Forum menu
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.
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.
How do you know the financial situation of everyone on £100,000? You could have a big mortgage, an expensive divorce, other hobbies, kids and school / uni fees...
On a £100,000 salary, your take home pay will be £68,557.40 after tax and National Insurance. That's £5,713.12 per month. If you're the sole earner in a household, it doesn't necessarily leave you wallowing in enough cash to go out and buy a £6000 bike on a whim.
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.
But statistically, it's not being used for that (or very rarely). A better way to reduce inequality would be to open it up to everyone, especially those on low income, the self-employed, the WFH people. And maybe cap the tax exemption at the lower rate, not the higher rate. That way everyone benefits and it's a net positive.
You could even produce a list of acceptable bikes (so e-cargo, folding bikes, general commuter type machines) to close this apparent loophole of company directors riding around on tax-free S-Works.
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.)
What concerns me in all this discussion of C2W and inequality is that there's no discussion, maybe not even any awareness of the impact of other sal-sac schemes. So, it seems that it's a terrible thing that someone might abuse C2W to buy a toy, but those who are in the fortunate position to increase their pension contributions to avoid income tax don't even get a mention.
The proposal means, from a selfish point of view, that I don't get a nice bike to ride to work on (and I do ride to work, a lot) but also have a crap pension to look forward to because I've never been able to play around with my pension contributions. It feels as though I'm going to be denied one of the few tax breaks allowed at my income level, but meanwhile those higher earners will barely notice any difference because they can afford the stuff anyway. And it seems as if plenty of people on here being vocal against it are also at my income level - turkeys voting for Xmas!
(Sorry kerley - not having another go at you - your quote was just close at hand for me to copy!)
But statistically, it's not being used for that (or very rarely). A better way to reduce inequality would be to open it up to everyone, especially those on low income, the self-employed, the WFH people.
Cap or no cap, the FCA rules still mean that many lower earners can't use it, same with fleet hire schemes. Changing the FCA rules does not appear to be sensible so what is the solution?
Find something for low earners, or just accept that they will never get to use the scheme, a scheme which could have a tangible impact on health inequalities?
I hope it's stopped. Let's be honest is has become a tax dodge. It never benefited those who needed it but those who didn't.
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
I don't know how you worked out Pete has a shoulder chip from that simple statement. I agree with him entirely and I'm paying a chunk of 40% tax rate. I'm just a bit of a leftie, and reading back seems like there are quite a few in agreement with him.
It never benefited those who needed it but those who didn't.
It was the carrot that helped lead a lot of people to buy their first adult bike. Some went on to be regular commuters. Others are out in the "Surrey Hills" on sunny Saturday/Sunday mornings. Others left the bike to rot, or passed it on. Some of these people were average earners, some were high earners. We need to balance this against the people who use it to buy a new bike every year. Here's an idea... keep the scheme exactly as it is, but only to be used once every five years per a NI number? To help at the lower end... how about also removing VAT from the very cheapest commuter bikes? Sub £500 say.
What concerns me in all this discussion of C2W and inequality is that there's no discussion, maybe not even any awareness of the impact of other sal-sac schemes.
I am aware of them and have stated they should all go. People who can afford to sacrifice their salary are clearly earning more than they need too while those low earners couldn't dream of sacrificing a penny of their salary. Again, it's an equality issue for me.
If you need to give people help towards buying a bike to get to work then provide it as a means tested benefit that they can apply for.
And then the government briefed that they would cut heat pump subsidies. Almost as if the Labour government has an anti green agenda. Throw in the Trans debacle and McSweeney and blue labour really is intent on rolling back progressive policies to pander to Reform voters who are never going to vote labour.
People who can afford to sacrifice their salary are clearly earning more than they need
I'm very sorry, but what the actual f?
Who, may I ask is the judge and jury of how much money anyone needs?
Let me guess, the amount is more than you currently earn.
Its like the joke about people driving on the motorway.
Anyone going 1 mph slower than you - 'Get out of the way, slowcoach, what are you playing at?'
Anyone going 1mph faster than you - 'OMG, what a maniac, what on earth are you doing?'
So, if this is announced, when would it come into effect? Would it be immediately or April?
So the lowest paid should get the highest tax relief.
They do already. If you only earn £12,570 you will get tax relief on tax you didn't pay in the first place on up to the entirety of your income minus 20%. Check HMRC's own site. Litteral free money.
Removing VAT will not reduce the cost of bikes.
Brands price their products at what they know they can sell them at, knocking 20% off will be a short term measure and then they'll quickly up their prices back up and pocket the extra profit. The general public will not benefit in any lasting way.
Most people set a budget and spend that. Having the bike you want 20% cheaper means the bike you couldnt afford is also 20% cheaper, people will just end up spending the same amount and getting something better.
The cycle to work scheme probably does need modifying but VAT reductions arent the way to do it.
Most people set a budget and spend that. Having the bike you want 20% cheaper means the bike you couldnt afford is also 20% cheaper, people will just end up spending the same amount and getting something better.
Which is almost exactly how people buy more spendy bikes on C2W. They 'could' afford £2K on a bike, but now they are saving on income tax they 'buy' a £3K bike for £2K.
Most people set a budget and spend that. Having the bike you want 20% cheaper means the bike you couldnt afford is also 20% cheaper, people will just end up spending the same amount and getting something better.
Which is almost exactly how people buy more spendy bikes on C2W. They 'could' afford £2K on a bike, but now they are saving on income tax they 'buy' a £3K bike for £2K.
Exactly, so lowering the cost, doesn't actually lower the cost.
I don't really see the number of people who cannot afford a £500 but can afford a £400 one being so significant that we can sit back and say "job well done" when we're trying to improve the scheme.
Most people set a budget and spend that. Having the bike you want 20% cheaper means the bike you couldnt afford is also 20% cheaper, people will just end up spending the same amount and getting something better.
Which is almost exactly how people buy more spendy bikes on C2W. They 'could' afford £2K on a bike, but now they are saving on income tax they 'buy' a £3K bike for £2K.
Exactly, so lowering the cost, doesn't actually lower the cost.
I don't really see the number of people who cannot afford a £500 but can afford a £400 one being so significant that we can sit back and say "job well done" when we're trying to improve the scheme.
That’s just your opinion of course. Not everyone goes for a more expensive bike just because C2W makes it cheaper. A lot of people over the years who aren’t much into cycling but have decided to get C2W (but possibly wouldn’t have bought a bike without the incentive) have just wanted suggestions for “what will do the job”. They’re not interested in bling - just want something decent / reliable. I’d imagine a lot of C2W purchases fall within this kind of category. Buying a £500 Carrera / Boardman racer or hybrid etc.
Removing VAT will not reduce the cost of bikes.
Brands price their products at what they know they can sell them at, knocking 20% off will ....
Nhgggh arithmetic fail.
I got a £1200 TV on salary sacrifice. There's no way I could have just went out and bought it. Same for the two bikes I've got via C2W.
Granted I could have saved a set amount each month, but why when these schemes are available?
That’s just your opinion of course. Not everyone goes for a more expensive bike just because C2W makes it cheaper. A lot of people over the years who aren’t much into cycling but have decided to get C2W (but possibly wouldn’t have bought a bike without the incentive) have just wanted suggestions for “what will do the job”. They’re not interested in bling - just want something decent / reliable. I’d imagine a lot of C2W purchases fall within this kind of category. Buying a £500 Carrera / Boardman racer or hybrid etc.
You can't dismiss my post by saying it's just my opinion then then say you imagine, because that makes everything you've said your opinion.
Nhgggh arithmetic fail.
Nhgggh clever dick success
If you know people will buy your helmet for £100 why on earth would you discount it? The % you used to give the tax man, now goes into your account, if you're a vaguely ethical company then your staff get a bonus, if you're not then you're already maximising profits.