Finian McGrath, the cyclists' friend .....

sbs2010

.... is now a minister. Good Grief.

http://m.rte.ie/news/2016/0506/786692-cabinet-announcements/

terrydel

Theres a lot more to worry about in that cabinet than him. The utter right wing nature of finance, social expenditure, health and jobs is quite frankly sccarey and depressing.

Chips Lovell

Junior Minister for Disability. Doubt he'll do much damage there.

Shane Ross is now Minister for Cycling.

velo.2010

Could be worse... imagine reading, Minister for Transport Danny Healy-Rae!

I'd say the brothers got their goodies anyway.

Lumen

On your bike Shane!

He does look a bit like an amiable Norman Tebbit.

tomasrojo

velo.2010 wrote: »

Could be worse... imagine reading, Minister for Transport Danny Healy-Rae!

Worse:
Minister for Transport: Finian McGrath
Minister for Climate Change, Communications, and Natural Resources: Danny Healy-Rae

buffalo

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Shane Ross is now Minister for Cycling.

I think he was at the Roche GP last year... good sign?

Lusk_Doyle

buffalo wrote: »

I think he was at the Roche GP last year... good sign?

Giving out cos he couldn't get the car out of his gaff for a few hours!

Darkglasses

buffalo wrote: »

I think he was at the Roche GP last year... good sign?

Seriously? Never pegged him for any kind of sports fan.

ted1

In fairness to Ross, He has a finance back ground so may see the merit in extending the bike to work scheme to a shorter period and to cover e bikes

Chips Lovell

Too posh to push(bike).

CramCycle

Darkglasses wrote: »

Seriously? Never pegged him for any kind of sports fan.

If there is a local event, Shane will be there. While he comes across as a more modern TD, he is no fool and knows that the only way to ensure votes is to turn up at every single public event.

We asked what ministry he was going to get at our last residents association meeting 60 days ago, we bet on communications but he just laughed.

He is reasonably good and doesn't sugar coat things, never had that air of "we will sort that for you" like many TDs I met growing up. He would tell you the bare facts, possible solutions and his opinion. He did scare my mother in law while giving a talk about the Stepaside garda station, even though where she lives is still possibly one of the safest places in Dublin. She cornered him about it to ask what would be done, to which he told her, after she accousted him, that he suspected they had more to fear from her than she had from then. She was insulted but he was right if you ever met her, nice to get an honest response.

terrydel

Darkglasses wrote: »

Seriously? Never pegged him for any kind of sports fan.

Must like tennis as he has a court at his house!

Beasty

ted1 wrote: »

In fairness to Ross, He has a finance back ground so may see the merit in extending the bike to work scheme to a shorter period and to cover e bikes

"pedelecs" are already included.

I'm intrigued though - what are the financial merits of reducing the "renewal" period to less that 5 years? The typical commuter bike should surely last that long. Such a reduction would presumably appeal more to those looking to use said bikes in activities other than commuting

Lusk_Doyle

Beasty wrote: »

"pedelecs" are already included.

I'm intrigued though - what are the financial merits of reducing the "renewal" period to less that 5 years? The typical commuter bike should surely last that long. Such a reduction would presumably appeal more to those looking to use said bikes in activities other than commuting

Are you suggesting some sort of illegal activity there now, Beasty?

2RockMountain

Beasty wrote: »

"pedelecs" are already included.

I'm intrigued though - what are the financial merits of reducing the "renewal" period to less that 5 years? The typical commuter bike should surely last that long. Such a reduction would presumably appeal more to those looking to use said bikes in activities other than commuting

Some allowance for stolen bikes would be welcome, with perhaps some control around having the serial number registered with Gardai beforehand.

CramCycle

2RockMountain wrote: »

Some allowance for stolen bikes would be welcome, with perhaps some control around having the serial number registered with Gardai beforehand.

It is already possible ti register your bike with Gardai. An allowance for stolen bikes is just asking for abuse of the scheme.

tomasrojo

The current design of the scheme is probably optimal. It's certainly open to abuse, but it's only of the order of hundreds of euro once every five years. It's not worth policing, and it runs along with minimal supervision and bureaucracy, and everyone seems to agree that it's definitely a net positive. I'd favour leaving it alone.

2RockMountain

CramCycle wrote: »

It is already possible ti register your bike with Gardai.

In two particular stations in Dublin only, if I recall correctly?

CramCycle wrote: »

An allowance for stolen bikes is just asking for abuse of the scheme.

Not really, it's asking for those people who's bike is one of the many, many bikes stolen in Ireland, some of whom are still actually paying for the stolen bike, get the opportunity to pay a 2nd time to get a bike that they can use to ride to work for a similar price to their original bike. It's not a huge ask really, though there may be some infrastructure required to avoid abuse.

Beasty

Why should the state (I the rest of us) be expected to stump up "compensation" if someone does not secure their property and/or fails to insure against such a loss? What makes a BTW bike more important than any other bike?

ted1

Beasty wrote: »

"pedelecs" are already included.

I'm intrigued though - what are the financial merits of reducing the "renewal" period to less that 5 years? The typical commuter bike should surely last that long. Such a reduction would presumably appeal more to those looking to use said bikes in activities other than commuting

But at the same rate ( as other bikes ) they are generally many times more expensive so a bigger allowance is required

I've a bike with 25k, on it from commuting that's 28 months old it cost 1200, which cost me about 700 after tax, several parts need replacing and realistically I'll need to spend 500 changing the group set this year. Those getting public transport get a tax benefit of about 1200 a year. I support local bike shops and take pressure of the road system and health system by cycling

My office is moving to the airport in October and I'll have an 80km commute as oppose to 35. If they offered a larger tax break I may get an e bike but at the moment driving is cheaper

Beasty

ted1 wrote: »

But at the same rate , they are generally many times more expensive so a bigger allowance is required

So you think because you spend more you should get more subsidy from the rest of us

Why not petition for reduced VAT on them? Then anyone who gets one gets the same subsidy

The BTW scheme is without doubt abused and I personally think we are better off trying to keep what we have got rather than encouraging debate which could lead to challenges to the merits of the whole scheme

2RockMountain

Beasty wrote: »

Why should the state (I the rest of us) be expected to stump up "compensation" if someone does not secure their property and/or fails to insure against such a loss? What makes a BTW bike more important than any other bike?

That's some victim-blaming there? You should try dishing it out on the Stolen Bikes thread with every report of bikes stolen by thieves who cut through bike stands, or cut through locks on apartment block or company car park cages.

The state would stump up anything in these situations. It would forego a modest amount of additional tax that it would never have gotten in the first place, if the Gardai did a decent job at enforcing this and planners did a decent job at providing for decent bike locking facilities.

Lusk_Doyle

What has any of this got to do with Finian McGrath?

tomasrojo

I'm enjoying this discussion more than any possible discussion of Big Brother.

tomasrojo

(Probably my third time posting that. I still enjoy it.)

pedro_colnago

2RockMountain wrote: »

That's some victim-blaming there? You should try dishing it out on the Stolen Bikes thread with every report of bikes stolen by thieves who cut through bike stands, or cut through locks on apartment block or company car park cages.

The state would stump up anything in these situations. It would forego a modest amount of additional tax that it would never have gotten in the first place, if the Gardai did a decent job at enforcing this and planners did a decent job at providing for decent bike locking facilities.

Victim blaming? So having a bike stolen is the the guards and planners fault? And if it's a cycle to work scheme bike u think u should be compensated by the state whereas if it's not its tough luck? Have you had a cycle to work scheme bike stolen by any chance?

ted1

Beasty wrote: »

So you think because you spend more you should get more subsidy from the rest of us

Why not petition for reduced VAT on them? Then anyone who gets one gets the same subsidy

The BTW scheme is without doubt abused and I personally think we are better off trying to keep what we have got rather than encouraging debate which could lead to challenges to the merits of the whole scheme

There is a huge difference between a subsidy and tax break.
The BTW is very much a success and should be expanded .
I don't believe that VAT could be reduced.

There is about 7,500 in grants and reduced VRT for e cars, e bikes should have an incentive too

Kaisr Sose

@Beasty
In what way do you think the scheme is being abused?

By the way, Shane Ross's PA /Constituency officer or whatever they are called is a keen cyclist so us cyclists have a foot or perhaps a cleat in the door now. Perhaps we can lobby for tax breaks on energy gels :-) or sportif entry fees ��

Darkglasses

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

@Beasty
In what way do you think the scheme is being abused?

We see it all the time on this forum, people are either trying to use the BTW discounts for things they can't, or buying the bike for re-sale at a profit.

Kaisr Sose

Darkglasses wrote: »

We see it all the time on this forum, people are either trying to use the BTW discounts for things they can't, or buying the bike for re-sale at a profit.

Sure. I see that. But asking a question like the recent (and silly one) one about whether a turbo trainer is included in the accessories list does not mean they are being purchased under the scheme. For that to happen, a complicit retailer would also be needed....

Darkglasses

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

Sure. I see that. But asking a question like the recent (and silly one) one about whether a turbo trainer is included in the accessories list does not mean they are being purchased under the scheme. For that to happen, a complicit retailer would also be needed....

I vaguely recall someone wanting to use their BTW on a lawnmower? It does get pretty silly.

ted1

Darkglasses wrote: »

I vaguely recall someone wanting to use their BTW on a lawnmower? It does get pretty silly.

Was it a ride on ?

Macy0161

There is or definitely was abuse in some shops who were offering lawn mowers, or family sets of BSO's. Well either that or several former colleagues were good at spinning a yarn. That was when it was first introduced and all types of shop suddenly started also being a bike shop, so might not be the case anymore.

Tax saver tickets don't have the same limit as bikes, and are (obviously) available annually. They could reduce the time for bikes, but be stricter on enforcement on stores and/ or say you can't do tax saver in the same year.

2RockMountain

Darkglasses wrote: »

I vaguely recall someone wanting to use their BTW on a lawnmower? It does get pretty silly.

Yes, I've heard these anecdotal stories too, particularly where the sale is made in a shop that isn't a dedicated bike shop, and has a broader stock of products. We also see many bikes bought under the scheme that are never used to 'bike to work'. I know of one that was bought a few weeks before retirement. I've seen queries about how to use the scheme to buy a competition bike that will never be used in a work commute.

pedro_colnago wrote: »

Victim blaming? So having a bike stolen is the the guards and planners fault?

Yes, absolutely victim-blaming. And yes, the Gardai and the planners are broadly failing in their roles to prevent bike theft. When you see large facilities like Bord Gais Theatre and Conference Centre being built without decent, safe, secure bike-locking facilities, you can certainly point the fingers at the planners. I know one person who ended up needing physio for 6 months after her bike was interfered with while locked to a lamppost outside the conference centre.

And when you see that bike theft is a continuous activity in Dublin and other cities, you can certainly point the finger at the Gardai for their almost complete failure to address this over time.

pedro_colnago wrote: »

And if it's a cycle to work scheme bike u think u should be compensated by the state whereas if it's not its tough luck?

It's not compensation. It is a small amount of tax foregone - maximum tax foregone of €410, and €210 of this goes straight back into the Exchequer as VAT afaik.

I never said anything about what should or shouldn't happen for non-BTW bikes, so you might want to rein back the outrage and restrict it to what I actually said.

pedro_colnago wrote: »

Have you had a cycle to work scheme bike stolen by any chance?

The last bike I had stolen was in 1979, which slightly pre-dates the BTW scheme. But I have seen the frustration of those who find themselves facing into a further 6 or 9 months of payments for a bike that has been ripped off, and end up on a POS €100 or €200 second-hand bike instead of their nice, safe, reliable new bike. I've also seen the Dublin Cycling Campaign statistics on the number of people who give up cycling when their bike is stolen.

It is a fairly modest proposal, really.

tomasrojo

Macy0161 wrote: »

Tax saver tickets don't have the same limit as bikes, and are (obviously) available annually. They could reduce the time for bikes, but be stricter on enforcement on stores and/ or say you can't do tax saver in the same year.

You are allowed to use the bike for part of your commute, or for some days of your commute, so it would be counterproductive to withdraw the support for public transport.

tomasrojo

2RockMountain wrote: »

It is a fairly modest proposal, really.

It's a well-intentioned proposal, but since the potential for fraud rises significantly, it's not a modest change to the scheme. It would require more oversight. At the moment a blind eye is being turned to the clear violation of the terms by some people because it's such small beer.

Kaisr Sose

tomasrojo wrote: »

It's a well-intentioned proposal, but since the potential for fraud rises significantly, it's not a modest change to the scheme. It would require more oversight. At the moment a blind eye is being turned to the clear violation of the terms by some people because it's such small beer.

If the boffins in Merrion St decide this scheme has run its course, they will recommend it's cessation - but as said above, this is small beans. If they wanted to make this scheme tighter at retail level they could, but it's not really worth it for what it would save the exchequer. I would like to see it going out to 1,270 (the old equivalent of £1,000 punt and nearer to the £1,000 stg our neighbours enjoy) but it's unlikely to happen as they must know all sorts of things get bought on it by now!

terrydel

The cycle to work scheme benefits more those on higher salaries, so its hardly progressive.
Shortening it from 5 years would again only help those who can afford to spalsh out on new and shiny bikes every few years. It would just be an indulgent allowance for those who always have to have the latest and greatest.

The main change I'd make to it would be to give the same tax break to all, regardless of salary.
Those on lower incomes are kept down in many ways by lack of opportunity, this shouldnt be one of them imho.

terrydel

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

Sure. I see that. But asking a question like the recent (and silly one) one about whether a turbo trainer is included in the accessories list does not mean they are being purchased under the scheme. For that to happen, a complicit retailer would also be needed....

Plenty of people getting someone else to get them another bike when they decide they cant wait the full 5 years. Thats widespread and against the spirit of the thing at th very least.

terrydel

2RockMountain wrote: »

I know one person who ended up needing physio for 6 months after her bike was interfered with while locked to a lamppost outside the conference centre.

Why did she need physio? I dont get the connection....

Eamonnator

Finian hasn't paid his water charges.

terrydel

Eamonnator wrote: »

Finian hasn't paid his water charges.

He;s not all bad then

2RockMountain

terrydel wrote: »

Why did she need physio? I dont get the connection....

Sorry, I should have been clearer. They damaged her bike, so when she tried to ride off, she flipped over the handlebars and hit her shoulder.

terrydel wrote: »

The cycle to work scheme benefits more those on higher salaries, so its hardly progressive.
Shortening it from 5 years would again only help those who can afford to spalsh out on new and shiny bikes every few years. It would just be an indulgent allowance for those who always have to have the latest and greatest.

The main change I'd make to it would be to give the same tax break to all, regardless of salary.
Those on lower incomes are kept down in many ways by lack of opportunity, this shouldnt be one of them imho.

Fair point about it not being progressive, but there might be other ways around this. Maybe allowing somebody to buy 2 x €500 bikes within five years instead of just 1 €1000 purchase might help.

tomasrojo wrote: »

It's a well-intentioned proposal, but since the potential for fraud rises significantly, it's not a modest change to the scheme. It would require more oversight. At the moment a blind eye is being turned to the clear violation of the terms by some people because it's such small beer.

Yes, there would be potential for fraud. This could be addressed in a few ways, including the mandatory serial number registration, requiring 2/hand online sellers to display the serial number, insisting on 10% of the purchase price being spent on a quality lock - and probably other ways too.

terrydel

2RockMountain wrote: »

Sorry, I should have been clearer. They damaged her bike, so when she tried to ride off, she flipped over the handlebars and hit her shoulder.

Sorry to hear that, hope she has recovered.

2RockMountain wrote: »

Fair point about it not being progressive, but there might be other ways around this. Maybe allowing somebody to buy 2 x €500 bikes within five years instead of just 1 €1000 purchase might help.

Not sure that will work, as that assumes someone has that amount to spend on bikes over 5 years, many dont.
Not having a personal dig at you at all, but it never ceases to amaze me that since the Celtic Tiger, how so many people just take for granted having lots of disposable income.
Just simply give the same tax break to all, then if someone has more money to spend, thats up to them. So everyone gets 50% of the value of what they spend, up to a relatively low figure. After that, if you want to splash out its up to you. The idea of the scheme should not be to facilitate people to have super fancy bikes, merely to just give people the incentive to get out cycling and improve their health. I think the limit of 1k is fair enough, but it angers me that someone on the higher tax band (like me) gets a better saving than someone on the lower band. Absurd and unjust.

pedro_colnago

2RockMountain wrote: »

Yes, I've heard these anecdotal stories too, particularly where the sale is made in a shop that isn't a dedicated bike shop, and has a broader stock of products. We also see many bikes bought under the scheme that are never used to 'bike to work'. I know of one that was bought a few weeks before retirement. I've seen queries about how to use the scheme to buy a competition bike that will never be used in a work commute.



Yes, absolutely victim-blaming. And yes, the Gardai and the planners are broadly failing in their roles to prevent bike theft. When you see large facilities like Bord Gais Theatre and Conference Centre being built without decent, safe, secure bike-locking facilities, you can certainly point the fingers at the planners. I know one person who ended up needing physio for 6 months after her bike was interfered with while locked to a lamppost outside the conference centre.

And when you see that bike theft is a continuous activity in Dublin and other cities, you can certainly point the finger at the Gardai for their almost complete failure to address this over time.


It's not compensation. It is a small amount of tax foregone - maximum tax foregone of €410, and €210 of this goes straight back into the Exchequer as VAT afaik.

I never said anything about what should or shouldn't happen for non-BTW bikes, so you might want to rein back the outrage and restrict it to what I actually said.


The last bike I had stolen was in 1979, which slightly pre-dates the BTW scheme. But I have seen the frustration of those who find themselves facing into a further 6 or 9 months of payments for a bike that has been ripped off, and end up on a POS €100 or €200 second-hand bike instead of their nice, safe, reliable new bike. I've also seen the Dublin Cycling Campaign statistics on the number of people who give up cycling when their bike is stolen.

It is a fairly modest proposal, really.

Sorry but that's daft. Why should I and other tax payers pay for some bodies bike if they don't bother insuring it. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Scumbag steals bike. Blame planner and the guards, make taxpayer foot the bill. Madness. As a matter of interest, How exactly would you best advise the guards to better detect bike related theft exactly?

tomasrojo

It is unfair that those on higher incomes effectively get a bigger discount. Same for pension contributions, sort of (though that tax payment is deferred rather than totally avoided).

The reason for schemes that come out of pay before taxation is just simplicity of implementation for the business itself. Another layer of bureaucracy, such as calculating a flat rate for all employees, would mean that most business won't be arsed implementing it.

(As someone on a low income, I feel a bit weird defending this scheme, but I really think a scheme that depends on the good will of employers can't be any more complicated than this.)

tomasrojo

2RockMountain wrote: »

Yes, there would be potential for fraud. This could be addressed in a few ways, including the mandatory serial number registration, requiring 2/hand online sellers to display the serial number, insisting on 10% of the purchase price being spent on a quality lock - and probably other ways too.

That's a LOT of overhead compared to how it currently is, and who is going to do the compelling and insisting? If the employer has to police the system, no employer will take part any more. If the government, where will the money come from to do all this compelling and insisting?

magicbastarder

why not simply remove the VAT rate on bikes? that'd knock over one fifth off the prices.
and then allow people to claim back the purchase on ROS, at standard (rather than marginal) rate. you'd end up saving a bit more than what you'd save on the current scheme if you're on the higher rate of tax.

is there any precedence for charging a certain VAT rate up to a particular price, and then normal VAT rate over that price?
i.e. what i mean is a system where you would not pay VAT on the first €500, say, but standard rate on anything over and above that.

Beasty

magicbastarder wrote: »

why not simply remove the VAT rate on bikes? that'd knock over one fifth off the prices.
and then allow people to claim back the purchase on ROS, at standard (rather than marginal) rate. you'd end up saving a bit more than what you'd save on the current scheme if you're on the higher rate of tax.

is there any precedence for charging a certain VAT rate up to a particular price, and then normal VAT rate over that price?
i.e. what i mean is a system where you would not pay VAT on the first €500, say, but standard rate on anything over and above that.

EU rules wuld never permit this. A reduced rate could be introduced but no new zero rates are allowed

You also cannot have 2 different rates applying to the same goods

magicbastarder

Beasty wrote: »

no new zero rates are allowed

this is a real pity. i'd often wondered why they had not reduced VAT to zero on the likes of helmets, or sanitary products.