The problem is partly just the name of the scheme, and that the people at the bottom can’t access it. You’d think the goal would be to get as many people as possible using it, since more people cycling would naturally improve both physical and mental health. More people riding bikes the better imo.
I must say, I like Convert's version of the scheme.
Currently commuting on a proper utility bike bought through C2W, (mudguards, rack, dynamo lights, etc. would qualify) but have definitely abused it in the past. 🙋♂️
I've said it a million times, but a scheme where manufacturers/dealers could submit a model to be verified as a commuter/shopper specific model and if approved it is sold without attracting VAT.
Maybe with a sensible (£1k?) limit to keep things simple for people buying bikes from LBSs that typically sell less common brands that might not bother.
But yea, allow brands to submit a list of utilitarian bikes that are specifically for commuting or domestic use and meet some criteria like no suspension, supplied with full racks, guards and panniers (minimum capacity 35kg to avoid some plastic bags being attached to an S-Works Enduro) and exempt them from VAT so that everyone benefits equally.
I think:
Splitting the scheme value between electric assist / not and having different limits for each class has merit. Capping the Ebike limit at £4k would allow a decent (non Surrey Hills weapon) to be purchased. £2k for a non-web is inline with original scheme / inflation.
As a higher rate tax payer, I shouldn't be getting higher rate tax relief on a benefit like this - cap it at the lower rate.
Ah fair enough I suppose.
I've used it 4 times (abused as some might say) all for mid to high end MTBs which almost never got used for actual travel. I'll miss the savings, especially as a higher rate payer. It was pretty easy to 'buy' a nice new bike, run it for 2 years and sell it for not much less than what it cost me, thanks to Covid I made a few hundred quid once!
"I assume the tax breaks on cars will similarly be cut? oh of course not........"
Possibly, all these suspected measures are somewhere between leaks from Labour to test the water, made up by other parties to give them a platform to argue / fight or just clickbait.
Cars have been hit a few times recently, the only meaningful ones are on EVs or a least very efficient cars when the BIK is lower than the tax rate. It's a measure to cut local pollution for the sake of air quality and possibly over-all pollution. Obviously a lot of people, especially cyclists are quite anti-car and would prefer more bikes, buses, trains and fewer cars, but it's a democracy so you can't have everything we want.
Anyway, EVs are no longer exempt from the Luxury Car Supplement, which puts a lot of them you might not consider a 'Luxury' car into a £600 (ish) a year VED for 6 years because EVs are still more expensive than ICE cars. Subsidises for EVs were withdrawn, but then came back for some.
"Or is it a case of every little helps ?"
This, the Government, whatever you think about them took on a horrible task. National Debt has been increasing wildly since 2008. Banking crisis, Brexit, Covid, Wars, impending / protentional Wars. Nearly £3tn in debt, plus billions lost value through QE. The interest payments on our debt it growing making a bad situation worse.
The economy is on a knife edge, has been pretty much continually since 2008. Unemployment is growing, vacances are down, GDP is flat, interest rates stuck because of inflation, few good news stories to pin a recovery on.
The Sad part is, Labour still won't go near the two massive elephants in the room. 1) Brexit, they say there's a 4% bump in GDP if we rejoin the single market 2) Wealth Taxes, it's been the same story forever, create a myth of a 'middle class' people who mostly still need to work to pay the bills, but because they've got a bit more than average they're no longer working class. Then all 'they' have to do once the line is drawn is get us to fight each other, left v right, Working v Middle, North v South it doesn't matter. We argue about bikes, cars and a penny of income tax on which bracket here or there, blame the middle, blame the bottom, blame the unemployed and sick, blame the boats... But whatever you do, leave the Rich ones alone, give them lots of nice, but complicated ways to avoid any tax.
The closet we came was the 'farmer' tax. Everyone in 'the city' knows it's a scam that actually hurts real farmers. Just let a few millionaires and billionaires buy up all the agricultural land in the UK, before we left the EU they didn't even have to farm it, just take the money. Let it appreciate way, way past the actual value it would have as a way to sell food, and use it to ensure your family will always be generationally wealthy, doesn't matter if they're clever or stupid, hardworking or plain lazy, it doesn't matter, like the Lords before them, they've been born to never join the rat race. The fact that young farmers who actually want to make food can't afford to buy land, ever better, we can rent it to them at just enough to make it sort of worth doing.
Everyone has a different point of view here.
But assuming the main point of the scheme is to make it cheaper / more attractive to cycle to work rather than drive your car - then it should stay in some form. 2 reasons here I can see - less pollution and traffic into cities / built up areas and the health benefits of regularly cycling rather than sat on your bum in the car.
On the above basis, then why limit it to lower or higher paid people - keep it for all. Higher paid people also like to save money and it could still encourage them to use a bike rather than a car.
The only reason there’s a bigger saving for higher earners is because they’re paying a higher tax rate to start with - it’s not like the intention of the scheme is give bigger benefit to higher earners.
That said the scheme does get abused - e.g above where someone intends to buy an expensive e-mtb that is not required for a commute for 99% of people. Maybe there’s an extreme use case where a commute could be off-road - but there are cheaper e-bikes that would cover this off.
How you beat this kind of use is tricky - ideally it would be a check to make sure you are commuting to work regularly - but this is an admin burden on someone that would cost £££. Realistically it would be on the employer I’d think and they could just pull out of offering the scheme if this was expected.
Value of bike could be restricted - maybe a £2.5k-£3k limit which still allows for a decent mid motor commuter ebike but will rule out the majority of full suspension mountain bikes. At a glance you could still get an e cargo bike in this budget - although not a fancy one. On the Bristol / Bath cycle track I do see people using these - sometimes dropping kids to school on the way to work.
Limiting the type of bike - not sure about this one - who makes that decision? I think commuting on a road or gravel type bike is something you see a lot of - my C2W bike is a gravel bike with road components - picked because you can run mudguards and panniers to make a commute more bearable throughout the winter. You don’t need it to be a madly expensive thing though and a £2.5k budget gets you something more than good enough. I’d argue £1.5k on that sort of bike would do the job with an alloy frame / rack mounts etc.
On balance - looking at the above just a maximum value of voucher is probably the cheapest to implement and would have the most affect to stopping c2w being abused.
Leaving aside the point of the scheme - will putting a cap actually make any difference to the budget? Which would be the point of changing it I assume.
If only 6% of bikes are over 2k (from a previous poster above), i'm going to take a stab in the dark and say that most of those are going to be largely higher income earners, who are using the scheme to reduce taxable income to either keep child benefits/free childcare/avoid the 100k 62% marginal rate (the bike being a nice side benefit). I imagine anyone who was doing that, isn't going to go "oh ok, i'll now go and buy my 5k bike and pay taxes on it", they're going to go "oh I still need to reduce my taxable income, i'll shove it in my pension and not buy a bike". And thus no new taxes, all that's been achieved is that the money into the economy has been reduced. You can argue the moral side of it etc but I suspect it will have no or nearly no impact on the money available to the chancellor.
It looks as if the Cycle to Work Scheme is going to be targeted in the up and coming budget, reducing the total spend allowable & trying to bring it back to providing financial assistance for commuters rather than for high-end non-commuter bikes.
It's liable to have an impact on the struggling bike industry as a whole I suspect.
Good, it should have been brought in for those who actually need cheap transport, I’ve never earned a high enough wage to be a beneficiary of the scheme but whilst working in the shop I saw exactly how the scheme was used/abused
And thus no new taxes, all that's been achieved is that the money into the economy has been reduced. You can argue the moral side of it etc but I suspect it will have no or nearly no impact on the money available to the chancellor.
Actually, less taxes, because VAT.
Everyone knows the scheme isn't doing what it is supposed to. This will probably hit me but it's hard to complain.
the limit at my workplace didn't go high enough as all the available cargo bikes at the time were e-bikes and thus around the £3-4k mark, so I went second hand instead.
I bought a cargo ebike on CTW and actually rode it to work! Cycle to Work has totally distorted that market - it doesn’t make sense to buy a perfectly good second hand cargo ebike when for the same pretax money you can get a new one.
I’ve never earned a high enough wage to be a beneficiary of the scheme but whilst working in the shop I saw exactly how the scheme was used/abused
Completely agree I got a £8,200 bike last year for roughly half that amount. IMO the true value of the bike would be the £4,500 it actually cost me.
However I don’t know anyone who can afford to walk in to a bike shop and spend £8,200 on a bike
The industry is going to have to do some serious rethinking on its RRP for products as top end bike just are not going to shift after this and further taxes that will be put on to wealthy people.
I don't think it should be scrapped necessarily but am comfortable with it being capped at something like £2k.
I've used it two or three times and not once cycled to work. Think the most I spent was around £1600? I happily would but distance and the danger of the road I use stops me. Obviously I may be able to work closer to home soon and the worst bit of the road is getting a huge upgrade just in time for any changes in C2W to kick in! 😆
I also have a salary sacrifice car. When it started the idea was to get people out of heavily polluting vehicles and in to the £30 tax bracket ones which seemed like a sensible thing to do. I guess it's less effective these days as virtually every car falls in to the lower polluting bracket although it's boosting a shift to EV's now (whether that's good or bad is up to you?). Anyway, it's not really that much cheaper than going to a garage and buying on PCP or lease unless you find a very specific deal floating around.
It's certainly driven inflation in the bike industry higher than CPI. That said I can't see bikes dropping in price to reflect that.
As an aside - how old is that picture on the Guardian article!!
Bike industry inflation is nearly all cost driven. If demand for bikes is further reduced, it’ll mean more shops close and more brands are sold to the likes of Mike Ashley for peanuts and turned into labels stuck on cheap rubbish.
How much revenue will it actually bring in?
Or is it a case of every little helps ?
If the point is bringing in money, the fuel duty escalator needs to restart. The duty cut reversed etc.
If the point is politics then go ahead and target C2W, and yes the scheme isn't perfect, but it currently suits certain large companies who cream admin fees off every transaction.
The industry is going to have to do some serious rethinking on its RRP for products as top end bike just are not going to shift after this and further taxes that will be put on to wealthy people.
More shops go bust, brexit bumped prices because of import duty, that UK wages have been falling for decades relative to everyone else further erodes value. Welcome to a global market where the UK isn't that important.
Sample size of 1, but my C2W bike gets used most days to cycle to work.
Yes, it was expensive, because I wanted a bike that would be (a) nice to ride and (b) nice to look at, but its main use is cycling to work.
But to be honest I think this has nothing to do with fixing perceived problems in the scheme. It's much more that Labour just fancy having a go at higher earners. Reverting to type. Disappointing, but hardly a big surprise.
But to be honest I think this has nothing to do with fixing perceived problems in the scheme. It's much more that Labour just fancy having a go at higher earners.
It reads like the bad old days of Tory "government". Leak a policy idea to the Daily Mail and if it's popular, run with it.
This ticks all the boxes. Nice bit of anti-cycling rage bait. Higher earners (ssshhhh, don't mention the SUV drivers!). Tax breaks for Them.
Doesn't really matter that actually it'll make bugger all difference to the Treasury bottom line or the tax bill. It's very important that you're Seen To Be Doing Something even if that Something is worse than useless.
But to be honest I think this has nothing to do with fixing perceived problems in the scheme. It's much more that Labour just fancy having a go at higher earners. Reverting to type. Disappointing, but hardly a big surprise.
And look at who actually voted Labour... not who Labour think are their supporters.
Labour just fancy having a go at higher earners. Reverting to type
And that would be logical if an election was just around the corner ..... remember the tax on private schools which was just a vote winner and nothing more.
Slight tangent to the main thread, but I bought a new lawnmower recently from a Honda dealer. it made me absolutely realise that something is very wrong in the push bike industry. I could buy an almost new sports motorbike or enduro motor bike for less than I paid for my emtb last year (ok mtb before SS) . These machines are engineered to far higher standards than mtbs and comparable /cheaper in price. If it wasnt for there being an increased chance in death driving a motor bike, I know where I would be going
Should have bought your emtb second hand then. Why do people always compare apples to oranges when looking at motorbikes and e-bikes (or any bike)?
You can get a £3750 grant to buy an electric car. Here you go, just short of £4k, thats yours. enjoy.
They could give away Tern Quickhauls for less money.
Ive never used C2W, ive always thought it was stupid it mainly seems to be spent on s****y mountain and road bikes, and fancy lights. They would be much better getting sensible e-cargo bikes into the hands of people who cant afford them, rather than subsidising IT consultants hobbies.
even if theyre not used for C2W, getting suburban people out of their cars is valuable. I dont know anyone who has tried an e-cargo bike and not been converted. Possibly a self selecting sample, as you need to be able to commit a few £k to try one out, but still.
I could buy an almost new sports motorbike or enduro motor bike for less than I paid for my emtb last year (ok mtb before SS) . These machines are engineered to far higher standards than mtbs and comparable /cheaper in price. If it wasnt for there being an increased chance in death driving a motor bike, I know where I would be going
They look fancy on the outside, but inside is often incredibly rudimentary.
The frame? Ducati made a big deal about making their high end frames from CrMo, the rest (even at ducati) are made from alloys you'd turn your nose up at on a bike (both steel and aluminium) and carbon isn't really a thing beyond cosmetic trinkets. And you can forget about beautiful TIG welds on all but the fancy bikes it'll be a bit more agricultural and covered in thick powder coat.
The suspension, RockShox has Charger Damper, and somewhere below that there's the Motion Control Damper, and somewhere below that is the Turnkey damper, and somewhere below that is this thing which is the typical damper from Showa forks. The little springs are there so you don't lose your fillings when it tops out. No shims, no check valves, no adjusters just some holes drilled in a flared steel tube.
[Img] 
[/IMG]
The engines and gearboxes, yea there's more going on there than an e-bike, but probably less than you'd think (because we're talking simple motorbikes that cost about the same as a push bike, not a £34,000 Goldwing).
remember the tax on private schools which was just a vote winner and nothing more.
It's another perceived "easy" labour win isn't it?
Higher earners/tax payers getting 'another' tax break, stokes the fire meanwhile Labour will just shaft everyone but the very rich and mega-corporations and blame it on those getting the perceived breaks.
Value of bicycles accessed through the scheme % of Cycle to Work Scheme users
Under £200 8%
£201 to £400 16%
£401 to £600 21%
£601 to £800 9%
£801 to £1,000 21%
£1,001 to £1,200 5%
£1,201 to £1,400 2%
£1,401 to £1,600 6%
£1,601 to £1,800 1%
£1,801 to £2,000 3%
£2,001 and over 6%
Don’t know or can’t remember 1%From here. Not immediately clear whether that is just from their sample or all users of the scheme.
Hmmm,
Noting:
The survey interviewed 438 individuals who had used the Cycle to Work scheme in the past 5 years (between 2017 and 2022),
From those 2017-23 figures (gathered from 438 interviewee's memories, not an actual dataset?) it looks like the encompassed £400-1000 Bracket(s) account for a substantial chunk (~%50) and that maybe the perception that I and other have that the scheme is widely abused is incorrect and maybe sits at less than %6 of C2W users (???)...
I'd Still Cut off the high earners and set a £2k cap (Pretty much the modern inflation adjusted equivalent of the 1999 £1k cap) for normal (un-assisted) bikes, a higher cap for eeebs would be appropriate (IMO).
I also wonder if the %24 covered by the Sub £400 brackets is more accessories/parts than bikes? - Considering that a Tourney equipped Carrera Subway is most normal people's idea of "a Basic Bicycle" and is available today for ~£350, a bike in that lower bracket is entirely available today, we can argue over it's quality and/or suitability for commuting.
The only reason there’s a bigger saving for higher earners is because they’re paying a higher tax rate to start with - it’s not like the intention of the scheme is give bigger benefit to higher earners
Irrespective of intention, the outcome is still that higher rate earners save proportionately more than those on a basic rate.
That's not really what I'd consider 'fair' and/or equitable if anything it should be the other way round, i.e. those with fewer means should save proportionately more with C2W.
Wealthier people don't deserve (or in fact need) bigger financial breaks from the state... To be clear I'm talking about myself here, I pay a higher rate, I do have the means to buy a decent commuter bike without assistance from government I don't feel it is morally right for me to be handed a bigger benefit than someone who earns less...
Should have bought your emtb second hand then. Why do people always compare apples to oranges when looking at motorbikes and e-bikes (or any bike)?
A new Honda CB500 Hornet is £1k less than an Orbea Wild M10. I think he has a point.
These machines are engineered to far higher standards than mtbs and comparable /cheaper in price. If it wasnt for there being an increased chance in death driving a motor bike, I know where I would be going
This is such a fallacy. Cheap motorbikes are just a collection of cheap heavy parts - badly welded steel frame, couple of square bars for the swingarm, Halford's special equivalent suspension, brakes that are just big lumps of cast aluminium joined by some hose, cheap plastic mass-produced dash, and the thinnest, cheapest paint going. There's some work goes into the engine obviously, but they are used across several models for decades. When Suzuki brought out the GSX8S in 2023, that was the first new road bike engine for them since 1999 IIRC.
A new Honda CB500 Hornet is £1k less than an Orbea Wild M10. I think he has a point.
Apples and oranges again. Why skip over the Orbea Wild H20 for that comparison?
I've said it a million times, but a scheme where manufacturers/dealers could submit a model to be verified as a commuter/shopper specific model and if approved it is sold without attracting VAT.
Could do the same for company car schemes as well 😆
But I definitely get the point about a fit-for-purpose bike for big commutes etc. A typical town bike wouldn't cope with the commute I do: not gnar offroad or going (too) far out my way to take in nice trails, but more in seeking traffic-free routes that are rough enough to warrant a wide-tyred touring/gravel/hybrid.
I know many folk who abused the BTW scheme big time - work colleague even used their friendly LBS to acquire a £2k set of TT wheels for their TT bike. I can smugly say I used the scheme once with a total spend of £1,000 on a Cotic Roadrat which I used/abused on the commute for 8+ years before it got flattened under a car.
Whatever the flaws in the C2W system what is worse here is that Labour have consistently missed the mark. This will only hurt typical Labour voters.
The UK is suffering from huge disparities between the rich and everyone else.
Labour should be looking at taxing large corps and the ultra wealthy, start at the top. They have gone for everyone except the top, way to go, piss off all your voters.
Note I have only ever voted Labour in generals and vacillate between labour/libdem/green for locals, I am centre left, I imagine that most users here based on what I have read so far. I soooo want Labour to do well, but it has been deeply disappointing so far.
or overpaying 9.5bn in benefits due to fraud and system error as a taster examples
Just to point out that this is actually an improvement on the preceding 5 years of the Conservative government. So you should really be celebrating Labour 😉
Anyway, that aside, a couple of commenters have mentioned that there really is a valid use for expensive bikes on C2W.
Personally speaking, i've got Long COVID and would be driving to work if I couldn't have got an ebike on the scheme. It was £2500 and is a fairly bog standard Cannondale hybrid with lights, mudguards and a rack, but it keeps one more car off the roads. My colleague actually sold her car and went down to a 1 car household after getting a Tern Cargo bike to take the kid to nursery on the way to work. That one was REALLY expensive, but this kind of thing is exactly what the C2W should be helping us achieve, IMO, and there are loads of people out there (including about another 3 in my office) who would never have DREAMED of riding a normal bike to work, but happily commute by ebike.
The scheme does need to be reformed. But in terms of getting people out of cars, they need to be careful about how they do it.
A bike bought through C2W still incurs VAT, tax on the business that sells it, tax on its employees’ salaries, tax on the C2W scheme providers and duty on the imported parts.
The salary sacrifice is just a free lubricant which generates all those other taxes, whilst encouraging people to do something wholesome and healthy with their disposable income.
Given this is a cycling forum I'm quite shocked as to how anti cycle to work some people are. I think with a lot of people who are against the cycle to work program more because they perceive it benefits people who are not them....
Here in lies the problem, does the scheme have problems? Yes it does, does it need to change probably not. There are far more important things to tinkle with in the budget that will bring in far more money than changing or limiting the cycle to work scheme.
If, this is to happen then I suspect that it is more around looking like you're doing something whilst actually not doing anything at all. Taxing the super wealthy would actually bring in some real money, attempting to tackle the massive benefits bill, would bring in some real money. Capping or reducing the cycle to work scheme will probably not only not bring in any extra money (or even save any money) but long term will probably cause massive problems for the bike industry.
If they reduce, scrap or cap the cycle to work scheme I think it will be an own goal and will help drive middle-class voters in the direction of reform.
Personally speaking I'm more worried about what might happen in the budget around pension contributions and isa limits. Anyway let's keep to some decent class warfare here as it's absolutely fascinating to see people's quite rabid opinions
Quite right to cap, but needs to be open to those on the minimum wage
I agree, it should also be open to everyone who has a job...my employer won't do it, just flat out refuse
Anyway let's keep to some decent class warfare here as it's absolutely fascinating to see people's quite rabid opinions
Woof…..woof….
Ignore
It’s not perfect and you can argue about the detail of who benefits most but if they take the scheme away, we will lose something that is generally good for cycling and it probably won’t be replaced by something better. I have used it a few times and I have used it for bikes I commute on.
I think e cargo bikes should be supported by the scheme and they are expensive so capping it any lower would be a shame.
I suspect that if they scrap it they will do so to save cash and not to find a better and more effective way to promote cycling. As for alternatives… I think that the best way to invest in cycling in the UK would be to provide (much) better infrastructure… I don’t know how much the current scheme costs the govt and therefore how much infrastructure it would buy.
I have had a c2w scheme available to me for over 20 years. Up until last month I had never used it. I commuted to work on a Boardman Team CX, then a Pinnacle Arkose, then a Carrera Crossfuse ebike. All bought second hand. Even the ebike was only £700.
In October I had a casual look and saw £4k bike reduced to £2k, then after tax savings, less than £100 per month from my pay for 12 months. I snapped it up. Will I ride it to work? Rarely. But I do ride to work often on my £700 Carrera ebike.
I agree, it should also be open to everyone who has a job...my employer won't do it, just flat out refuse
Yep, I had years of either no C2W or a scheme so shit it wasn't worth bothering with.
The fact that one anti-cycling **** in the finance or HR department could scupper a scheme for dozens of people was always a massive point of failure in the whole thing.
It needs to be opened up to the self-employed and those on low income - perhaps subsidised by the higher earners.
Given this is a cycling forum I'm quite shocked as to how anti cycle to work some people are.
I am not sure anyone is against people cycling to work its just me and others dont see the connection to the scheme and think the money could be better used than for toys for us middle class it managers.
When I was in the office there was a reasonably good take up of cycle to work scheme but it wasnt matched by people actually cycling to work luckily.
I say luckily since there were two showers (one male one female) in a rather large office building and a secure(ish) cycle rack buried deep in the underground carpark which could hold probably 20-30 bikes.
Think my company had, at peak, about 500 staff there and other companies another thousand or so.
Think had to queue for showers a handful of times at most and by queue I mean wait for the person in the shower to finish vs a proper queue.
I think with a lot of people who are against the cycle to work program more because they perceive it benefits people who are not them....
I've read through the whole thread, and have seen more higher rate payers saying they don't use it because they think it's regressive or admit to abusing the privilege and feeling somewhat guilty about it.
It's a total non issue. A trivial tax loss needs to be set against reduced sales, increased congestion, poorer air quality and poorer health. It's purely about optics. Meanwhile, EV salary sacrifice continues to have no such restrictions, despite being objectively worse than everything except an ICE car.
My C2W bike was bought in 2018 so I don't really have any skin in the game. I bought my EV outright.
Given this is a cycling forum I'm quite shocked as to how anti cycle to work some people are. I think with a lot of people who are against the cycle to work program more because they perceive it benefits people who are not them....
Yeah, it's weird. Fundamentally I reckon the people who avoid a comparatively little bit of income tax with the c2w scheme aren't the problem.
This gets my goat big time - the press and the government (potentially) trying to make out that there's a "tax saving" to be made here - there simply isn't......
Tax breaks like this are all about stimulating demand - i.e. people buying stuff they otherwise wouldn't have.....the same could be said for the 43p/kwh FITs payment I get on my solar panels.....I wouldn't have invested in the panels if the incentive hadn't have been there....therefore no solar panels bought and no market created.
The bike industry in this country has made a bomb from this scheme, in the sense that a LOT of people have bought bikes they otherwise wouldn't have done.
The effect of pulling it, or capping it, will simply be the opposite effect....fewer bikes sold.....the knock on effect on the economy? Slower growth, lower consumption and lower tax take.....it's not "saving" anybody anything.....
I know it's only a small market (relatively) and overall a small impact economically, but I suspect potentially another devastating blow to the bike industry
Absolutely barmy (in my humble opinion)
Absolutely barmy (in my humble opinion)
I think it should be compulsory for all contributors of a thread like this to declare (truthfully) if they have personally used the scheme to enhance their toy cupboard in the past and what that saving has come to over the years. I just get the feel there just 'might' be some self serving in some of the responses. 🙂
Those who see no issue in the current system and think the 'to work' bit was cobblers anyways - I guess you have no problem with it being extended? Running Trainers and football boots? Gym memberships? Kayaks? Sailing boats? Skis? Skiing holidays? Golf clubs? Golf club membership? Polo horses? Where's your threshold?
Where's your threshold?
I vote for kayaks. Backdated so I can get my firecracker.
To be the first to declare.
Never used the scheme despite commuting by bike for about five years every day.
I think it should be compulsory for all contributors of a thread like this to declare (truthfully) if they have personally used the scheme to enhance their toy cupboard in the past
Me, me, me.
I bought a Kona Sutra on the original C2W scheme. It came in under the £1k (hard) limit we had and got a lot of use commuting to and from work as well as introducing me to touring and to (what was yet to be called) gravel. It was my first drop-barred bike, so a bit of a "gateway" to further enhancing my bike collection.
I've since sold (probably) hundreds of C2W bikes when working in bike shops, so I also have some appreciation of the scheme from that side too. I'm surprised at the value figures reported above. Almost everyone seemed keen to maximise their "saving" by as much as they were allowed so lots of £1,000 bikes. Occasionally we might sell something in the £500-600 bracket, mostly hybrids and basic MTBs (this was 12-15 years ago mind).
Absolutely barmy (in my humble opinion)
I think it should be compulsory for all contributors of a thread like this to declare (truthfully) if they have personally used the scheme to enhance their toy cupboard in the past and what that saving has come to over the years. I just get the feel there just 'might' be some self serving in some of the responses. 🙂
Those who see no issue in the current system and think the 'to work' bit was cobblers anyways - I guess you have no problem with it being extended? Running Trainers and football boots? Gym memberships? Kayaks? Sailing boats? Skis? Skiing holidays? Golf clubs? Golf club membership? Polo horses? Where's your threshold?
I will truthfully declare that yes I have taken advantage of the scheme. Yes I have ridden to work on what I've bought on the scheme.
To those lamenting but not all HR departments offer the benefit, this is the same for all benefits. Unless they are one that you claim directly from the government unfortunately it's always up to your HR department to offer these benefits. I used to work in the Netherlands where you used to be able to get the so-called 30% ruling for expats (economic migrants) - I had a friend who worked at another company where HR thought it was unfair and just refused to let anyone claim for it.
Whilst I appreciate that this benefit is unfair, especially to people on lower wages and I really hope that the chancellor does something to help them. At the end of the day getting rid of or capping this particular benefit will make absolutely no difference to the UK in the grand scheme of things. There are areas that they can tackle that would have 10 or 100 times more benefit to the UK. If they do get rid of or cap it significantly I think the knock on impact to your local bike shop will be significant.
I don't normally get political, however I worry that the current government is chipping away at the middle class (as they perceive it to be a vote winner) and not tackling the real problems.
I have bought 3 bikes on the scheme in Ireland, and only the one I bought this year has actually been used for commuting. The other 2,while not used to get to work, allowed me to get out and about on my days off greatly helping my physical and mental health. Surely that’s a win. I think they should change the scheme to “fitness to work” and allow people a limited tax break (say up to £1,000) each year towards theirs health equipment, be it bikes, trainers, kayak maybe even a gym membership or fishing gear, anything that helps you be outside or active. This would hopefully encourage people to get out and be more active, and maybe improve peoples mental health with the added bonus of saving some medical costs in the future.
Double post
I'll be up front first. I've used the scheme 3 times. Once for my Mrs to get her an ebike so she would start riding and get some exercise (she hates the concept of exercise), twice for me. Neither of which have been regularly ridden for commuting.
However, as a very few have pointed out, I think the scheme has benefits outside the directly commercial. Let's face it, we have an obesity and health issue in this country that is costing us all a fortune in health related services. More people taking regular exercise will directly help this. With ebikes, I've seen a marked increase in the number and "type" of people riding bikes. I would say the vast majority of these folks are not commuting to work, but they are being more active than they would otherwise have been.
This is a good thing in my opinion. I firmly believe that C2W is helping people make that decision to buy a bike (if not actually use it). Anything we can do to encourage people to be more active has direct (if unquantified) benefit back to us in reduced stress on our health system.
Taking the financial side of things ... we've all seen a massive uptick in local bike shops and big bike brands going out of business. Imagine what taking away a good chunk of sales will do to that situation. These businesses are paying tax on profits and wages, generating VAT, etc. Depressing an already struggling industry will be a direct effect of capping the C2W scheme too low.
Finally, I personally wouldn't be against excluding the likes of me from the C2W scheme. I'd likely have bought those bikes anyway, and it would have meant me reducing spend in other areas to make the difference. I am privileged for sure and am lucky enough to not strictly need the tax break.
Overall, I'd like to see the attachment to commuting removed and the benefit structure changed to benefit lower income folk more and far reduce the benefit to better off folk. Capping the tax rebate level at basic rate seems a way to do this. Companies will still go for the scheme as it saves them NI contributions and the benefit to the likes of me would be hugely reduced. If they must cap the purchase price, be sensible and cover most ebike RRPs. Looking at the market, that could be around £5-6k.
- Never used the scheme.
- The vast majority of the population don't use the scheme.
- A proportion of people who use it take the Mickey with the scheme
- The tax cost of the mickey takers is tiny Vs the tax gap
If you're not familiar with the tax gap
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/measuring-tax-gaps
Overall, I'd like to see the attachment to commuting removed
OK, fair enough - made your point well.
So if it's not a method of transport you are justifying it for but the health side....would you extend it? £5.6bn spent on gym membership in the UK annually - should we be making that salary sacrifice compliant for the same reasons? Skis, boats, outdoor clothing, tennis racquets. Where would you stop and if it's 'just' bikes, how do you justify it if we are no longer trying to scam it as a healthy mode of transport benefit instead of just a health benefit? What makes bikes so special? Why should Brian get his £4K ebike he's going to use at the weekend in the Surrey hills offset against tax and Dave not get his £4K kiteboard setup he'll use on the same day in the Solent on the same deal? And Gyms are way way more likely to be used 12 months a year than bikes - as a use of tax funds surely that would be better value than a bike rusting in a shed?
Forgot about indoor bikes - surely if you don't have to use the bike to go anywhere, it could include indoor bikes. Again, more likely to be used in the winter.....let's have all those sales offset against income tax too. And running treadmills. Pushing it too far if I add dart boards?
Why should Brian get his £4K ebike he's going to use at the weekend in the Surrey hills offset against tax and Dave not get his £4K kiteboard setup he'll use on the same day in the Solent on the same deal?
While we're justifying a tax break on health grounds would that include mental health? What if my Mrs reckons a trip to Torremolinos is what she needs mid-winter to help her deal with her SAD? Im sure EasyJet would appreciate a few tax pounds being thrown at them.
Forgot about indoor bikes - surely if you don't have to use the bike to go anywhere, it could include indoor bikes. Again, more likely to be used in the winter.....let's have all those sales offset against income tax too. And running treadmills. Pushing it too far if I add dart boards?
You could argue for increased access to fitness equipment and an improvement for reduced NHS spend over time.
At the end of the day getting rid of or capping this particular benefit will make absolutely no difference to the UK in the grand scheme of things.
Of course it will make a difference, just a very small one. But if combined with removing all other tax breaks then it will make a big difference. If just the C2W was hit with no other tax breaks then yes that would be ridiculous.
I am more interested in the inequality of it than any revenue - tax breaks by their nature are only really helping people who get paid well enough to be paying sizeable tax and don't ever help low paid people. Letting someone earning £100K get their £6k bike for less money is not something I think should be happening.
The tax relief should be the inverse of what it is now.
So the lowest paid should get the highest tax relief.
Anyone earning enough to be in the 40% of higher tax bands should not get anything.
Why should Brian get his £4K ebike he's going to use at the weekend in the Surrey hills offset against tax and Dave not get his £4K kiteboard setup he'll use on the same day in the Solent on the same deal?
While we're justifying a tax break on health grounds would that include mental health? What if my Mrs reckons a trip to Torremolinos is what she needs mid-winter to help her deal with her SAD? Im sure EasyJet would appreciate a few tax pounds being thrown at them.
no, the same way I couldn’t fly to the alps for a down hill trip. The way I see it working would be shops/clubs etc sign up with the government to become an authorised seller, taking it away from employers and not impacting on retailer margin, then the individual submits their receipts annually to HMRC. This allows customers to shop around the various retailers, keeps the money in the uk etc.
so if the scheme details I finally submit for government approval covers health spas or SAD lamps then you may claim for relief on these. Or maybe if it is considered a medical expense you claim tax relief that way.
I think I may have said this before, but Sweden has a system called "friskvårdbidrag", effectively some money you can get back/write off against tax through your salary if you spend the money on something that is sport/fitness/health related.
It's about 3000SEK (call in 300UKP) and the rules around what it can be used for are a bit fuzzy, but the idea is that people can offset a gym membership or some health activities with the money. You can't use it for equipment (so no buying aa golf club with it), but you can use it for a club membership (as long as the sport fits the criteria that Skatteverket have, but do not publish).
In the past I have used this to get back the money I have spent in the tunnel (3kSEK used to be exactly 30 mins flight time), so it went to helping me improve my flying skills in the run up to me competing in the nationals and being an instructor.
My employer also offers the equivalent of C2W (Förmånscykel) whereby I can choose a bike from the list and use that for commuting. The list is long, has many choices, and contains e-bikes, but is focussed on commuting style hybrids and city bikes. Yes, other bike types exist and people may well end up getting something more expensive and not using it for commuting, but if they use it for cycling, then it will make them healthier and that helps my employer avoid sick days.
I have not taken part in the scheme. I have three bikes (I bought them all myself) and do not need a fourth. I was mildly interested in a folder so I can take the bus into town and cycle to the office/drive in to an easier to get to parking and cycle to work, but the only folders they offer are electric and I am not keen on them. They are way too expensive (IMO) for my requirements for a folder.
The tax relief should be the inverse of what it is now.
So the lowest paid should get the highest tax relief.
Anyone earning enough to be in the 40% of higher tax bands should not get anything.
Amazing display of chip on the shoulder classism, bravo 👏
Crabs in a bucket comes to mind here
The tax relief should be the inverse of what it is now.
So the lowest paid should get the highest tax relief.
Anyone earning enough to be in the 40% of higher tax bands should not get anything.
Amazing display of chip on the shoulder classism, bravo 👏
Crabs in a bucket comes to mind here
🤣 Yep. Right on Comrade Pete.
Meanwhile, EV salary sacrifice continues to have no such restrictions, despite being objectively worse than everything except an ICE car.
It has the same restrictions as C2W, you can only sacrifice up to minimum wage.
RoadCC have quite a big article on it now.
I'd agree that it really needs to have the need for 'commuting' removed and to be morphed into some sort of subsidised green/sustainable travel & health fund (and possibly expanded to include sports equipment in general). It could potentially save the country huge amounts whilst supporting cycling/sports industries & retail.
The government/NHS must be spending millions on Ozempic & other 'fat' jabs which they seem to be handing out like sweets.
Cycling forms a huge part of my attempts to keep my physical & mental health reasonable.
https://road.cc/content/news/labours-cycle-work-limit-risks-undoing-progress-316837
The government/NHS must be spending millions on Ozempic & other 'fat' jabs.
As I understand it (told by an NHS dietician), there are virtually no NHS Trusts in a position to prescribe it for weight loss alone.
Only very overweight people with multiple co-morbidities are getting it, and still often not.
Anyway, it seems most of us feel C2W could stand some sort of tweaking - let's just hope it's done in a realistic, pragmatic way.
Maybe different limits for eebs and neebs?
It's capped at £3K at my work, and I recently asked our HR if they'd consider uncapping it and offering 18 and 24 month repayments terms in line which our provider. No reply as yet.
I've had two bikes through the scheme already over the last 8 years. Both bikes are still in use today, and one was used to commute to work every day in all weather for a few years until Covid and WFH. I'd rather get wet on the bike than wet waiting for a bus.
FFIW I only get a 20% reduction. Always thought it was odd the more you earn the more you save. Seems backwards. Still, the monthly repayments were what attracted me to over the savings.
Whilst it does seem wrong that lower earners don't benefit as much, I'll happily take the tax break, given I don't appear to get anything else back from the government!
My gf wanted a bike, but as she's on minimum wage she coukdnt use the scheme. I ended up getting her one through my scheme, which will be used to commute. That said it was a 300 quid bike rrp from halfords, not a 10k ebike.
As I understand it (told by an NHS dietician), there are virtually no NHS Trusts in a position to prescribe it for weight loss alone.
Only very overweight people with multiple co-morbidities are getting it, and still often not.
Ah, I'm not very up on all of this, but they do seem to be the 'go to' response for obesity issues (and simply being a normal weight doesn't make you fit & healthy). There's an online article from June this year suggesting that the NHS spend on weight loss jabs is £269m which sounds a lot to me but probably isn't in the grand scheme of things (it's the Daily Express so I'm not linking to it).
Being active addresses so many more aspects of wellbeing than just BMI & I'd love to see the scheme adapted to allow low earning parents to get decent bikes for their kids (perhaps on completion of a cycling proficiency course or such like).
given I don't appear to get anything else back from the government!
What has the government ever done for us?
You can tell this is a bike forum. To most people who dont ride a bike for fun and will use it to commute a £1k limit, with standard rate tax relief, still a lot of money to spend on a bike. If your earning £25-30k you simply don’t have the spare cash to spend more than that on a bike when it’s just a commuting tool.
given I don't appear to get anything else back from the government!
Shakes head, kicks can and wanders off....
One can only hope that it drops the "to work" bit and just becomes a "Cycle scheme" and encourages everyone to buy and maybe, once in a while use, a bike.
It's been co-opted into that anyway so why not just formalise it?
Just because you are a higher rate tax payer it doesn’t make you suddenly rich. There’s too
much sniping at each other in the UK now and a lack of tolerance between different groups of people.
All of our political parties seem hellbent on making this worse too - the likes of Reform getting in power worries / disgusts me as both they and the tories seem intent on making barely concealed racism “ok”. My last vote was tactical to get the tories out more than thinking the party that got in would be great. I don’t have any idea who I’ll vote for next time round - right now Labour seem the lesser of the evils of the biggest parties - tories aren’t much better than reform as I currently see it. Without making this hugely political I think the country would be better served by some kind of middle / centrist party that did their best to compromise for the wider good rather than play political games to win votes.
I’ve had a number of road bikes on C2W over the years - most when I was a lower rate tax payer. I mostly appreciated that it spread the cost of buying (leasing to buy) the bike over a longer period of time. Most of my bikes on the scheme have been road bikes that pretty much only get used for commuting.
I think the list is:
Giant OCR - £500
Cannondale Caad 9 - £1000
Boardman Team Carbon - £1000
Cannondale Caad 12 Disc - £1200
Last time round I decided most of the components from the Caad12 could move across to a new frame - I’ve struggled with my lower back so picked up a gravel type frame with easier geometry and rack mounts so I could run panniers rather than a big backpack
Dolan GXC - think I paid about £1200 on the C2W scheme for frame, cranks and bottom bracket then everything else moved across from the Cannondale.
All of the above must be over about a 19-20 year period. For me the scheme has helped do exactly what it is meant to do- I’ve rarely driven a car into the centre of Bristol.
I hate sitting in traffic in the car.
I hate sitting in traffic on the bus (worse then the car).
I have from time to time used the rental electric scooters but they aren’t the best in bad weather / drivers hate you even more than a cyclist as they’re so slow.
The best non-cycling option is drive 5 mins to the nearest train station and hop on a train for an 8 min trip to central Bristol. When it works anyway - trains get frequently cancelled or delayed for no apparent reason.
I’d much prefer a 30 ish minute cycle even in bad weather over all of the above most of the time. I have worked at previous offices that just have 0, 1, 3 or 6 showers in total for a building with probably 1000+ people in it which isn’t great.
Lucky that the current building have gone all in on sustainability and limited car parking space and putting in a dedicated bike parking area. There are nearly 20 showers in the men’s changing rooms and assume the ladies is the same. There’s also a dedicated drying room for wet clothes. The only thing that’s bad is you don’t get a dedicated locker each and you’re meant to bring everything you need into work and back everyday. Which is a big chunk of why I’ve now got a bike with panniers so I can do that. Makes the bike pretty heavy though.
Just because you are a higher rate tax payer it doesn’t make you suddenly rich. There’s too
much sniping at each other in the UK now and a lack of tolerance between different groups of people.
Well it makes you richer than someone earning minimum wage doesn't it. And certainly 'rich' enough to be able to buy a bike for leisure activities. And if you don't want to spend loads of money on a bike then buy a cheap one (my only bike cost me £500 and I ride it 4 times a week, 52 weeks a year.)
It is not a lack of tolerance , it is trying to reduce the massive inequality in the country and again, giving people on £100K a tax break to buy a £6k bike is not helping.
I think I may have said this before, but Sweden has a system called "friskvårdbidrag", effectively some money you can get back/write off against tax through your salary if you spend the money on something that is sport/fitness/health related.
It's about 3000SEK (call in 300UKP) and the rules around what it can be used for are a bit fuzzy, but the idea is that people can offset a gym membership or some health activities with the money. You can't use it for equipment (so no buying aa golf club with it), but you can use it for a club membership (as long as the sport fits the criteria that Skatteverket have, but do not publish).
In the past I have used this to get back the money I have spent in the tunnel (3kSEK used to be exactly 30 mins flight time), so it went to helping me improve my flying skills in the run up to me competing in the nationals and being an instructor.
My employer also offers the equivalent of C2W (Förmånscykel) whereby I can choose a bike from the list and use that for commuting. The list is long, has many choices, and contains e-bikes, but is focussed on commuting style hybrids and city bikes. Yes, other bike types exist and people may well end up getting something more expensive and not using it for commuting, but if they use it for cycling, then it will make them healthier and that helps my employer avoid sick days.
I have not taken part in the scheme. I have three bikes (I bought them all myself) and do not need a fourth. I was mildly interested in a folder so I can take the bus into town and cycle to the office/drive in to an easier to get to parking and cycle to work, but the only folders they offer are electric and I am not keen on them. They are way too expensive (IMO) for my requirements for a folder.
thats interesting. - especially that it includes other 'healthy activities'. If it's a health argument theres no reason it should only be bikes in the uk - why not golf clubs, tennis racquets, hiking boots etc etc.
I think theres a far stronger argument for the transport aspect of bikes. But that means ideally you’d have no limit but only allow purchase of “utility” bikes with permanently fixed lights. Difficultly is there’s no way to define that which couldn’t be wastefully circumvented. (Think slick tyres, lights, mudguards fitted to expensive mtbs going straight to landfill in same way as the pack of reflectors that get supplied with most road bikes now). Yes, I know there are loads of people who commute on road/gravel bikes now but then I have "views" on people commuting without full length mudguards/flashing lights/super bright unshaped beams etc etc
the whole tax system is a mess of exemptions and little political fiddles. As part of tax simplification I’d scrap all salary sacrifice - must be a better way to support cycle purchases and the other 'in work benefits' it enables that would make them available to self employed/low waged and people who don't work for large corporates
how you do that is tough. My next thought was 0%VAT but all the evidence is that most if not all of the vat gets absorbed by sellers not passed on to consumers when it's been done with other products
Maybe different limits for eebs and neebs?
Harsh, but perhaps fair enough given the extra food us neebers need to buy 😉
Just because you are a higher rate tax payer it doesn’t make you suddenly rich. There’s too
much sniping at each other in the UK now and a lack of tolerance between different groups of people.Well it makes you richer than someone earning minimum wage doesn't it. And certainly 'rich' enough to be able to buy a bike for leisure activities. And if you don't want to spend loads of money on a bike then buy a cheap one (my only bike cost me £500 and I ride it 4 times a week, 52 weeks a year.)
It is not a lack of tolerance , it is trying to reduce the massive inequality in the country and again, giving people on £100K a tax break to buy a £6k bike is not helping.
its a rounding error. total cost of scheme is £130m a year. in terms of the impact on inequality it's irrelevant - 'tackling it' is really just a right wing dog whistle
I can't find the data/quote now but I've also seen a claim that each £1 the C2W scheme costs generates about £4 in economic value - ie the country benefits financially (I'd like to see the calc behind that, but all those expensive bikes getting replaced every few years results in a lot of good used bikes being available as well at a cheaper level to those who aren't able to use the scheme.
The average price of a bike purchased through a Cycle to Work scheme is around £750, though this varies by income level.
Average price by tax bracket
Basic-rate taxpayers: Median spend is around £650.
Higher-rate taxpayers: Median spend is around £1,000.
Higher-value bikes: A significant portion of users, about 34%, spend over £1,000 on their bikes.
Just because you are a higher rate tax payer it doesn’t make you suddenly rich. There’s too
much sniping at each other in the UK now and a lack of tolerance between different groups of people.Well it makes you richer than someone earning minimum wage doesn't it. And certainly 'rich' enough to be able to buy a bike for leisure activities. And if you don't want to spend loads of money on a bike then buy a cheap one (my only bike cost me £500 and I ride it 4 times a week, 52 weeks a year.)
It is not a lack of tolerance , it is trying to reduce the massive inequality in the country and again, giving people on £100K a tax break to buy a £6k bike is not helping.
Yes it does make you richer, but who is to say where the limit is for what is a relatively small tax break? You could have a 1 income family with 2 kids where the income earner is on say £45k a year. Put that family in an area that costs a lot to live in - say London - and the income won’t go far at all. Riding a bike to work actually then would make a lot of sense in terms of both not polluting central London more, saying money on transport and getting some exercise when you might not have a lot of free time for it.
It seems like there are a lot more important things in the wider UK to fix rather than the scheme. But if we want to cut out high value bikes that aren’t needed for commuting then a simple cap on cost of bikes in the scheme is very easy to implement.