Civil Service Mileage-the future of...

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.

Popoutman

air wrote: »

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.

That payment was ~7 years ago. Shortly afterwards, the company hired more people and gave them a company van.

I know full well that my employer at the time didn't pay my PRSI at all to the taxman, (4 years of PRSI missed and it caused me the world of problems later on) and the guys runnign the company kept very poor records overall and all of that was a reason why I left that company before it sank. Less than 3 months after I left, the taxman wound it up with the loss of about 15 jobs, and everyone that was left was owed 2 months wages. The tax payments were something like 3 years behind.

None of the guys running that company were prosecuted for tax evasion or stealing the PRSI belonging to the employees.

In other words, I'm not worried about an audit on it. I think the BIK arrangements at that time were different as well, but I'm not sure about that.
Good point though, and worth looking at.

Actually thinking back on it it was per mile not per kilometre, so the point may be moot.