Cash for commuting

nice idea, but as you say, difficult to monitor, I suppose. Good that there's some sense in the papers

At least I can direct the next boofhead motorist I speak to the article.

I rode 18,000km last year, but I drove only 8500km (!!!), virtually none of which was in peak hour, but I still payed the $540,000,000,000 rego for me car

Wouldn’t it be easier to encourage (Melb) CBD businesses to introduce wider range of work hours, taking advantage of earlier & later shift hours for more office-based businesses?
That would alleviate peak hour traffic & open up opportunites for public transport to profitably run wider enhanced schedules. Also there would be flow on effects for retail businesses making Melb the kind of town that almost never sleeps….

vaudegiant said:

In today's Age,

"STATE cabinet is coming under internal ALP pressure to consider
radical solutions to Melbourne's worsening traffic congestion.
These include giving financial bonuses to motorists who agree to use
their cars only during off-peak times...........
He calls on the Government to consider cut-rate registration fees for
motorists willing to use their cars only outside peak congestion
times."
"For this to succeed, the charges would have to be substantially
lowered and/or further incentives introduced," he writes. "A similar
discount could be made available for weekend-only use."

http://tinyurl.com/dg2mm

It would seem that financial incentives are now on the table, but in
reference only to motor vehicle owners. Might be a good time to send
Tony Robinson a little note suggesting that if car owners are going to
be paid not to drive (how will they police this????) then surely
commuting cyclists deserve similar consideration.

Why do we need middle class welfare to ride bikes?

They're already cheaper, faster (sometimes!) and much better for us.
Building regs these days (so I believe) require facilities for bike
parking and changing clothes etc too I think?

Petrol's back up to $130/l, and it won't go far south ... what more
incentive does anyone need?!

quote='Bleve'vaudegiant said:

In today's Age,

"STATE cabinet is coming under internal ALP pressure to consider
radical solutions to Melbourne's worsening traffic congestion.
These include giving financial bonuses to motorists who agree to use
their cars only during off-peak times...........
He calls on the Government to consider cut-rate registration fees for
motorists willing to use their cars only outside peak congestion
times."
"For this to succeed, the charges would have to be substantially
lowered and/or further incentives introduced," he writes. "A similar
discount could be made available for weekend-only use."

tinyurl.comdg2mmOpen ↗

It would seem that financial incentives are now on the table, but in
reference only to motor vehicle owners. Might be a good time to send
Tony Robinson a little note suggesting that if car owners are going to
be paid not to drive (how will they police this????) then surely
commuting cyclists deserve similar consideration.

Why do we need middle class welfare to ride bikes?

They're already cheaper, faster (sometimes!) and much better for us.
Building regs these days (so I believe) require facilities for bike
parking and changing clothes etc too I think?

Petrol's back up to $130/l, and it won't go far south ... what more
incentive does anyone need?![/QUOTE]
Yeah! If anything cycling's getting TOO popular! Another at the office joined the ranks of commuting cyclists today, I may have to wait for a shower if this carries on!

In all seriousness though there's a bit of inequity going on here. My bike's my transport so I should be able to salary sacrafice my bike, running expenses etc just the same as one whos transport is a car. How come they get to reduce their taxable and we don't? That's just plain not fair.

Forget that I come out way ahead in the long run 'cause bikes are so much cheaper, that's not the point. Motorists can salary sacrafice, cyclists can't. That's wrong.

EuanB said:

Bleve said:

vaudegiant said:

In today's Age,

"STATE cabinet is coming under internal ALP pressure to consider
radical solutions to Melbourne's worsening traffic congestion.
These include giving financial bonuses to motorists who agree to use
their cars only during off-peak times...........
He calls on the Government to consider cut-rate registration fees

for

Quoted message said:

motorists willing to use their cars only outside peak congestion
times."
"For this to succeed, the charges would have to be substantially
lowered and/or further incentives introduced," he writes. "A similar
discount could be made available for weekend-only use."

http://tinyurl.com/dg2mm

It would seem that financial incentives are now on the table, but in
reference only to motor vehicle owners. Might be a good time to send
Tony Robinson a little note suggesting that if car owners are going

to

Quoted message said:

be paid not to drive (how will they police this????) then surely
commuting cyclists deserve similar consideration.

Why do we need middle class welfare to ride bikes?

They're already cheaper, faster (sometimes!) and much better for us.
Building regs these days (so I believe) require facilities for bike
parking and changing clothes etc too I think?

Petrol's back up to $130/l, and it won't go far south ... what more
incentive does anyone need?!

Yeah! If anything cycling's getting TOO popular! Another at the
office joined the ranks of commuting cyclists today, I may have to wait
for a shower if this carries on!

In all seriousness though there's a bit of inequity going on here. My
bike's my transport so I should be able to salary sacrafice my bike,
running expenses etc just the same as one whos transport is a car. How
come they get to reduce their taxable and we don't? That's just plain
not fair.

They pay more taxes, for starters. Fuel is some 50% or so tax.
Then there's rego, GST on parking, GST on parts, maintenance, oil,
headache tablets, medicine, gym membership, physio, astrologer etc etc
etc. Do the sums, you're miles ahead.

Quoted message said:

Forget that I come out way ahead in the long run 'cause bikes are so
much cheaper, that's not the point. Motorists can salary sacrafice,
cyclists can't. That's wrong.

Maybe it's wrong that motorists can salary-sacrifice? 🙂

EuanB said:

Yeah! If anything cycling's getting TOO popular! Another at the office joined the ranks of commuting cyclists today, I may have to wait for a shower if this carries on!

In all seriousness though there's a bit of inequity going on here. My bike's my transport so I should be able to salary sacrafice my bike, running expenses etc just the same as one whos transport is a car. How come they get to reduce their taxable and we don't? That's just plain not fair.

Forget that I come out way ahead in the long run 'cause bikes are so much cheaper, that's not the point. Motorists can salary sacrafice, cyclists can't. That's wrong.

I suppose they _could_ allow salary sacrificing for bicycles, but the 15,000km a year minimum to get the FBT rate reduction would be out of reach for most.

You might also consider that leasing and salary sacrificing is a pretty crappy deal at the moment for all except (a) the highest earners; and (b) those that do >25,000km/year (preferably 40,000km). Our high rate of leasing is killing the late model ex-fleet market and leasing companies are adjusting their residual values as a result. I did my sums and decided to buy a car outright this time rather than lease again.

Ritch

In aus.bicycle on 15 Jan 2006 20:02:45 -0800

Bleve said:

Maybe it's wrong that motorists can salary-sacrifice? 🙂

Hello Dorothy Dix, nice to meet you 🙂

I've just asked my HR dept if I can salary sacrifice a pushbike.
Let's see what they say!

Hmm.. what do you reckon for running costs?

New helmet every 2 years (quiet Theo!), new shoes every 2 years (quiet
hippy!), but how many grams of Nutrigrain per km?

Zebee

In aus.bicycle on Mon, 16 Jan 2006 13:48:05 +1100

Marx SS said:

Wouldn’t it be easier to encourage (Melb) CBD businesses to introduce
wider range of work hours, taking advantage of earlier & later shift
hours for more office-based businesses?

Biggest hassle is that you'd only get early. Why? Because the early
bird gets the parking, and doesn't leave "on time".

I bet most people who drive into the city don't leave early. They
might stay on for a drink, or just not leave hoping to beat the
traffic.

You'd have to convince people that if they came in late they'd get
parking because the ones who came in early would have left. Big ask.

Zebee
- who can travel in later on wet days because of all the fair weather
bikers. On a fine day the motorcycle parking is gone by 8:30, on a
wet day I can cruise in at 10 and find vacant spots. The only secure
pushbike parking I've so far found is chockers early too.

Zebee Johnstone said:

In aus.bicycle on 15 Jan 2006 20:02:45 -0800

Bleve said:

Maybe it's wrong that motorists can salary-sacrifice? 🙂

Hello Dorothy Dix, nice to meet you 🙂

I've just asked my HR dept if I can salary sacrifice a pushbike.
Let's see what they say!

Hmm.. what do you reckon for running costs?

New helmet every 2 years (quiet Theo!), new shoes every 2 years (quiet
hippy!), but how many grams of Nutrigrain per km?

Zebee

Ew, is your bike on of _those_ old Nutrigrain models? Mine is one of the
new ones, runs on 5-10% ethanol. Bring on the beer, and wine, and
spirits...

Tam

quote='Bleve'EuanB said:

In all seriousness though there's a bit of inequity going on here. My
bike's my transport so I should be able to salary sacrafice my bike,
running expenses etc just the same as one whos transport is a car. How
come they get to reduce their taxable and we don't? That's just plain
not fair.

They pay more taxes, for starters. Fuel is some 50% or so tax.
Then there's rego, GST on parking, GST on parts, maintenance, oil,
headache tablets, medicine, gym membership, physio, astrologer etc etc
etc. Do the sums, you're miles ahead.
[/QUOTE]

Do you read a whole post before replying or just hit reply and start typing? I'm assuming the latter otherwise you'd have read:

Euan said:

Quoted message said:

Forget that I come out way ahead in the long run 'cause bikes are so
much cheaper, that's not the point. Motorists can salary sacrafice,
cyclists can't. That's wrong.

and seen that I know I'm way ahead of the salary sacraficing motorist.

Quoted post said:

Maybe it's wrong that motorists can salary-sacrifice? 🙂

There is that, espeically when you have to do MINIMUM kilometers to maintain the tax benefit. That's just so wrong!

On 2006-01-16, Bleve (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Quoted message said:

Petrol's back up to $130/l, and it won't go far south ... what more

^^^^^^

Oooh! Is it that bad already! Coolies!

--
TimC
Center meeting at 4pm in 3C-273.

On 2006-01-16, Zebee Johnstone (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Quoted message said:

In aus.bicycle on 15 Jan 2006 20:02:45 -0800

Bleve said:

Maybe it's wrong that motorists can salary-sacrifice? 🙂

Hello Dorothy Dix, nice to meet you 🙂

I've just asked my HR dept if I can salary sacrifice a pushbike.
Let's see what they say!

It's not yet legal in Australia. So they'll come back and say nay.

Quoted message said:

Hmm.. what do you reckon for running costs?

New helmet every 2 years (quiet Theo!), new shoes every 2 years (quiet
hippy!), but how many grams of Nutrigrain per km?

I go through about $5 of extra fruit per day when cycling.

Man, that seriously messes up your digestive system at first, when the
body is getting used to it.

I wonder if that parma and pot today counts?

--
TimC
If it weren't for C, we'd be writing programs in BASI, PASAL, and OBOL.

Zebee Johnstone said:

Hmm.. what do you reckon for running costs?

New helmet every 2 years (quiet Theo!), new shoes every 2 years (quiet
hippy!), but how many grams of Nutrigrain per km?

Zebee

Add on for running costs:

Service x1/5000km
Tubes x2/5000km
Tyres x2/5000km
Chain x1/5000km
Cluster x1/15000km
Chainrings x2/20000km
Bottom bracket x1/20000km
Headset x1/20000km
Wheels x1/20000km
Frame x1/50000km

Indicative values only but roughly based on my experience. Of course there are ways to stretch the life of these things further but a novated vehicle is always kept serviced at regular intervals, new tyres etc, why should the bike be any different.

Of course now some one will tell me that the rode 100,000km on one set of tyres and they were commutiong a thousand k's a week on dirt tracks on the silk cords that were remaining!

PiledHigher

PiledHigher said:

Zebee Johnstone said:

Hmm.. what do you reckon for running costs?

New helmet every 2 years (quiet Theo!), new shoes every 2 years (quiet
hippy!), but how many grams of Nutrigrain per km?

Zebee

Add on for running costs:

Service x1/5000km
Tubes x2/5000km
Tyres x2/5000km
Chain x1/5000km
Cluster x1/15000km
Chainrings x2/20000km
Bottom bracket x1/20000km
Headset x1/20000km
Wheels x1/20000km
Frame x1/50000km

Indicative values only but roughly based on my experience. Of course
there are ways to stretch the life of these things further but a
novated vehicle is always kept serviced at regular intervals, new tyres
etc, why should the bike be any different.

Of course now some one will tell me that the rode 100,000km on one set
of tyres and they were commutiong a thousand k's a week on dirt tracks
on the silk cords that were remaining!

Yeah that was me! How did you know?

Tam

Why do we need middle class welfare to ride bikes?

They're already cheaper, faster (sometimes!) and much better for us.
Building regs these days (so I believe) require facilities for bike
parking and changing clothes etc too I think?

Petrol's back up to $130/l, and it won't go far south ... what more
incentive does anyone need?!

Those incentives to which you quite rightly refer matter less if drivers are able to obtain further incentives to keep driving. Its a bigger question than whether it's middle class welfare. The consideration is whether to manipulate driver behaviour by rewarding certain types of behaviour. If it is good enough to do this with motorists, then why not cyclists (or more importantly, potential cyclists). If the argument against it is one of unneccessary 'middle class welfare' for cyclists, then the same should apply to motorists, and let's then cancel all subsidies for motoring.

COLOR=Blue]They pay more taxes, for starters. Fuel is some 50% or so tax.
Then there's rego, GST on parking, GST on parts, maintenance, oil,
headache tablets, medicine, gym membership, physio, astrologer etc etc
etc. Do the sums, you're miles ahead.

I may well be miles ahead (although many people these days have company cars and are immune to many if not all the costs) but that doesn't mean that the gap should be narrowed by a driving subsidy. Drivers may well pay more taxes (only in relation to car ownership), but I could possibly pay more tax overall than many drivers.

Considering the negative impact that unneccessary driving is having on Melbourne (financial, environmental, public health, public space etc) and the very many positive aspects of cycling, why shouldn't commuting cyclists be allowed access to what motorists already are.

Pat

EuanB said:

Bleve said:

EuanB said:

In all seriousness though there's a bit of inequity going on here.

My

Quoted message said:

bike's my transport so I should be able to salary sacrafice my bike,
running expenses etc just the same as one whos transport is a car.

How

Quoted message said:

come they get to reduce their taxable and we don't? That's just

plain

Quoted message said:

not fair.

They pay more taxes, for starters. Fuel is some 50% or so tax.
Then there's rego, GST on parking, GST on parts, maintenance, oil,
headache tablets, medicine, gym membership, physio, astrologer etc etc
etc. Do the sums, you're miles ahead.

Do you read a whole post before replying or just hit reply and start
typing? I'm assuming the latter otherwise you'd have read:

You assume incorrectly, but understandably.

Quoted message said:

Euan said:

Quoted message said:

Forget that I come out way ahead in the long run 'cause bikes are so
much cheaper, that's not the point. Motorists can salary sacrafice,
cyclists can't. That's wrong.

and seen that I know I'm way ahead of the salary sacraficing motorist.

Yes, but you're whinging about it being unfair. I don't think it's
unfair as such, I think the concessions given to car drivers are wrong,
and that the redress for that is not to take more money out of the
public purse, but rather, to remove the car driver's welfare system.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Maybe it's wrong that motorists can salary-sacrifice? 🙂

There is that, espeically when you have to do MINIMUM kilometers to
maintain the tax benefit. That's just so wrong!

Absolutely and utterly agree with you here. The novated lease scheme
is absurd and environmentally evil. It's a rort such that high income
earners can get cars for free and then drive them everywhere because
they have to. It's right up there with negative gearing in terms of
gross and obscene rorting of the public purse.

Sorry 'bout the rant, I'm just sick to death of people trying to rip
off "our" tax system to line their pockets and buy more widescreen
TV's

TimC said:

On 2006-01-16, Zebee Johnstone (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Quoted message said:

I've just asked my HR dept if I can salary sacrifice a pushbike.
Let's see what they say!

It's not yet legal in Australia. So they'll come back and say nay.

I thought it was legal, but there isn't a concessional FBT rate
so you pay 48.5 cents in the dollar as FBT. That is, there is
no financial advantage to doing it, but it is more likely that
you will be worse off.

If you work for the government there may be some other loop holes
you can exploit. My wife worked at a hospital and for a while was
able to salary sacrifice home loan repayments.
Perhaps in that sort of job you could salary sacrifice a bike.
Does the FBT concessional rate for cars also apply to motorbikes?

On 2006-01-16, Bleve (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Quoted message said:

Absolutely and utterly agree with you here. The novated lease scheme
is absurd and environmentally evil. It's a rort such that high income
earners can get cars for free and then drive them everywhere because
they have to. It's right up there with negative gearing in terms of
gross and obscene rorting of the public purse.

Is negative gearing a necessary evil, perhaps?

I quite like having cheap (by mortgage standards) rent, because some
investor is getting most of their money off the government.

--
TimC
"`Ford, you're turning into a penguin. Stop it.'" -THHGTTG

Zebee Johnstone said:

Biggest hassle is that you'd only get early. Why? Because the early
bird gets the parking, and doesn't leave "on time".

.

That's true, but the traffic would be less to/from work.
Besides parking space is dependant on availability. There still would the same X number of total commuters spaces as always & I suppose there is always that 5-10% of capacity that's not currently catered for, which is sort elsewhere. But that occurs regardless. If you're on 'lates' as it were, you'll get used to where to find a place for your car/bike/rollerblades.

I was mostly looking at traffic on the roads & the crush on pblic t/port.