Cycle to the Social Welfare Office scheme

flickerx

So I was thinking I'd like to take advantage of the bike to work scheme in the next couple of months - there's just one small problem with that at the moment for me, in that I dont have a job.

If I was to get one of my friends to buy the bike for me via their work, do you think there'd be any hassle with this? And I'd need to find someone who makes a bit more money, i.e. on the 42% tax bracket, so I get more money off the bike price in the end, right?

If someone is on the higher tax bracket and I/they buy a bike for 1000, does that mean it only costs 600 euro or so with the scheme?

Chips Lovell

flickerx wrote: »

If I was to get one of my friends to buy the bike for me via their work, do you think there'd be any hassle with this?

Well, you're basically asking someone to engage in tax fraud. So there would be hassle if that person's employer was audited by Revenue and they looked closely at the bike to work scheme.

Lumen

The employee must intend at the time of purchase to use the bike for commuting to work.

The employee may then discover that they hate cycling, and sell the bike.

This is completely acceptable as I understand it.

The lack of intent would only become apparent if you were to (say) talk about on a public internet forum, although I'm sure the authorities have better things to do.

That said, I wouldn't encourage a friend to engage in tax fraud on my behalf.

flickerx

el tonto wrote: »

Well, you're basically asking someone to engage in tax fraud. So there would be hassle if that person's employer was audited by Revenue and they looked closely at the bike to work scheme.

What are the chances of that happening?
And surely the employee wouldnt actually have to produce the bike to any sort of inspectors? They could just say that they bought it and then decided that they preferred driving to work. The bike is just sitting in the shed (which, is what I think is going to happen down the road... I imagine you'll start seeing a lot of really good road bikes in the second hand market in a few years).

Ghost Rider

Strictly speaking, the one they call el tonto is right. But how many people here have bought bikes on the scheme that they don't use to commute to work? Is that not a similar kind of fraud?

I suppose what I'm saying is: if you feel it's an entitlement you deserve (perhaps because you are some kind of cycling crusader who makes it his business to convert others to the cause) then you could justify it to yourself by saying your actions are not against the spirit of the legislation - which is, after all, to encourage people to cycle to work. (By the way, for consistency's sake the legislation should probably also encourage people to cycle in search of work. But that's another matter.)

<REALPOLITIK> I'm sure you could find someone who has no intention of using their entitlement vis-a-vis the bike scheme, and get them to buy the bike for you. I'd imagine plenty of companies who participate in the scheme don't go checking their employees to see if they do actually cycle to work so you're unlikely to be "found out". Or, to put it another way, you're unlikely to have the opportunity to convince the authorities why you were justified in doing what you did. <END_REALPOLITIK>

ROK ON

Lumen wrote: »

The employee must intend at the time of purchase to use the bike for commuting to work.

The employee may then discover that they hate cycling, and sell the bike.

This is completely acceptable as I understand it.

I may or may not be aware of a person who may or may not have purchased a bike under the aforementioned circumstances.

As long as a person wants to avail of the bike under the BTW scheme at the time of purchase, what that person decides to do with the bike at a later point in time would is his own business. Fraud is only committed if their was an intention to commit fraud. There would be very many legitimate reasons to cease using a bike purchased under BTW scheme, such as (1) leaving country, (2) leaving work, (3) finds that cycling is not for them, etc etc.

As an aside, I have thought that this piece of legislation while intended to persuade people to bike rather than comute by car is discriminating to the large amount of consumers that have no employer (students, self employed, those who would like to 'get on their bike and look for a job'). It should propbably be the case that the scheme is extended to those groupings.

Only problem I have is that the bike racks in work are now full of shiny new bikes (BSO's) that have been cycled in a few times and then left their by their lazy owners (sort of like the gym membership January effect). As a result, I have significantly less choice as to where I park my bike. My favoured spot has been taken for past 3 weeks. I know this bike has been left there as I am frst in almost every morning.

ROK ON

Ghost Rider wrote: »

<REALPOLITIK> I'm sure you could find someone who has no intention of using their entitlement vis-a-vis the bike scheme, and get them to buy the bike for you. I'd imagine plenty of companies who participate in the scheme don't go checking their employees to see if they do actually cycle to work so you're unlikely to be "found out". Or, to put it another way, you're unlikely to have the opportunity to convince the authorities why you were justified in doing what you did. <END_REALPOLITIK>

That would be fraud.

Ghost Rider

Legally speaking, yes. Morally speaking, it may be justifiable.

ROK ON wrote: »

That would be fraud.

ROK ON

Ghost Rider wrote: »

Legally speaking, yes. Morally speaking, it may be justifiable.

I am pretty sure that the Revenue Commissioners dont have a measure for what is morally acceptable vis a vis the tax code.

Ghost Rider

And thank God for that. If the Revenue Commissioners were the custodians of morality, we'd all end up doing time for telling white lies to our mothers.

ROK ON wrote: »

I am pretty sure that the Revenue Commissioners dont have a measure for what is morally acceptable vis a vis the tax code.

Doctor Bob

flickerx wrote: »

If someone is on the higher tax bracket and I/they buy a bike for 1000, does that mean it only costs 600 euro or so with the scheme?

The morality/legality aspect has been addressed, but not this. The answer is Yes.

As others have noted, the scheme could be seen as discriminatory, in that it excludes large sectors of the labour force, but I think it discriminates in other ways too, in that it provides greater savings to those on higher incomes.

Why should a doctor get c.€400 off, but someone in the lower tax bracket only c.€200? Shouldn't it be the other way around? My socialist radar (REDar?) goes into overdrive on this point.

Still, it's a start, and can be fine-tuned as time passes.

(BSO = Bicycle Shaped Object?)

tunney

Doctor Bob wrote: »

The morality/legality aspect has been addressed, but not this. The answer is Yes.

As others have noted, the scheme could be seen as discriminatory, in that it excludes large sectors of the labour force, but I think it discriminates in other ways too, in that it provides greater savings to those on higher incomes.

Why should a doctor get c.€400 off, but someone in the lower tax bracket only c.€200? Shouldn't it be the other way around? My socialist radar (REDar?) goes into overdrive on this point.

Still, it's a start, and can be fine-tuned as time passes.

(BSO = Bicycle Shaped Object?)

Actually its more like 500 off on the higher bracket.

Lumen

Doctor Bob wrote: »

As others have noted, the scheme could be seen as discriminatory, in that it excludes large sectors of the labour force, but I think it discriminates in other ways too, in that it provides greater savings to those on higher incomes.

Why should a doctor get c.€400 off, but someone in the lower tax bracket only c.€200? Shouldn't it be the other way around? My socialist radar (REDar?) goes into overdrive on this point.

However you design a system of wealth redistribution (such as taxation) different people will complain that it's either too much or not enough.

The only way to have a non-discriminatory tax system is for there to be no taxes at all.

alfalad

tunney wrote: »

Actually its more like 500 off on the higher bracket.

And come budget time when taxes are more than likely going to go up the saving will be even more!

mmclo

Well in fairness employers take these things seriously too. I would have a minor role in overseeing it if and when it's taken up in my workplace and I'm not going to be to impressed if somebody signs up and I never see the bike.

Such a scheme implicates the employer and that's not going to fly, revenue increasingly put the onus on the employer to enforce this stuff like with the €200 on car spaces

kona

flickerx wrote: »

What are the chances of that happening?
And surely the employee wouldnt actually have to produce the bike to any sort of inspectors? They could just say that they bought it and then decided that they preferred driving to work. The bike is just sitting in the shed (which, is what I think is going to happen down the road... I imagine you'll start seeing a lot of really good road bikes in the second hand market in a few years).

Well, Revenue were onto our shop for bending the rules, such as people buying a kids bike with the adults bike on the Cycle to Work.
So, thats a no go.

I wouldnt be so cocky, revenue and Social welfare are tightening the belts. Also AFAIK business are encouraged for a deadline, due to the inevitable piss taking come christmas.

I wouldnt do it. Especially if you already have bikes.

Lumen

One more thing, if you're bothered about the morality aspect.

If lots of people take the piss the scheme is more likely to be terminated, which would make baby Jesus cry.

kona

Doctor Bob wrote: »

The morality/legality aspect has been addressed, but not this. The answer is Yes.

As others have noted, the scheme could be seen as discriminatory, in that it excludes large sectors of the labour force, but I think it discriminates in other ways too, in that it provides greater savings to those on higher incomes.

Why should a doctor get c.€400 off, but someone in the lower tax bracket only c.€200? Shouldn't it be the other way around? My socialist radar (REDar?) goes into overdrive on this point.

Still, it's a start, and can be fine-tuned as time passes.

(BSO = Bicycle Shaped Object?)

Feck socialism, There is a reason why people are on different tax bands. Put yourself in the doctors shoes.

step1) get a perfect Levaing
step2) worry that you wont get your college course with your perfect LC
step3)Get degree By putting in rediculous work and having little life for 4 years

step4) Be **** on as a junior doctor for a good 4 years
Step5) be raped for 42c in every euro you earn.

Same goes for every other profession. Its not gods will that your are screwed over and on a lower wage, with the Celtic tiger there was no excuse, anybody who wanted a degree, and put in the time could do it.

kona

Lumen wrote: »

One more thing, if you're bothered about the morality aspect.

If lots of people take the piss the scheme is more likely to be terminated, which would make baby Jesus cry.

Thats exactley what will happen. Why cant Irish people just play by the rules?

Chips Lovell

flickerx wrote: »

What are the chances of that happening?
And surely the employee wouldnt actually have to produce the bike to any sort of inspectors? They could just say that they bought it and then decided that they preferred driving to work. The bike is just sitting in the shed (which, is what I think is going to happen down the road... I imagine you'll start seeing a lot of really good road bikes in the second hand market in a few years).

If you play your cards right, I'm sure the chances of being caught are low enough.

I guess it comes down to deciding if you're comfortable with committing fraud and using other tax payers' money to get a discount on your new bike.

Quigs Snr

If someone wants to avail of a tax break for purposes whilst although still noble (e.g. getting fit) are not quite in the spirit of the scheme (i.e.cycling to work) then I have no problem with it.

If an unemployed person wants to fiddle the scheme, I have no problem with that either. The intention of the Greens was not just to have people cycle to work, the purpose is to get cars off the road and like save the whales man, so this should apply to our growing population of unemployed people also who will soon be unable to afford to run a car and do not have viable public transport alternatives - not least because such services barely exist outside Dublin and even in Dublin are being scaled back. 315 more people joined this club today in Waterford.

Quite frankly it seems that a sizeable portion of the powers that be have used our cash to fund lifestyles that would make the Sultan of Brunei blush, therefore if the choice is between paying 400 from my income tax to get another person on a bike and grow our sport, or at least grow the tolerance of it, or spending the same sum on a limo transporting a fat piece of human excrement like John O'Donoghue between 2 terminals at Heathrow (instead of using the free shuttle). Its a bit of a no-brainer for me. If the common people are not engaging in the spirit of the scheme, bending the rules or even breaking them, well then they have been led by example to do that by a crowd of brass necked shysters that should be executed live on six-one as traitors to the nation.

For all the success of the scheme, the numbers we are talking about are still miniscule. A spit in the ocean. Get all you can folks, god knows you will be paying for it in the long run regardless.

kona

Quigs Snr wrote: »

For all the success of the scheme, the numbers we are talking about are still miniscule. A spit in the ocean. Get all you can folks, god knows you will be paying for it in the long run regardless.

Id be inclined to think the numbers are higher than you think, The last year ive seen easily double the amount of cyclists in my area. You can tell by the new bikes that the majority are recent.

Quigs Snr

They are definitely high enough, but compared to the amount of people eligible are quite low. I work in a young company which engages in lots of the local sports events, running leagues, triathlons etc.... they even got us cycling jerseys at one point for a triathlon we were doing. In this company 31 out of 400 have taken up the scheme. Its a lot, but a small percentage overall. Thats only one company but speaking to people in other companies in the locale the numbers are probably a little lower than that. Putting 10% of the population as a high end estimate, 2-3% as a low in my opinion. Surely they must publish the figures at some point though ? It would make for interesting reading.

Foolish of shops to put down kids bikes on the receipt though. I know of one person who got a new groupset to put an old bike back on the road. Told the shop owner to spell groupset as "M-o-u-n-t-a-i-n-b-i-k-e" ! To be fair that refurbed bike actually does get cycled to work, so as far as abuses go, that one didn't turn out that bad.

kona

Quigs Snr wrote: »

They are definitely high enough, but compared to the amount of people eligible are quite low. I work in a young company which engages in lots of the local sports events, running leagues, triathlons etc.... they even got us cycling jerseys at one point for a triathlon we were doing. In this company 31 out of 400 have taken up the scheme. Its a lot, but a small percentage overall. Thats only one company but speaking to people in other companies in the locale the numbers are probably a little lower than that. Putting 10% of the population as a high end estimate, 2-3% as a low in my opinion. Surely they must publish the figures at some point though ? It would make for interesting reading.

Foolish of shops to put down kids bikes on the receipt though. I know of one person who got a new groupset to put an old bike back on the road. Told the shop owner to spell groupset as "M-o-u-n-t-a-i-n-b-i-k-e" ! To be fair that refurbed bike actually does get cycled to work, so as far as abuses go, that one didn't turn out that bad.

but you can order in a bunch of tasty parts, on a order with the cheapest bike, all perfectly legal.
10% is a decent cut of staff doing it IMO. It will rise once the ball gets rolling, monkey see monkey do and all that!

Ghost Rider

Join the Progessive Democrats! They need you!

kona wrote: »

Feck socialism, There is a reason why people are on different tax bands. Put yourself in the doctors shoes.

step1) get a perfect Levaing
step2) worry that you wont get your college course with your perfect LC
step3)Get degree By putting in rediculous work and having little life for 4 years

step4) Be **** on as a junior doctor for a good 4 years
Step5) be raped for 42c in every euro you earn.

Same goes for every other profession. Its not gods will that your are screwed over and on a lower wage, with the Celtic tiger there was no excuse, anybody who wanted a degree, and put in the time could do it.

Ghost Rider

I'd love to see those figures. I'd also love to see them analysed geographically in order to see whether (as I think you imply, Quigs) there is a correlation between where your company is located (i.e. outside a major urban area or not) and the percentage take-up of the scheme. I suspect there is.

My feeling (necessarily speculative) is that our national car culture - and all those fears about cycling that go with it - is much more deeply rooted outside Dublin than in Dublin.

Quigs Snr wrote: »

Surely they must publish the figures at some point though ? It would make for interesting reading.

kona

Ghost Rider wrote: »

Join the Progessive Democrats! They need you!

I wouldnt be allowed, Id make harney look even fatter.

Besides they are losers.

Now dictatorship.....

Doctor Bob

Quigs- I'm not sure the figures can be published, because AFAIK Revenue doesn't require the tax break to be flagged as C2W-specific on any documentation. I'm open to correction on this.

Lumen wrote: »

However you design a system of wealth redistribution (such as taxation) different people will complain that it's either too much or not enough.

Of course, though I see taxation not so much as a system of wealth redistribution, but as a method of providing Public Goods and supporting the Welfare State- a subtle but important difference.

kona wrote: »

Feck socialism, There is a reason why people are on different tax bands. Put yourself in the doctors shoes.

step1) get a perfect Levaing
step2) worry that you wont get your college course with your perfect LC
step3)Get degree By putting in rediculous work and having little life for 4 years

step4) Be **** on as a junior doctor for a good 4 years
Step5) be raped for 42c in every euro you earn.

Same goes for every other profession. Its not gods will that your are screwed over and on a lower wage, with the Celtic tiger there was no excuse, anybody who wanted a degree, and put in the time could do it.

I don't want to get all 'class war' about this, but your post does require a response.

Do you really believe that eveybody in the Celtic Tiger had the same opportunities? In some socio-economic groups, the measure of achievement can be just finishing school, especially where the prevailing culture is anti-intellectual, or anti-authority- not to mention the 'tall poppies'/'crabs in a bucket' aspect of trying to better oneself. It is most certainly not simply a matter of choice or laziness in all cases.

When the playing field is level, then we can bring such factors as dedication and commitment into the debate.

I have great resect for people who choose to put themselves through medical school, but my sympathy would be of a lesser degree- they knew exactly what they were getting into, and they chose to do it. I have as much respect - maybe more - for someone from the 'wrong side of the tracks' who manages to finish school and become a productive member of society, and I think it's unfortunate that they get less bike for their buck.

(Point of clarification- doctors aren't raped for 42c in every euro, just every euro over a certain threshold. They too have a TFA, and some earnings in the lower bracket.)

flickerx

Thanks for the responses, it definitely illuminated a lot about the scheme, which I was a bit unsure of. Especially the part about the bike being more or less half price for the person on 42% income tax. Which as others have mentioned already, IMHO is slightly unfairly skewed in favour of richer people.

I dont feel any moral dilemmas in asking a friend to buy a bike for me through the scheme. I paid taxes for years when I worked and there was no bike to work scheme then. But rather than get involved in a big internet discussion, I think I'll take the advice of keeping my head down about it and doing it on the QT. So over and out on this one...

tunney

flickerx wrote: »

Thanks for the responses, it definitely illuminated a lot about the scheme, which I was a bit unsure of. Especially the part about the bike being more or less half price for the person on 42% income tax. Which as others have mentioned already, IMHO is slightly unfairly skewed in favour of richer people.

What would be much better is a 30% tax rate for eceryone and then we'd all pay the same price for our bikes on C2W.

blorg

I have forwarded this thread to the Revenue Commissioners, I can't believe you would even consider this, my opinion of you is much diminished. Would you steal a child's pocket money!? IIRC you were on here before defending the stealing of bikes! Well boyo you deserve a long spell in the pokey for this one.

Lumen

In a truly fair society there would be no taxes on income, only on expenditure.

That way, people with nothing would pay nothing.

Unfortunately those communists in Brussels would never allow it.

Vote No!

etc

kona

Doctor Bob wrote: »

Quigs- I'm not sure the figures can be published, because AFAIK Revenue doesn't require the tax break to be flagged as C2W-specific on any documentation. I'm open to correction on this.



Of course, though I see taxation not so much as a system of wealth redistribution, but as a method of providing Public Goods and supporting the Welfare State- a subtle but important difference.



I don't want to get all 'class war' about this, but your post does require a response.

Do you really believe that eveybody in the Celtic Tiger had the same opportunities? In some socio-economic groups, the measure of achievement can be just finishing school, especially where the prevailing culture is anti-intellectual, or anti-authority- not to mention the 'tall poppies'/'crabs in a bucket' aspect of trying to better oneself. It is most certainly not simply a matter of choice or laziness in all cases.

When the playing field is level, then we can bring such factors as dedication and commitment into the debate.

[\QUOTE]

Bull****,

Everybody has the same oppertunities, granted some may have to go through more barriers to get it, but if you want to rise above the ****e of being pissed on for your entire life and having a view that the world is out to get you, the chances are there.

There is nothing stopping a person from a council estate, with illeterate parents, deciding to make somthing of their life. There are scholarships and grants there. Unfortuantley many dont want to rise above that ****e and do somthing with their lives.

Everybody is born the same, you may be lucky enough to be born to a family with less barriers than ones facing a working class family, but if you put the work in you can do what you want.

You get well paid for being a professional and rightly so, you shouldnt be penalised for putting work in to getting into that position.

Diarmuid

Doctor Bob wrote: »

Why should a doctor get c.€400 off, but someone in the lower tax bracket only c.€200? Shouldn't it be the other way around? My socialist radar (REDar?) goes into overdrive on this point.

He's not getting €400 off, he's getting €400 of the money he worked for, back.

ROK ON

Lumen wrote: »

In a truly fair society there would be no taxes on income, only on expenditure.

That way, people with nothing would pay nothing.

Unfortunately those communists in Brussels would never allow it.

Vote No!

etc

This was actually the subject of my MA thesis. A civil society allows people to make choices and then charges them for those choices. A low tax (or none) on basics and hiher rate of taxes as one moves up discretionary into luxury spending. All offset by no tax on income. Only problem is that it would need to be unilaterally applied across countries for fear of inflationary consequences in one country.
It is the perfect tax system in theory, but the pinko bureaucrats simply dont get it.

kona

blorg wrote: »

I have forwarded this thread to the Revenue Commissioners, I can't believe you would even consider this, my opinion of you is much diminished. Would you steal a child's pocket money!? IIRC you were on here before defending the stealing of bikes! Well boyo you deserve a long spell in the pokey for this one.

Unfortunatley this is a problem within Irish attutudes for generations it would seem. The country will never be able to run itself properly until, this attitude of screwing each other over and justifying it, is gone.

It never will, Im beginning to think the best thing that could happen to this country is to be run by Europe. We aint capable of it ourselves.

petethedrummer

Why do all the countries with the High Income tax seem to be the ones that are properly run?? Like cycling paradise Denmark?

Ah forget it i'm getting out of this thread....

Lumen

petethedrummer wrote: »

Why do all the countries with the High Income tax seem to be the ones that are properly run?? Like cycling paradise Denmark?

Possibly because an electorate will only tolerate high income taxes if the government is deemed competent enough to spend them properly.

Diarmuid

petethedrummer wrote: »

Why do all the countries with the High Income tax seem to be the ones that are properly run?? Like cycling paradise Denmark?

Depends on how you define properly run? If you cross reference the tax misery index and the quality of life rankings, the correlation between them is not too high.

Ghost Rider

I'm trying to figure out whether you're an anarchist or Charlton Heston.

Lumen wrote: »

In a truly fair society there would be no taxes on income, only on expenditure.

That way, people with nothing would pay nothing.

Chips Lovell

Quigs Snr wrote: »

Quite frankly it seems that a sizeable portion of the powers that be have used our cash to fund lifestyles that would make the Sultan of Brunei blush, therefore if the choice is between paying 400 from my income tax to get another person on a bike and grow our sport, or at least grow the tolerance of it, or spending the same sum on a limo transporting a fat piece of human excrement like John O'Donoghue between 2 terminals at Heathrow (instead of using the free shuttle). Its a bit of a no-brainer for me. If the common people are not engaging in the spirit of the scheme, bending the rules or even breaking them, well then they have been led by example to do that by a crowd of brass necked shysters that should be executed live on six-one as traitors to the nation.

For all the success of the scheme, the numbers we are talking about are still miniscule. A spit in the ocean. Get all you can folks, god knows you will be paying for it in the long run regardless.

To be honest, I feel that it's this kind of attitude that has the country screwing itself over. We collectively use the excuse of crooked politicians and businessmen to then go off and claim the dole while working for cash/fiddle our tax returns/draw Uncle Mick's pension even though he's been dead for years/whatever you fancy yourself. Two wrongs don't make a right.

kona wrote: »

Bull****,

Everybody has the same oppertunities, granted some may have to go through more barriers to get it.

Haven't you just contradicted yourself there? If we both run a 100m race and I have 10 hurdles to clear but you have a clear run at it, we hardly have the same opportunity to win.

kona wrote: »

There is nothing stopping a person from a council estate, with illeterate parents, deciding to make somthing of their life. There are scholarships and grants there. Unfortuantley many dont want to rise above that ****e and do somthing with their lives.

Well you just said yourself there were barriers, so maybe saying there's "nothing" to stop them is a bit of an exagerration? Anyway, plenty do make something of their lives, except we have a tendancy to stop calling them working class and start calling them middle class when they do. Just because the the welfare state a.k.a. socialism doesn't work or appear to work for a minority doesn't mean it shoudl be abandoned.

kona wrote: »

Unfortunatley this is a problem within Irish attutudes for generations it would seem. The country will never be able to run itself properly until, this attitude of screwing each other over and justifying it, is gone.

Dude, he was kidding.

Harrybelafonte

Flickerx, I think the lesson to take from this is if you're thinking of fidling anything, never tell anyone

Doctor Bob

Diarmuid wrote: »

He's not getting €400 off, he's getting €400 of the money he worked for, back.

Point taken, though if you asked many who have availed of the scheme, they would say 'I got €400 off a €1000 bike'. Just the colloquial phrasing.

And if we're really getting Jesuitical, he's not getting anything back, he's being spared the hassle of handing it over in the first place. It is deducted at source, not reimbursed.

Kona- I won't rehearse my previous post, except to say
-the playing field really is not level,
-more barriers does mean having to work harder to get to the same place, and
-Yes, everybody is born the same, if by that you mean naked, bloody and crying, but that's where the similarities end.

PS I'm having a hard time squaring your laissez-faire PD-type attitude with this sentiment: The country will never be able to run itself properly until, this attitude of screwing each other over and justifying it, is gone.

petethedrummer

Diarmuid wrote: »

Depends on how you define properly run? If you cross reference the tax misery index and the quality of life rankings, the correlation between them is not too high.

Using the word misery is misleading in describing the level of taxes paid. But unsurprising given the article is from forbes. You'll have fix he link to the quality of life article.

Alls I know is they have alot of cycle lanes in Denmark.

Nietzschean

Doctor Bob wrote: »

Point taken, though if you asked many who have availed of the scheme, they would say 'I got €400 off a €1000 bike'. Just the colloquial phrasing.

And if we're really getting Jesuitical, he's not getting anything back, he's being spared the hassle of handing it over in the first place. It is deducted at source, not reimbursed.

Probably should just have left it at point taken, might have been a joke but it just looked petty.

Kona- I won't rehearse my previous post, except to say
-the playing field really is not level,
-more barriers does mean having to work harder to get to the same place, and
-Yes, everybody is born the same, if by that you mean naked, bloody and crying, but that's where the similarities end.

The issues you are bringing this toward are far too complex for a thread in the cycling forum.....

to just address all your points with one counter point.
-Everyone is not born the same, socioeconomic background is just one factor on the outcome of a child. Intelligence/aptitude at high income tasks is also a strong indicator of ability to succeed.

None the less i think its nuts that anyone would argue against the people who provide most of the tax revenue in the country getting a little extra off a bike....

Doctor Bob

Nietzschean wrote: »

Probably should just have left it at point taken, might have been a joke but it just looked petty.

Ah now, to be fair, the original comment to which I responded really wasn't necessary either. And I did use a smiley. (Not to mention that my last sentence is factual- if we're splitting hairs, let's split them right!! )

Nietzschean wrote: »

The issues you are bringing this toward are far too complex for a thread in the cycling forum......

Oh, agreed. As I alluded to above, I really don't want to derail the thread.

And I do agree about the multitude of factors beyond SEG being relevant (I was trying not to stray too far off topic! ), though I would say - to bring this back on topic - that it's not so much a case of deserving a reward for higher-than-average tax contributions as it is a case of not needing the incentive to buy a bike to cycle to work (which is what the scheme is all about). Higher income, even allowing for higher tax payments, still = greater discretionary income.

Anyway, I'll bow out here too, while I still have a job. Otherwise this thread might become of more than passing relevance to me!

(PS I haven't worked out how to use the Thanks function, in case anyone's not feeling the love!)

(Edit: Thumbs-up signs have magically appeared in people's posts all of a sudden, so that answers that puzzle. They weren't there earlier.)

Traumadoc

Doctor Bob wrote: »

The morality/legality aspect has been addressed, but not this. The answer is Yes.

As others have noted, the scheme could be seen as discriminatory, in that it excludes large sectors of the labour force, but I think it discriminates in other ways too, in that it provides greater savings to those on higher incomes.

Why should a doctor get c.€400 off, but someone in the lower tax bracket only c.€200? Shouldn't it be the other way around? My socialist radar (REDar?) goes into overdrive on this point.

Still, it's a start, and can be fine-tuned as time passes.

(BSO = Bicycle Shaped Object?)

HSE docs get nothing off as the HSE will not introduce the scheme.

Chips Lovell

Doctor Bob wrote: »

(PS I haven't worked out how to use the Thanks function, in case anyone's not feelong the love!)

Just hit the big thumbs up button under the post you want to thank. (You can thank me for that).

ROK ON

As this debate becomes sidetracked into taxbands etc. I feel that dispite the general impression taxation in ireland is highly discriminatory, but not in the way one may think.
We have the highest proportion of people working under the paye code, who are not in the tax net. Usually people paid below the avg industrial wage.
Those in ireland who are reasonably well paid end up paying an extraordinary amount of the nations income tax relative to our EU neighbours. On that basis, tax system is capable of redistributing wealth. However the tax take is lost in the morass that is our bloated state wage bill.

blorg

Traumadoc wrote: »

HSE docs get nothing off as the HSE will not introduce the scheme.

Quite right too, better stick to driving around in your swanky BMWs mowing down cyclists in the cycle lane while lighting cigars with €200 notes.

/Friday

flickerx

blorg wrote: »

/Friday

Anyone up for a helmet debate?