Nigel Cliffe said:Ian Smith said:Tim Woodall said:On 18 Aug 2006 20:44:40 GMT,
Ian Smith <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
> But since it's a voluntary scheme, if it isn't worth doing for a
> particular individual, they simply don't do it.If his scheme is as good as yours then definitely, yes. If his
scheme is like what I've heard of where your only savings are tax
and NI on the salary sacrifice of the full cost of the bike then
it's borderline.The OP could be saving a few hundred pounds, or he could be saving
about 50-100. In return for which he is having to wait several
(summer) months to get the bike.Tell you what, if a hundred quid is so pointless / borderline to you,
I'm willing go to all the bother of finding something to do with it,
if you send it to me.Stop being silly.
The point Tim is making is whether its worth missing a summer's cycling
for between 50 and 70 saved on a 500 bike.
I'm not sure anyone did miss a summers cycling. If someone does not
have a bike and their employer mandates waiting until some specific
time to use the scheme, then it's back to the case of employers making
the scheme non-useful. Which is something I agreed could happen ages
ago.
Depending on personal circumstances, it may well be worth delaying
receipt of a new bicycle for 70 gbp - it won't shorten the life or
usefulness of the bicycle, and actually it has a much greater benefit
than that wrt cashflow if that is an issue for someone.
I really genuinely absolutely don't understand the point of the
discussion - if the scheme available to you is [censored], don't do it.
No brainer. No problem. Surely?
Was it all simply a case that the OP wanted to post observations about
the toilet habits of bears?
regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|