Civil Service Mileage-the future of...

Stitch09

HI All,

Just wondering if anyone here has any ideas on how civil service mileage may or may not change with the new budget. Seems insane with the rise in price of fuel that the rates havent changed at all to reflect it since 2009.
I'm on civil service rates for the company i work with and am just trying see what other people may think is going to happen here...
Thanks

Stheno

How much do you get per mile?

Honey-ec

Civil service rates are still extremely generous, consider yourself lucky that your company matches them.

Mileage in my job is 12c per km, regardless of engine size.

munchkin_utd

but those rates are so shocking high that only a fraction goes on fuel.

Not to mention, with the new fuel efficient cars nowadays, your cost of fuel per km with high fuel prices now is much of a muchness compared to say a thirstier old car in 2009 drinking cheap petrol.

Then, low petrol costs + thirsty cars
Now, high petrol costs + effient cars
same difference, sorta.

AltAccount

I'd be amazed to see the rates revised upwards in the current economic climate, it'd be political suicide.

Stitch09

the rates at the moment are:
Official Motor Travel in a calendar year
<1.2L 1.2-1.5L 1.5L+
Up to 6437km 39.12 cent 46.25 cent 59.07 cent
6438km and over 21.22 cent 23.62 cent 28.46 cent

12c/km seems unfeasabily low but i'm thinking we have different uses for our cars so might not be comparing like with like? I'm on the road as a rep with my own car...could never afford to run anything on that rate let alone service and maintain, tax and insure...tight enough as it is.
Stheno, my engine is greater than 1.5 so i'm on the highest bracket

Stheno

OSI wrote: »

59cent a km! :eek: That is mental money, no wonder everyone hates the civil service.

That is mental money!

Can't see that getting increased

Honey-ec

Stitch09 wrote: »

12c/km seems unfeasabily low but i'm thinking we have different uses for our cars so might not be comparing like with like? I'm on the road as a rep with my own car...could never afford to run anything on that rate let alone service and maintain, tax and insure...tight enough as it is.

It's 12c per km across the board, doesn't matter if you're field staff or office staff, and no-one gets a car allowance or fuel card. 12c per km, end of.

Stitch09

For the first 6437km you get that rate, cut back after that...
again i'm not civil service, and if you do the maths on how much your fuel costs are as well as the other charges mentioned, it is by no means a honey pot. if your a civil servant claiming occasional milage on a car thats mostly for personal use i'm sure its a tidy little perk, but considering the mileage i put in and the gear i have to carry with me, its a world removed from a nice side earner

n97 mini

The civil service rates were seen as too high and were reduced. They're still too high.

I used to get €1.27 per mile, tax free, on a 1.6 litre car.

OSI

OSI wrote: »

59cent a km! :eek: That is mental money, no wonder everyone hates the civil service.

Any company can pay those rates to their employees, many do too.

unkel

AltAccount wrote: »

I'd be amazed to see the rates revised upwards in the current economic climate, it'd be political suicide.

The government seems to think keeping the public servants happy is political survival, not political suicide

tayto lover

OSI wrote: »

59cent a km! :eek: That is mental money, no wonder everyone hates the civil service.

I wonder do they have to have a car for their jobs. If so then it's also to cover wear and tear, tyres, servicing, depreciating etc. It would not be so good overall i'd think.

I don't see 4k euro as excessive compensation for someone putting 4k miles up on their private car in a year for work purposes. If they incurr further miles the compensation drops significantly.

tayto lover

unkel wrote: »

The government seems to think keeping the public servants happy is political survival, not political suicide

I'm not in the Public Service but people continuously groaning every time they see the words Public Service can be very annoying. But then again some people just like a good old moan.

bladespin

CS mileage rates must rise at some stage, just like the private sector's expenses, as costs go up so the rates must rise too, every job I've worked in has matched the CS rate for mileage so I'm a bit suprised to find it being described as excessive, it's not.

JJJJNR

I did a few contracts for various state bodies and couldn't believe (or complain about) the 1.27 rate seemed very fair at the time. 12c a km is a joke, im sure they are claiming the civil service rate when it comes to doing their books at the end of the year.

Edwardius

that 12c/km loses you money unless you're using less than about 7L/100km at 1.70 a litre, even before maintenance costs. That's like paying to work!

Eoin

OSI wrote: »

59cent a km! :eek: That is mental money, no wonder everyone hates the civil service.

Unless the civil service are different to most companies who also pay the same rates, that money also covers the wear and tear, class 2 insurance if needed, depreciation for higher mileage and so on.

Pottler

RoverJames wrote: »

Any company can pay those rates to their employees, many do too.

Exactly. I get those rates, usually 59c, I tend to love jobs that are the other side of the country! Bring it on! Everyone else says "ah, god love you, havin to drive to Cork", I go "Yeah, it's cat":D And 472 km, door to door!

Popoutman

Hmm - people can't do maths, or else they tend to forget the real costs in owning and running a car. Some of the civil servant rates are not too far off the mark.

I did up some costings recently on the running of a car.

Turns out the most expensive component of car ownership was the depreciation. My A4 cost me €4000 a year in depreciation alone. Tax and insurance on top, brought it to ~€5500. One set of tyres per year, another €500. Two services, at maybe €500 each average over the lifetime of the car so far. So before driving a single km, I'm already down €7000. If I'm driving an Irish average of 15,000kms per year, that's roughly 47 cents per kilometre. Fuel alone adds about another 15-20 cents on top. So that's 70cents per kilometre minimum.

And that's for a relatively cheap to run 1.9tdi, that was bought 2nd hand at 3 years old. The numbers don't drop much for driving a small engined petrol car, owned from new.

The company I was working for at the time would only pay 50c per km, until I refused to drive my car for the jobs as I was paying the company for the privilege of the wear and tear on my car at the time. It wasn't long before a more sane rate for me of 85 cents per km was agreed - as it was a lot cheaper than renting a van or owning a company van for the number of times a customer site was needed to be visited.

kippy

Popoutman wrote: »

Hmm - people can't do maths, or else they tend to forget the real costs in owning and running a car. Some of the civil servant rates are not too far off the mark.

I did up some costings recently on the running of a car.

Turns out the most expensive component of car ownership was the depreciation. My A4 cost me €4000 a year in depreciation alone. Tax and insurance on top, brought it to ~€5500. One set of tyres per year, another €500. Two services, at maybe €500 each average over the lifetime of the car so far. So before driving a single km, I'm already down €7000. If I'm driving an Irish average of 15,000kms per year, that's roughly 47 cents per kilometre. Fuel alone adds about another 15-20 cents on top. So that's 70cents per kilometre minimum.

And that's for a relatively cheap to run 1.9tdi, that was bought 2nd hand at 3 years old. The numbers don't drop much for driving a small engined petrol car, owned from new.

The company I was working for at the time would only pay 50c per km, until I refused to drive my car for the jobs as I was paying the company for the privilege of the wear and tear on my car at the time. It wasn't long before a more sane rate for me of 85 cents per km was agreed - as it was a lot cheaper than renting a van or owning a company van for the number of times a customer site was needed to be visited.

I'm not sure why you would factor depreciation into that costing to be honest.

kippy

kippy wrote: »

I'm not sure why you would factor depreciation into that costing to be honest.

Throw 25k+ business kms on your private car over 4 years and come trade in time you might have more of an idea why he factored it in

jonsnow

tayto lover wrote: »

I'm not in the Public Service but people continuously groaning every time they see the words Public Service can be very annoying. But then again some people just like a good old moan.

Stop moaning about moaners ye moaner:D*

*aware of my own hypocrisy

kippy

RoverJames wrote: »

kippy wrote: »

I'm not sure why you would factor depreciation into that costing to be honest.

Throw 25k+ business kms on your private car over 4 years and come trade in time you might have more of an idea why he factored it in

Is it the fault of your employer that you drive a car that depreciates at 4k a year?

Eoin

RoverJames wrote: »

Throw 25k+ business kms on your private car over 4 years and come trade in time you might have more of an idea why he factored it in

It's a valid point. The car will be worth 4K less regardless; simply because of the year on reg. The difference between what it fetches and what a car with 25000 kms less mileage fetches is the figure you need to take into account.

Unless you meant 25K per year over 4 years? That'd make a much more substantial difference to its value on the market, I'd imagine.

bladespin

kippy wrote: »

I'm not sure why you would factor depreciation into that costing to be honest.

The mileage affects the price therefore your car is worth a good bit less thanks to work miles, you would have to be compensated for the loss.

Gumbo

Dont forget 59c is the higher rate.
From that 59c per km you must upgrade your insurance to cover you for driving for work and also get an indemnity from your employer that if anything happens, you claim from your own insurance.

bladespin

And yet you can't tax it as a commercial :rolleyes:

Senna

I dont understand, the examples above, are they for a car bought solely for work and not used as a personal car as well?
Because if its a personal car as well, then you would be paying for a lot of those costs anyway. Seems strange that you want your employer to pay all costs even when you would be paying them employed or not.

Gumbo

Senna wrote: »

I dont understand, the examples above, are they for a car bought solely for work and not used as a personal car as well?
Because if its a personal car as well, then you would be paying for a lot of those costs anyway. Seems strange that you want your employer to pay all costs even when you would be paying them employed or not.

Personal car. But if your boss askes you to use it for work, he has to reimburse you. Yes you would be paying for tax, S,D&P Insurance and doing your normal mileage.

But when using for work, you do increased miles which means increased wear and tear, you have yo insure it for use with your employment and holding tools whether that be camera equipment or similar which can cost anything from free to an extra 400e per year or more.

Why should an employee pay these costs himself?

Senna

Senna wrote: »

I dont understand, the examples above, are they for a car bought solely for work and not used as a personal car as well?
Because if its a personal car as well, then you would be paying for a lot of those costs anyway. Seems strange that you want your employer to pay all costs even when you would be paying them employed or not.

You would indeed be paying lots of them, why should your employer reap the rewards without compensating you. It's system that covers anyone from a senior person driving a car worth €100k to someone running a sh1tbox that they paid €500 for. As with any system some folks will "benefit" more than others. The rates as they are though are the highest one can receive without paying BIK on them.

kippy wrote: »

Is it the fault of your employer that you drive a car that depreciates at 4k a year?

I never said or implied the employer should cover the full depreciation, I merely highlighted how a significant amount of extra miles on a car will possibly effect the value come trade in time and that's built into the rate. If you drive a car that depreciates by zilch should you get a lower rate in your opinion?

Popoutman

My point was that some employers do not factor in that there are extra costs other than the bare cost of fuel in getting an employee to use their personal car for business purposes.
I'm not expecting the employer to pay *all* of the costs for the employee's car use, but the employer should certainly pay for all relevant costs that the employee has to bear when driving for the employer. If the employee has a high-depreciation car, then the employer should take that into account when paying for the use of that car for that time. The employer has the choice to rent a car instead, but that's not always cost effective.

If the employer wishes to get the employee to use their own car then it is only fair that the cost of that car for that time be reimbursed, and this would certainly include the depreciation and all other associated costs.

Whatever employer was only paying 12 cent per km, that employee needs to tell that employer that the car is not available for use for business purposes. That's a disgraceful amount and an example of an employer taking unfair advantage of the employee, as it's probably not the case where that employee can really give out in case the job goes away..

Senna

I'm not saying you shouldn't get some payment, the example above seemed to think every cost should be covered, i was questioning if its a personal car, then you have some costs to pay anyway.

unkel

tayto lover wrote: »

I'm not in the Public Service but people continuously groaning every time they see the words Public Service can be very annoying. But then again some people just like a good old moan.

Lad, I made an observation, not a political comment. I've been on civil service mileage rates myself (FOR ANY OF YOU WHO AREN'T AWARE, THESE ARE TAX FREE expenses :eek:) for many years

kippy

RoverJames wrote: »

You would indeed be paying lots of them, why should your employer reap the rewards without compensating you. It's system that covers anyone from a senior person driving a car worth €100k to someone running a sh1tbox that they paid €500 for. As with any system some folks will "benefit" more than others. The rates as they are though are the highest one can receive without paying BIK on them.



I never said or implied the employer should cover the full depreciation, I merely highlighted how a significant amount of extra miles on a car will possibly effect the value come trade in time and that's built into the rate. If you drive a car that depreciates by zilch should you get a lower rate in your opinion?

I was querying the calculations of the cost of owning and running a car. I don't believe depreciation is a valid "cost" to be honest and it definitely isn't something that is or should be built into mileage rates. Especially when this cost is more or less at the choice of the car owner.

I can see the validity of factoring in extra wear and tear/servicing/and extra insurance as well of course as fuel but depreciation.......I don't think so.

The mileage rates are more than fair in my opinion in the civil service and any company that follows these rates, despite the increasing fuel costs.

Popoutman

kippy wrote: »

The mileage rates are more than fair in my opinion in the civil service and any company that follows these rates, despite the increasing fuel costs.

I agree with this, and I note that there are a lot of companies that refuse to pay a fair price for the use of the employee's car.

challengemaster

Popoutman wrote: »

If the employee has a high-depreciation car, then the employer should take that into account when paying for the use of that car for that time.

Sorry what?

The car is going to depreciate highly if it's being used for work purposes or not. Just because you decided to buy a car that'll depreciate 10k a year, doesn't mean the employer should pay you more

If you showed that higher milage caused excessive deprecation, then it should be taken into account as there's a logical reason behind it. IMO

kippy

Popoutman wrote: »

I agree with this, and I note that there are a lot of companies that refuse to pay a fair price for the use of the employee's car.

Yeah, 12c a kilometre isn't a fair rate in any shape or form.

Popoutman

challengemaster wrote: »

Sorry what?

The car is going to depreciate highly if it's being used for work purposes or not. Just because you decided to buy a car that'll depreciate 10k a year, doesn't mean the employer should pay you more

If you showed that higher milage caused excessive deprecation, then it should be taken into account as there's a logical reason behind it. IMO

I disagree with your description here. If an employee is requiring an employee to use their personal car for work purposes, then that employer must reimburse the employee. It's not the fault of the employee that the employer is requiring that that particular car is to be used, so if the employer needs it they should be paying for the depreciation that occurs while it's in use for work purposes. This would include the ordinary depreciation, and the extra depreciation that the extra mileage would cause.

The employer could always just rent a car or get a company car for the same purposes, but that's the employer's choice..

Senna

Senna wrote: »

I'm not saying you shouldn't get some payment, the example above seemed to think every cost should be covered, i was questioning if its a personal car, then you have some costs to pay anyway.

Dunno does anyone think every cost of car ownership should be covered tbh, for sh1ts and giggles though let's look at the potential cash these expenses provide....

Dude or dudette does 6437km in a 1.5l car so receives €0.59 cent/km which is €3798. We'll have to go imperial now :pac: ..... 6437km is about 4023 miles. Let's say the car is a diesel returning 40mpg so the fuel (if bought at €1.60/litre) costs them €731.

So considering the car was taxed anyway the employee "makes a profit" (using that term as that's how it's seen) of €3000 for putting 4000 miles on their car.

Now as we all know that 4000 miles has worn tyres, brakes etc etc and brought the car closer to it's next service.

In my own case I'd only see 30mpg and would be buying petrol at €1.699/litre so my "profit" would be €2760 so in fairness to the system folks with significantly different consumption figures do see similar "profit".

Now in the diesel case above if the person had a 1.4 D4D Toyota or a 1.4 Peugeot they'd get €3000 ish and only "profit" by €2270 or so.

Considering the alternatives would be paying taxi fares or renting a vehicle for the employee I reckon it's not an overly expensive way of getting folk about when needed in the course of their duties.

Of course public transport might be an option in many cases too, however travelling for work purposes often is time constrained as most of us realise.

kippy

Popoutman wrote: »

I disagree with your description here. If an employee is requiring an employee to use their personal car for work purposes, then that employer must reimburse the employee. It's not the fault of the employee that the employer is requiring that that particular car is to be used, so if the employer needs it they should be paying for the depreciation that occurs while it's in use for work purposes. This would include the ordinary depreciation, and the extra depreciation that the extra mileage would cause.

The employer could always just rent a car or get a company car for the same purposes, but that's the employer's choice..

Totally disagree with that. As a previous poster said, should a guy who uses a 12 year old focus diesel get substantially less mileage rates than a guy who drives a 1 year old Audi because the Focus depreciates far less?

Popoutman

kippy wrote: »

Totally disagree with that. As a previous poster said, should a guy who uses a 12 year old focus diesel get substantially less mileage rates than a guy who drives a 1 year old Audi because the Focus depreciates far less?

Should a driver of a newer car be penalised by an employer requiring them to use their personal car without reimbursing them fairly? Don't forget that the employer may not be giving the employee a reasonable choice in the situation.

I suppose the problem is that it's not easy to get fairness in these things, and in that case it's more correct to make sure that all the employees are being treated fairly - even if this means that it appears that some employees are doing better out of the deal.

It's a relatively cheap method of keeping an employee happy to pay a fair and decent rate, and it's a very easy way to piss an employee off for very little benefit at the end of the day by being overly miserly with the rate. If the extra €50 or €100 is making that much difference then the employees should be a lot more worried as it would appear that there are major cashflow problems in the employer..

Popoutman

Popoutman wrote: »

Should a driver of a newer car be penalised by an employer requiring them to use their personal car without reimbursing them fairly? .........

In fairness the civil service rates would I feel not penalise anyone.

Tony D

Popoutman pretty outlined It in one post. The only way to make any money out mileage is to drive an 8-10 year old 1.4tdi VW Polo or similar, bought for cash of course.

air

IMHO the rates should compensate the employee for reasonable expenses related to the full running costs for a reasonable car - something around the 20-25k mark.
There is already some acknowledgement of a car of this value being considered reasonable in the rules regarding capital allowances for businesses.
The rates were actually a lot higher up to 2009 (top rate 79c/km) as has been posted earlier.
Full detail on rates is on the revenue website here.
I think the current top rate is fine (perhaps a touch high), however the lower rate could do with an increase.
They should abandon any notion of engine size bands etc and even the distinction between bikes and cars IMHO (I don't own a bike!).
If there is to be any consistency in government policy these rates should incentivise the ownership of the most fuel efficient vehicle possible.
What is the rate for an electric car I wonder?

This has nothing to do with any civil service / public service debate, these rates are used by the majority of employers in reimbursing employees in my experience.

Finally Popoutman, I believe if audited you will be found liable for the (85-59)=26c/km above the maximum allowed rate which your company paid you.
You could be penalised for unpaid tax, PRSI & USC and your employer for unpaid employers PRSI.

Gumbo

RoverJames wrote: »

Dunno does anyone think every cost of car ownership should be covered tbh, for sh1ts and giggles though let's look at the potential cash these expenses provide....

Dude or dudette does 6437km in a 1.5l car so receives €0.59 cent/km which is €3798. We'll have to go imperial now :pac: ..... 6437km is about 4023 miles. Let's say the car is a diesel returning 40mpg so the fuel (if bought at €1.60/litre) costs them €731.

So considering the car was taxed anyway the employee "makes a profit" (using that term as that's how it's seen) of €3000 for putting 4000 miles on their car.

Now as we all know that 4000 miles has worn tyres, brakes etc etc and brought the car closer to it's next service.

In my own case I'd only see 30mpg and would be buying petrol at €1.699/litre so my "profit" would be €2760 so in fairness to the system folks with significantly different consumption figures do see similar "profit".

Now in the diesel case above if the person had a 1.4 D4D Toyota or a 1.4 Peugeot they'd get €3000 ish and only "profit" by €2270 or so.

Considering the alternatives would be paying taxi fares or renting a vehicle for the employee I reckon it's not an overly expensive way of getting folk about when needed in the course of their duties.

Of course public transport might be an option in many cases too, however travelling for work purposes often is time constrained as most of us realise.

only problem with your calcs RJ, is the cars you listed would not attract the higher rate of 59c, but more so the 39c or 46c rate so the figures have to be be down graded a bit.

Easier to leave the figures as they are and have the first car as 1.6
Whicch scenario would attract the lowest rate in the 3 I described?

Gary The Gamer

The mileage would be great if you could get it but now its always dressed up as a training exercise so training rates. If they can't do that then there is no milage given.

tayto lover

unkel wrote: »

Lad, I made an observation, not a political comment. I've been on civil service mileage rates myself (FOR ANY OF YOU WHO AREN'T AWARE, THESE ARE TAX FREE expenses :eek:) for many years

Maybe it's the way you made it or the way I took it up Lad but you specifically directed your point at the Public Service. The Public Service are not the only workers on these rates.
As for tax free expenses, somebody on this thread has explained how the mileage rate drops when you reach a certain number and there is a very dramatic drop. Also the car need to be serviced more regularly and tyres need replacing more often which is not cheap.

dudara

I think I receive somewhere around 46c/km at the moment from my company for mileage. For the last 18 months, I have done approximately 600km per week for work. I have an older BMW, which is very comfortable for long drives, but gives only about 35 mpg. Tax is over €600 per year, insurance is about €350 (including professional indemnity).

In the last 6 months, I've noticed that all the recent hard driving is starting to take effect on the car. In fact, I think I'll probably sell it after this spell of long driving finishes up. Basically, I'll have to replace my car, which I wouldn't have to do if driving it purely for personal use.

So all the "perceived profit" really goes back into purchasing a car anyway.