In message <[email hidden]>, Simon Brooke <[email hidden]> writes
Quoted message said:
The basis of the scheme is: the employer buys the bike, and reclaims VAT. The employer gives the bike into the employee's keeping, and the employee (at least theoretically) uses it to ride to work. Over three years the value of the bike is written down on the employer's books to virtually nothing ('depreciation'😉 at which point the employer sells the employee the bike for 50p. In the meantime the employer can pay for servicing and maintenance (it's 'their' bike after all).
Last year I forwarded the relevant URLs to the HR director at my work. I heard nothing until an announcement at the last staff meeting a couple of weeks ago about benefits being extended.
Among a number of proposed perks was the half price bike and/or computer scheme - though the director making the announcement (not the HR director) seemed not quite able to fathom why anyone would want a half price bike.
More details to follow, I hope.
-- congokid Good restaurants in London? Number one on Google http://congokid.com
On 14 Feb 2005 11:59:04 GMT, Mark Thompson <[email hidden]> wrote in message <[email hidden]>:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Neither. They are almost without exception Works of Stan, which should be smashed in and done away with as soon as possible.
Quoted message said:
So it's you that has been making them unrideable by scattering pieces of glass all over them.
Point of information, Mr Speaker: they were largely unrideable beforehand, requiring no additional broken glass to achieve this feat.
Guy -- "then came ye chavves, theyre cartes girded wyth candels blue, and theyre beastes wyth straynge horn-lyke thyngs onn theyre arses that theyre fartes be herde from myles around." Chaucer, the Sheppey Tales
"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
You probably won't convince her - its most likely an emotional not logical issue for her.
Quoted message said:
Emotional???? What a pile of sexist [censored] is this!!!!!!
Who said it is sexist? There is no logic to her arguement. If the same argument came from a man there would still be no logic to it. It would be an emotional arguement either way.
I think you are reading it through slightly tinted glasses, rather than taking the facts as they stand.
Over three years the value of the bike is written down on the employer's books to virtually nothing ('depreciation'😉 at which point the employer sells the employee the bike for 50p.
That's where it goes wrong. When they sell it to you if its below the market value you would pay tax/NIC on the benefit in kind you are receiving. So if the market value was say £200 at that point and you paid 50p for it you would be taxed on the £199.50 difference. The depreciated book value is irrelevant otherwise companies could buy a car, store it for 12 months and write it down over that period and then sell it to the employee for 50p.
For low depreciation bikes like Bromptons it probably works out much more expensive this way.
Only if you want to misinterpret it as such. In this circumstance it
Quoted message said:
was a she but if it had been a man I would have made exactly the same
Quoted message said:
comment.
Tony
You've rather slaughtered your own argument there Tony. I too think her problem is likely to be emotional, but unlike you I didn't make the assumption that it's related to her gender.
Only if you want to misinterpret it as such. In this circumstance it
Quoted message said:
was a she but if it had been a man I would have made exactly the same
Quoted message said:
comment.
Tony
You've rather slaughtered your own argument there Tony. I too think her problem is likely to be emotional, but unlike you I didn't make the assumption that it's related to her gender.
?????? How on earth do you make that conclusions from what I said?
?????? How on earth do you make that conclusions from what I said?
Tony
Whoops, I'm really sorry, I misread the quoting completely. I agree completely with you, I don't think there was anything sexist about your original comment.
A fellow employee at my new job is a little vocal about the fact that I am having a bike shed provided for me.
What good arguments can I use to convince that it is no big deal.
I thought about trying to discover how much it costs to provide a car-space (and hoping that it is more than the land occupied by my shed)
There is also the fact that by me not using a car, it is easier for her to park her car.
What other arguments can you provide me with?
Thanks, Rich x
Not much help but I wouldnt bother - you will likely only get the same kind of response you get when you try to reason with the uk.tossport brigade.
We could play uk.tosspot bingo.
Everyone picks three [censored] arguements. The winner is the first person to have all three quoted by Richard's victim..
I'll go first:
"cyclists don't pay road tax" "Roads were made for cars" "Cyclists shouldn't get preferential treatment" (like car drivers don't when the company provides parking spaces but not cycleracks)
He he.. nasty thought.
How about a DIY sheffield rack? Get a couple of large concrete blocks, a sheffield stand that can be attatched to them, and plonk it in the middle of a parking space (you will need a sack truck or similar to move appropriately sized blocks.) then lock your bike to it. That surely must be fair, one parking space per person.
Emotional???? What a pile of sexist [censored] is this!!!!!!
Am I the only one who assumed this was tongue-in-cheek? ;-)
I think not. To make a comment like that in earnest would be more a Thornbury-ism than the response of an intelligent being. A womans-hour extremist might perhaps have taken offence, but not with not with that level of excess punctuation.
Over three years the value of the bike is written down on the employer's books to virtually nothing ('depreciation'😉 at which point the employer sells the employee the bike for 50p.
That's where it goes wrong. When they sell it to you if its below the market value you would pay tax/NIC on the benefit in kind you are receiving. So if the market value was say £200 at that point and you paid 50p for it you would be taxed on the £199.50 difference. The depreciated book value is irrelevant otherwise companies could buy a car, store it for 12 months and write it down over that period and then sell it to the employee for 50p.
Don't shoot the messenger. It's legal and treasury approved. Whether it's good accounting practice isn't for me to say. All I said is it's an exceedingly tax-efficient way of paying a bonus to cyclists.
Try: "Yes, good, isn't it? Plus, with the IR176 scheme, they will pay half the cost of the bike as well."
It's a registered charity - do the same tax rules apply?
As the charity is your employer, then for income tax and NI, yes. For VAT, probably not. Simplification of horribly complicated rules coming up. Most charities can't register for VAT because they aren't providing VATable services. Even if they do e.g. by running a retail outlet, the VAT they can recover is limited to the costs incurred by that part of their activities. So unless what you do for your employer is for the purposes of something VATable, the VAT won't be reclaimable.
IANA(T)L, but I am a tax accountant, although it's ten years since I worked as one. -- Air Geordis - TNG footwear Steph Peters delete invalid from [email hidden] Tatting, lace & stitching page <http://www.sandbenders.demon.co.uk/index.htm>
