emptying at the moment! Open it up to competition and then lets see!


No they don't. They're the only ones doing it for householders because there's no commercial incentive for anyone else to do it. And that, in turn, is because the service that the council _must_ provide is cheap and effective.

Try ringing these guys (phone number on the webpage) and let us know how you get on:
http://www.veoliaenvironmentalservices.co.uk/Main/Services/For-business/Commercial-waste-collection/


----------



## Standoff (31 Jan 2013)

subaqua said:


> and look how fooked that economy is , not that ours is much better.



So you think that big government and state services are the way to a successful economy? 
Apart from government encouraged property and debt bubbles the main reason we are indeed fooked is that successive governments just cannot stop getting bigger and bigger and cannot stop spending more money than the country earns! Silly, grand schemes like the c2w scheme are only the tip of the iceberg.


----------



## subaqua (31 Jan 2013)

yeah OK . am just going to buy some more shares in RTZ as i think the tinfoil price may rise


----------



## Standoff (31 Jan 2013)

srw said:


> No they don't. They're the only ones doing it for householders because there's no commercial incentive ]



There's no commercial incentive because you are forced to pay for it already and I'd be pretty foolish to pay it again! If the council let us source services ourselves I can guarantee the private sector would do it better and cheaper!


----------



## Standoff (31 Jan 2013)

subaqua said:


> yeah OK . am just going to buy some more shares in RTZ as i think the tinfoil price may rise


Do something more useful. Become more self sufficient. Stop relying on your government to do everything for you! Starve the beast!


----------



## subaqua (31 Jan 2013)

Standoff said:


> Do something more useful. Become more self sufficient. Stop relying on your government to do everything for you! Starve the beast!


 what like not giving them more tax


----------



## Standoff (31 Jan 2013)

subaqua said:


> what like not giving them more tax


Exactly. Trust yourself to be able to spend it better than the state.


----------



## subaqua (31 Jan 2013)

Standoff said:


> Exactly. Trust yourself to be able to spend it better than the state.


 so using a scheme such as C2W to pay less tax then


----------



## martint235 (31 Jan 2013)

Standoff said:


> Do something more useful. Become more self sufficient. Stop relying on your government to do everything for you! Starve the beast!


You have heard of economies of scale haven't you? You on your own cannot purchase the services bought on your behalf by central and local Govt. 

I'm sure someone said you were really Linford and he hasn't been around on this thread yet....


----------



## Hitchington (31 Jan 2013)

Sandra6 said:


> We have a fair few customers collecting bikes on the c2w scheme, I would hazard a guess that less than 10% of them have any intention of actually cycling to work.
> They seem to fall into three categories- older chaps who do cycle wanting boardmans for weekend rides, 30 somethings wanting carrera's for two or three weekend rides before retiring the bike to the garage, someone's dad wanting a mtb "to go out with the lad" .
> The only one's who absolutely do commute to work seem to be council workmen who do it partly out of sufference (wife has the car) and partly because they know it's doing them good in the long run.
> If we get a woman in wanting one the bike chosen often looks suspiciously like it's going to be a present for an older child, and there was one lady who couldn't understand why we wouldn't sell her a 12inch child's bike on the scheme!
> ...


Got my bike 2 and a half years ago through c2w and had to sign an agreement saying that I will use it not only to get to work but for all my journeys at work (I work for the council social services doing outreach) and my manager is supposed to check periodically (although she doesn't) that this is the case. But my bottom is practically glued to the saddle as it is a tres nice bike. I probably got the bus to work 2 or 3 times last year when I was ill.


----------



## Standoff (31 Jan 2013)

martint235 said:


> You have heard of economies of scale haven't you? You on your own cannot purchase the services bought on your behalf by central and local Govt.
> .


Of course I've heard of economies of scale. I've also supplied national and local government in the course of my business over the last 25 years. They are the absolute worst purchasers I've come across. You wouldn't believe the waste. They don't care because it not their money. It's how the late Robert Maxwell became rich!
Example.. I demonstrated a machine to the medical control agency a few years ago. They liked it and said they'd want three. Gave me a requisition number and never once asked the price or tried to negotiate a deal for quantity. 
In your example we'd still be buying cars off British Leyland!


----------



## srw (31 Jan 2013)

Standoff said:


> There's no commercial incentive because you are forced to pay for it already and I'd be pretty foolish to pay it again! If the council let us source services ourselves I can guarantee the private sector would do it better and cheaper!



I've given you the contact number. All you have to do is phone them up and find out how much they'd charge you.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (31 Jan 2013)

Whilst I think anything that gets more people cycling is a good thing I think abuse of C2W rules is taking the **** out of your colleagues and taxpayers in general.


----------



## Shut Up Legs (31 Jan 2013)

martint235 said:


> HMRC website states:
> 
> "the employees must use the cycle or equipment mainly for qualifying journeys. 'Qualifying journeys' means the same as for the works bus exemption (see EIM21850). Other use of the cycle, for instance pleasure use or use by members of the employee's family will not disqualify the exemption provided that the other use is not the main use of the bicycle."


B#gger! That would rule me out, then - my commute's the highlight of my day. Very.... er... pleasurable (in a totally above-board and manly kind of way, naturally ).

Seriously, though: if this scheme gets more people cycling, even if they're rorting the scheme, that's a good thing, isn't it? They might actually become regular cyclists, and the more of those the better.


----------



## Standoff (31 Jan 2013)

srw said:


> I've given you the contact number. All you have to do is phone them up and find out how much they'd charge you.


If the council backed out if emptying bins I could negotiate on behalf of my village and I wouldn't only have one number to phone!


----------



## Standoff (31 Jan 2013)

Hitchington said:


> Got my bike 2 and a half years ago through c2w and had to sign an agreement saying that I will use it not only to get to work but for all my journeys at work (I work for the council social services doing outreach) and my manager is supposed to check periodically (although she doesn't) that this is the case. But my bottom is practically glued to the saddle as it is a tres nice bike. I probably got the bus to work 2 or 3 times last year when I was ill.


Council obviously need to employ some c2w compliance officers!


----------



## martint235 (31 Jan 2013)

Standoff said:


> If the council backed out if emptying bins I could negotiate on behalf of my village and I wouldn't only have one number to phone!


And who would then manage the contract for you? How would decisions be made on who to award the contract to? What if one person disagreed and refused to pay? And you can't say "That one person would have to arrange their own contract" because what if they didn't? What if they just left their rubbish next to yours?



Standoff said:


> Of course I've heard of economies of scale. I've also supplied national and local government in the course of my business over the last 25 years. They are the absolute worst purchasers I've come across. You wouldn't believe the waste. They don't care because it not their money. It's how the late Robert Maxwell became rich!
> Example.. I demonstrated a machine to the medical control agency a few years ago. They liked it and said they'd want three. Gave me a requisition number and never once asked the price or tried to negotiate a deal for quantity.
> In your example we'd still be buying cars off British Leyland!


Yeah and there's no waste in the private sector? 

I worked on a central procurement scheme for a couple of years. We saved the Govt millions, and I mean millions, each year on what the suppliers would had sold the product for to the smaller organisations we gave it to for free.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (31 Jan 2013)

srw said:


> No they don't. They're the only ones doing it for householders because there's no commercial incentive for anyone else to do it. And that, in turn, is because the service that the council _must_ provide is cheap and effective.
> 
> Try ringing these guys (phone number on the webpage) and let us know how you get on:
> http://www.veoliaenvironmentalservices.co.uk/Main/Services/For-business/Commercial-waste-collection/


Hmmm Commercial waste collection....

Price band A for "normal" waste
Price band B for "Special Waste"

Who gets to decide what's "Special waste"? The company making out the bill!


----------



## Standoff (31 Jan 2013)

martint235 said:


> Yeah and there's no waste in the private sector?


Well I have a choice in whether I deal with private companies. Which goes back to my original point about forced devices!


----------



## Standoff (31 Jan 2013)

Services


----------



## martint235 (31 Jan 2013)

Standoff said:


> Well I have a choice in whether I deal with private companies. Which goes back to my original point about forced devices!


You didn't answer my questions over your utopian village where you negotiate with a private company.


----------



## Standoff (31 Jan 2013)

martint235 said:


> You didn't answer my questions over your utopian village where you negotiate with a private company.


Same as I negotiate with my window cleaner!


----------



## martint235 (31 Jan 2013)

Standoff said:


> Same as I negotiate with my window cleaner!


It doesn't matter so much if next door don't clean their windows though does it? Are you truly so blinkered or just trolling?


----------



## DCLane (31 Jan 2013)

There is one other benefit for my university for my C2W bike;

Before I could charge 20p/mile for travel between campuses and visits on the bike.
With a C2W I can't - so I've lost any benefit there.

Mind you, I never charged - and realised afterwards that I'd lost out on about £50  in total.


----------



## Standoff (31 Jan 2013)

martint235 said:


> It doesn't matter so much if next door don't clean their windows though does it? Are you truly so blinkered or just trolling?



So I have a different opinion and I'm a troll?


----------



## martint235 (31 Jan 2013)

Standoff said:


> So I have a different opinion and I'm a troll?


So I'll repeat then. Your next door neighbour doesn't like your refuse collection contract and declines to join. What do you do?


----------



## Standoff (31 Jan 2013)

Allow him to source his own method of waste collection! The same as my neighbour does on our trading estate!


----------



## martint235 (31 Jan 2013)

Standoff said:


> Allow him to source his own method of waste collection! The same as my neighbour does on our trading estate!


And if he chooses not to. Suppose he isn't bothered that his drive is covered in ripped black sacks?


----------



## Standoff (31 Jan 2013)

Then he'd be fined for breaking the law


----------



## martint235 (31 Jan 2013)

Standoff said:


> Then he'd be fined for breaking the law


Fined by whom? The council has declared that it's no longer able to provide court services due to people not paying a large part of the council tax. They say they are really sorry but they felt elderly care was a better place to spend what was left.


----------



## Standoff (31 Jan 2013)

martint235 said:


> Fined by whom? The council has declared that it's no longer able to provide court services due to people not paying a large part of the council tax. They say they are really sorry but they felt elderly care was a better place to spend what was left.


Oh yeh right. The same council that's probably advertising for more diversity officers or smoking cessation police. 
Politicised organisations from top to bottom!
Lets agree to differ and get back to bikes. Looks a good day if the wind dies down.


----------



## martint235 (31 Jan 2013)

Standoff said:


> Oh yeh right. The same council that's probably advertising for more diversity officers or smoking cessation police.
> Politicised organisations from top to bottom!
> Lets agree to differ and get back to bikes. Looks a good day if the wind dies down.


You have to accept that some services are better provided from the centre rather than being left to a free for all. I'm not sure that smoking cessation and diversity are included in those services, but then that's what voting is about.

 Rain's stopped here. Don't care about the wind, I'm off out as soon as the postman has been


----------



## srw (31 Jan 2013)

Standoff said:


> Oh yeh right. The same council that's probably advertising for more diversity officers or smoking cessation police.
> Politicised organisations from top to bottom!
> Lets agree to differ and get back to bikes. Looks a good day if the wind dies down.


 You are Patrick Stevens and I claim my fifty pounds.


----------



## Standoff (31 Jan 2013)

srw said:


> You are Patrick Stevens and I claim my fifty pounds.


Does he think that we can't continually look to the state to run our lives as well then?


----------



## wiggydiggy (31 Jan 2013)

Its a pity this has wandered a bit as underlying all this most of us seem to agree that whilst the C2W scheme does offer benefits for both individuals and government alike, its pretty obvious it needs some tighter regulation.

I use the chap who posted that his company only ran it once as most employees didn't use their bikes as intended as an example of this.

But what is to be done, and how?


----------



## youngoldbloke (31 Jan 2013)

wiggydiggy said:


> Its a pity this has wandered a bit as underlying all this most of us seem to agree that whilst the C2W scheme does offer benefits for both individuals and government alike, its pretty obvious it needs some tighter regulation.
> 
> I use the chap who posted that his company only ran it once as most employees didn't use their bikes as intended as an example of this.
> 
> *But what is to be done, and how?*


 
If it is agreed that cycling is a 'good thing' health wise, congestion wise etc etc etc, and the C2W scheme is 'abused' by many - and this abuse is tacitally approved by HMG, presumably because of these positive effects, why not abandon the scheme and encourage everyone to benefit by cutting or even removing VAT on bikes?


----------



## Standoff (31 Jan 2013)

youngoldbloke said:


> If it is agreed that cycling is a 'good thing' health wise, congestion wise etc etc etc, and the C2W scheme is 'abused' by many - and this abuse is tacitally approved by HMG, presumably because of these positive effects, why not abandon the scheme and encourage everyone to benefit by cutting or even removing VAT on bikes?



Because government prefers to take it off you, use a chunk of that money to create more bureaucracy and give you part of it back!


----------



## wiggydiggy (31 Jan 2013)

youngoldbloke said:


> If it is agreed that cycling is a 'good thing' health wise, congestion wise etc etc etc, and the C2W scheme is 'abused' by many - and this abuse is tacitally approved by HMG, presumably because of these positive effects, why not abandon the scheme and encourage everyone to benefit by cutting or even removing VAT on bikes?


 
I'd go for that, I'd go as far as suggesting that we apply extra tax to things that are bad for you (smoking for example) and then we should apply less tax to things that are good for you.


----------



## Leaway2 (31 Jan 2013)

I commute 99% of the time. As my company will not join the scheme this is a "benefit" that is not available to me.


----------



## youngoldbloke (31 Jan 2013)

wiggydiggy said:


> I'd go for that, I'd go as far as suggesting that we apply *extra tax to things that are bad for you (smoking for example)* and then we should apply less tax to things that are good for you.


 I thought we did that already? On booze too, and extra duty on fuel. How about a saturated fat tax as well? And maybe a graduated BMI tax for those exceeding the 'safe' levels ?


----------



## wiggydiggy (31 Jan 2013)

youngoldbloke said:


> I thought we did that already? On booze too, and extra duty on fuel. How about a saturated fat tax as well? And maybe a graduated BMI tax for those exceeding the 'safe' levels ?


 
Kind of, its an Excise Tax and not charged on 'bad' things exclusively. We dont do less tax on 'good' things though?


----------



## srw (31 Jan 2013)

Standoff said:


> Because government prefers to take it off you, use a chunk of that money to create more bureaucracy and give you part of it back!


 I'm sure the Democratic Republic of Congo, or Mali, would be delighted to have you.


----------



## PK99 (31 Jan 2013)

wiggydiggy said:


> I'm not an expert on C2W, and its intricacies, but anything that gets more bums on saddles is a winner in my book.


 
you_ may_ have a point if it is the first bike some one buys - but the use of the scheme to build up a stable of bikes only one of which is used for commuting is fraud (and yes i do know people who have done that)


----------



## PK99 (31 Jan 2013)

Standoff said:


> I apologise. I assumed there was some sort of tax incentive with c2w? Forgive me but if your bike cost £500 and you are paying that amount for it why on earth is government getting involved in this? Just buy the bike yourself!


 
don't apologise he is conning you - he get tax relief on the £500. you help pay for that


----------



## PK99 (31 Jan 2013)

srw said:


> I agree. *It's a net subsidy from non-cyclists to cyclists.* But it's a good thing.
> 
> t.


 
no, it is a net subsidy from all taxpayers, cyclist and non cyclist alike, to a subset of cyclists


----------



## PK99 (31 Jan 2013)

screenman said:


> *Why can the self employed not get it?*


 
they can. i'm not sure of the tax mecanics, but it can be done, just not through paye


----------



## wiggydiggy (31 Jan 2013)

PK99 said:


> you_ may_ have a point if it is the first bike some one buys - but the use of the scheme to build up a stable of bikes only one of which is used for commuting is fraud (and yes i do know people who have done that)


 
Well..... That depends on the scheme and how it is implemented whether it is fraudulent. If you make no additional payment at the end of the loan period to take ownership of the bike, yes potentially fraudulant. If however like me I can buy the bike by paying the value of the tax of the 'fair market value', and then get another bike, no its not fraudulent.


----------



## 400bhp (31 Jan 2013)

srw said:


> Very roughly, the government loses 30% to 50% of the purchase price (depending on marginal tax rates) in foregone income tax and NI. It wins 20% of the purchase price in VAT, and about 20% of 5% (1%) of the purchase price in corporation tax.
> 
> So the government is a pretty substantial net loser. And that assumes the bike wouldn't have been bought anyway - most people seem to be using the scheme to buy a bike they would have bought anyway.


 
Possibly

It has got people into cycling though.

Short term monetary losses, yes the govt loses out, albeit it is immaterial in the grand scheme of things.

Long term, difficult to say, given the net benefits of cycling.


----------



## 400bhp (31 Jan 2013)

I love the c2w scheme and will continue to use it.


----------



## PK99 (31 Jan 2013)

wiggydiggy said:


> Well..... That depends on the scheme and how it is implemented whether it is fraudulent. If you make no additional payment at the end of the loan period to take ownership of the bike, yes potentially fraudulant. If however like me I can buy the bike by paying the value of the tax of the 'fair market value', and then get another bike, no its not fraudulent.


 
It is a condition of receiving the tax relief that the bike is used for commuting - if the bike is bought with no intention of ever using it for commuting and the tax relief taken, that is fraud/tax evasion


----------



## Standoff (31 Jan 2013)

srw said:


> I'm sure the Democratic Republic of Congo, or Mali, would be delighted to have you.


Why do I keep trying to reason with statist socialists! You keep feeding your government my friend. We'll continue the debate when everyone's money runs out. It always does!


----------



## wiggydiggy (31 Jan 2013)

PK99 said:


> It is a condition of receiving the tax relief that the bike is used for commuting - if the bike is bought with no intention of ever using it for commuting and the tax relief taken, that is fraud/tax evasion


 
Abuse by some doesnt make the scheme unworthy though, just highlights what we've already established - that the scheme does need some improvements.


----------



## Dan B (31 Jan 2013)

Standoff said:


> There's no commercial incentive because you are forced to pay for it already and I'd be pretty foolish to pay it again! If the council let us source services ourselves I can guarantee the private sector would do it better and cheaper!


Where do you buy your electricity from?


----------



## thegravestoneman (31 Jan 2013)

I've been getting it wrong all these years I 'work to cycle' as no one else pays for my bikes, trikes unicycles etc.damn!


----------



## Dan B (31 Jan 2013)

srw said:


> You are Patrick Stevens and I claim my fifty pounds.


Since when did Patrick ever talk about bikes?


----------



## Standoff (31 Jan 2013)

Dan B said:


> Where do you buy your electricity from?


EON... I think?
Before you tell me how much electricity has risen have a look at council tax bills compared to fifteen years ago!


----------



## GrumpyGregry (31 Jan 2013)

PK99 said:


> you_ may_ have a point if it is the first bike some one buys - but the use of the scheme to build up a stable of bikes only one of which is used for commuting is fraud (and yes i do know people who have done that)


Explain how it is fraud?

I've built up such a stable and no fraud was involved.

I'm currently minded to get a cargo bike on C2W, one would be useful having no car of my own, but I've not yet done so simply because I can't see how I would use a cargo bike for the majority of its use as a commuter (largely because I've got better commuting bikes.)

But here's the thing... this thread has made me think The shops are just less than a km away. Work is 20km away. One trip to work and back on a cargo bike buys me 19 return trips to the shops/town and the cargo bike would still be being used for the majority of its use as a commuter. So I'd only need to ride it to work once every 5 or so months to keep within the rules. Ride it to work for a week when it is new and I reckon; job done

I may just get one anyway.


----------



## PK99 (31 Jan 2013)

[quote="GregCollins, post: 2286575, member: 5193"*]Explain how it is fraud?*

I've built up such a stable and no fraud was involved.

.[/quote]

from the official guidance to firms setting up a scheme




> 4) Scope of tax exemption
> The exemption removes the tax charge that would otherwise apply to cycles and cyclists' safety equipment loaned to employees provided the following conditions are met
> 
> Ownership of the equipment is not transferred to the employee during the loan period;
> ...


 
If someone takes a bike on the scheme which they have no intention of using for qualifying journeys then that is fraud/tax evasion


----------



## JayBear (31 Jan 2013)

Interesting debate here. (Sorry for jumping in, long time lurker, first time poster)

For my own interest how far does the term journey made between home and workplace stretch? I'm new to this cycling malarkey and have signed up to the c2w scheme as a way of accessing a much more shiny steed that I would otherwise have shelled out for to replace the biffer of an old raliegh that I have resurected from the parentals garage.

My prime useage will be that I will effectivley "walk" my bike to work in the morning ( at least 3 out of 5 mornings is the plan) as I walk to work up a foot path repleat with a generous helping of steep and sharp concrete stairs, and I'm not a morning person at the moment so a morning ride just isn't going to happen yet. Come home time I will don my finest cycling tracksuit bottoms and go for a pedal up the local cycle path that the council and sustrans have kindly provided.

So, I don't 'need' a bike to get to work as I live less than half a mile from work and walk anyway. But I'm hoping that having the 'must use for 50% of journeys to work' caveat will actually guilt me into motivating myself for the actual purpose of having a bike, which is for me to accumulate some fit and loose some fat for the other sports that I play. My rides after work will be from work to home, but are more often than not going to include riding an "out and back" that requires cycling very close past my flat, so I'm not really following the spirit of the scheme, or am I? (I told the bloke who administers our scheme this plan and he didn't cast me out of his office in a mist of righteous fury at my haenous defrauding of the public purse.)


----------



## Theseus (31 Jan 2013)

PK99 said:


> If someone takes a bike on the scheme which they have no intention of using for qualifying journeys then that is fraud/tax evasion


 
... but if you mainly use the bike for getting to work it isn't.

I could have (if my wife would let me) 100 bikes, all got through C2W (difficult as I think you are only allowed 1 bike per loan period). Now, so long as I mainly ride each of them to work during thier loan period, I qualify.

i.e. let's take bike No. 57. If during the course of the loan period (1 year say) I ride it to work twice and go to the shops once on it, It qualifies. There is nothing saying I can't ride any of the other 99 bikes during the rest of the year to get to work. As far as that bike is concerned it has been mainly used to get to work. Now, once the loan period is over and I pay the final settlement, it is no longer a C2W bike & I own it outright so I can do with it what I want.


----------



## Theseus (31 Jan 2013)

JayBear said:


> Interesting debate here. (Sorry for jumping in, long time lurker, first time poster)
> 
> For my own interest how far does the term journey made between home and workplace stretch? I'm new to this cycling malarkey and have signed up to the c2w scheme as a way of accessing a much more shiny steed that I would otherwise have shelled out for to replace the biffer of an old raliegh that I have resurected from the parentals garage.
> 
> ...


 
By my rekoning you qualify. See my previous post. If you ride it home, even on an extended route 5 days / week and ride it twice over the weekend for fun, you are still mainly using it for qualifying journeys.


----------



## wiggydiggy (31 Jan 2013)

JayBear said:


> <SNIP>


 
Apologies for the snip, I did read your post!

I've encouraged some people myself who have very short journeys to use C2W, I think my proudest achievement is someone that swapped from a 1.5 mile drive onto a bicycle - job done lol


----------



## Monsieur (31 Jan 2013)

I'm currently looking at this option to buy a Dawes Karakum - the bike would be used frequently during spring/summer/autumn for longer rides but would also be used now and again for travelling to/from work in the more clement weather.
I don't have access to showers at work so car would still be my main mode.


----------



## PK99 (31 Jan 2013)

Touche said:


> ... but if you mainly use the bike for getting to work it isn't.
> 
> I could have (if my wife would let me) 100 bikes, all got through C2W (difficult as I think you are only allowed 1 bike per loan period). Now, so long as I mainly ride each of them to work during thier loan period, I qualify.
> 
> it.


 
yes, bending the rules, but not breaking them.

Legally ok. And presumably morally ok if you are happy to pocket the tax saving while expecting a poorly paid nurse to pay her tax to fund your saving.

But that is not the circumstance i initially described..... correction, i have just checked back and my post was poorly worded: I meant buying a fleet of bikes most of which are never intended to be used a a commuter bike. I know folks who already had a bike or few who have bought eg an MTB, a tourer, a nice summer road bike all on the scheme and have never used any of them for commuting. that is abuse of the sysstem pure and simple.

The scheme was intended to encourage non cyclists to cycle. but as with all Tax allowances clever folks find a way to qualify when the scheme was not intended for them.


----------



## Theseus (31 Jan 2013)

PK99 said:


> SNIP


 
Not a lot of disagreement from me on most of that.


----------



## DRHysted (1 Feb 2013)

[quote="youngoldbloke, post: 2286359, member: 2740"And maybe a graduated BMI tax for those exceeding the 'safe' levels ?[/quote]
Please no, I could never hit my "safe" BMI, as it is so inaccurate a measurement. Remember most rugby players are way above their "safe" zone.


----------



## ankaradan (1 Feb 2013)

It does seem that the scheme, as it is run at present, is open to misuse. It is not an equitable system, if it depends on your employer's willingness to participate. It also seems unfair to single out cycling for a tax break. If you choose to run or walk to work, shouldn't you be able to get tax relief on your expensive trainers.
From a personal point of view, I would not be happy that a fully waged person can get tax relief on a bike and then not use it, whilst I, as a pensione, am not granted the same tax break.


----------



## subaqua (1 Feb 2013)

DRHysted said:


> [quote="youngoldbloke, post: 2286359, member: 2740"And maybe a graduated BMI tax for those exceeding the 'safe' levels ?


Please no, I could never hit my "safe" BMI, as it is so inaccurate a measurement. Remember most rugby players are way above their "safe" zone.[/quote]
most rugby players are a damn sight fitter than the general sort of person who doesn't fit into a BMI slot. but i do agree that BMI is a obblox way of determining health. waist size is far better. as is body fat %age. not easy to determine accurate fat %age though apparently.

and yes i fit into a unhealthy BMI zone- of 31 to get to the healthy normal of 25 I would look seriuosly ill - and my doctor has told me that.


----------



## Sara_H (1 Feb 2013)

PK99 said:


> yes, bending the rules, but not breaking them.
> 
> Legally ok. And presumably morally ok if you are happy to pocket the tax saving while expecting a poorly paid nurse to pay her tax to fund your saving.
> 
> ...


Speaking as a poorly paid nurse, I don't mind my tax helping to fund the cycle to work scheme. Rather that than the Somalian pirates swimming lessons.


----------



## redcard (1 Feb 2013)

PK99 said:


> yes, bending the rules, but not breaking them.
> 
> Legally ok. And presumably morally ok if you are happy to pocket the tax saving while expecting a poorly paid nurse to pay her tax to fund your saving.



Simple logic, but poorly paid nurses don't pay much tax, so they're lucky if they're funding 3 bikes between them all.

So, no. Nurses aren't funding the c2w scheme.


----------



## jowwy (1 Feb 2013)

nobody is funding it really - does my fellow work colleague pay more tax to make up the short fall on my c2w bike. no he doesnt he pays the same tax he would have paid if i didnt have the bike.

so in a nutshell the govt is funding it - not the nurses, teachers, police officers, soldiers and certainly not the local mp's.

nothing else to see here, so lets move on now there's good little children.


----------



## redcard (1 Feb 2013)

jowwy said:


> ....nothing else to see here, so lets move on now there's good little children.



Your closing remark would carry more weight if it came from someone who knew how punctuation worked.


----------



## Hitchington (1 Feb 2013)

Standoff said:


> Council obviously need to employ some c2w compliance officers!


Surely that would be a waste of taxpayers money?


----------



## Standoff (1 Feb 2013)

Hitchington said:


> Surely that would be a waste of taxpayers money?


Why would that stop them?


----------



## Sara_H (1 Feb 2013)

redcard said:


> but poorly paid nurses don't pay much tax.



My pay slip begs to differ.


----------



## JayBear (1 Feb 2013)

I'm not a nurse, but I'm not the most remunerated person in the world. If all of my tax contributions direct to the c2w scheme that I have ever made were refunded to me today I would be stunned if it was elegible for anything more that a penny rebate. Probably not even that.


----------



## Hitchington (1 Feb 2013)

Standoff said:


> Why would that stop them?


On the one hand you complain about wasteful bureaucracy (i.e. the state) but you suggest that my employer (the council) create posts to check up whether or not I travel to work on a bike obtained through c2w scheme. I'm confused


----------



## Standoff (1 Feb 2013)

jowwy said:


> so in a nutshell the govt is funding it - not the nurses, teachers, police officers, soldiers and certainly not the local mp's.


The 'government' is funding it is it? 
I suppose that seeing we are spending roughly ten billion more a month than we as a country pay in tax then the government is borrowing money to pay for the c2w scheme. 
So in actual fact your children and their children will be paying for your bike! 
Still... Won't be our problem then will it?


----------



## Standoff (1 Feb 2013)

Hitchington said:


> On the one hand you complain about wasteful bureaucracy (i.e. the state) but you suggest that my employer (the council) create posts to check up whether or not I travel to work on a bike obtained through c2w scheme. I'm confused



Was being ironic hitchington! 
What do you do at the council may I ask?


----------



## Hitchington (1 Feb 2013)

Standoff said:


> So in actual fact your children and their children will be paying for your bike!


If other people's children are personally paying for my bike I should have got a more expensive one, GODDAMNIT!


----------



## Hitchington (1 Feb 2013)

Standoff said:


> Was being ironic hitchington!
> What do you do at the council may I ask?


Essential work in a social services department that's under attack by an ideologically driven government


----------



## Hitchington (1 Feb 2013)

Got the day off as AL today, so don't worry everyone, I'm not wasting taxpayers money posting here!


----------



## Standoff (1 Feb 2013)

Hitchington said:


> Essential work in a social services department that's under attack by an ideologically driven government



Well that's one thing that I do blame thatcher for! It was her government that started the welfare explosion (it really was) and led to the enormous growth in social issues and the required armies of social workers and other 'agencies' to cater for the result!


----------



## jowwy (1 Feb 2013)

redcard said:


> Your closing remark would carry more weight if it came from someone who knew how punctuation worked.


and there was me thinking that this was an online cycling forum and not an english lesson.

ah well


----------



## PK99 (1 Feb 2013)

jowwy said:


> nobody is funding it really - does my fellow work colleague pay more tax to make up the short fall on my c2w bike. no he doesnt he pays the same tax he would have paid if i didnt have the bike.
> 
> *so in a nutshell the govt is funding it* - not the nurses, teachers, police officers, soldiers and certainly not the local mp's.
> 
> .


 
Errm, who funds the government? Let me give you a clue: Everyone who pays taxes. That is why tax avoidance in all its forms is morally unacceptable


----------



## jowwy (1 Feb 2013)

PK99 said:


> Errm, who funds the government? Let me give you a clue: Everyone who pays taxes. That is why tax avoidance in all its forms is morally unacceptable


its getting boring now people - move on.


----------



## wiggydiggy (1 Feb 2013)

jowwy said:


> its getting boring now people - move on.


 
Please yes, can everyone who wants to discuss the whys and wherefores of UK government and its taxation policies, the social welfare system of the uk and whether or not it is possible to have your bin emptied privately cheaper than the council does it - I'm sure there is a focus group somewhere you can join.

Everyone else, who wants to consider perhaps how the C2W scheme _could_ be improved as (I keep banging this drum lol) yes its of value but it needs some work - feel free to stick around.

Cheers!


----------



## Standoff (1 Feb 2013)

PK99 said:


> Errm, who funds the government? Let me give you a clue: Everyone who pays taxes. That is why tax avoidance in all its forms is morally unacceptable



I find it morally unacceptable to be made to pay for illegal wars, bankers, duck houses, John prescotts meals, John Prescott, other people's kids, other people's bikes....


----------



## PK99 (1 Feb 2013)

wiggydiggy said:


> Everyone else, who wants to consider perhaps how the C2W scheme _could_ be improved as (I keep banging this drum lol) yes its of value but it needs some work - feel free to stick around.
> 
> Cheers!


 
ok: going back to the original question:
*c2w - should you have to actually cycle to work?*


Yes - and anyone who takes a C2W bike not intending to use it to cycle to work is a thief.


----------



## srw (1 Feb 2013)

Standoff said:


> I find it morally unacceptable to be made to pay for illegal wars, bankers, duck houses, John prescotts meals, John Prescott, other people's kids, other people's bikes....


 There's a special place for that sort of discussion. Post over there and you'll get ritually shredded to bits a robust a vigorous debate.


----------



## Standoff (1 Feb 2013)

Why didn't you respond to the post saying it WAS morally unacceptable to avoid tax?


----------



## Standoff (1 Feb 2013)

Actually, don't. Call it a day. Got to get some work done. Other people's bikes won't pay for themselves!


----------



## subaqua (1 Feb 2013)

Hitchington said:


> Got the day off as AL today, so don't worry everyone, I'm not wasting taxpayers money posting here!


 why are you not out cycling . or do you have a C2W bike that you must only use for work


----------



## Hitchington (1 Feb 2013)

subaqua said:


> why are you not out cycling . or do you have a C2W bike that you must only use for work


Haha! I have been out on it (but don't tell), after giving it a good clean!


----------



## matthat (28 Feb 2013)

I've now had 3 bikes over last 4 yrs and I've regularly commuted on mtb and hybrid and am now purchasing a defy (still waiting for scheme cheque ) I have never once been questioned by Hr which bike i use or other whether i still own the bikes i've purchased through scheme as i have opted for keeping them for the full 3 yrs. Although I am regularly seen with helmet and jacket and hump cover on rucksack which gives the game away.


----------



## pixiepie (28 Feb 2013)

I'm about to buy a bike on the cycle to work scheme and I've had to sign an agreement saying I'll use it for at least 50% of my journeys (which I will easily). The paperwork I've signed says that if I end up not using the bike to commute, I have to tell them and the payments will be taken from my net pay so I don't benefit from any tax breaks. Basically, the scheme works on you being honest as there's no way of realistically enforcing it.


----------

