Jan and Klodi's Party Bus - part II **off topic discussion**

Tenzor07 wrote: »

that 95% would reduce greatly if we had Dutch style cycle infra..
People would hire cars using an app...
The CTW scheme could be yearly and with a E2000 allowance..

What's the 95% down to now?

60% ?

buffalo wrote: »

What are you doing to your bike every year, and why can't it survive if it cost ?2k?!

Have to agree with Buffalo, 1000 is more than enough for a decent commuter bike. Making it annual and increasing the limit will only lead to incitement of ill will from those who won't use it, a stick to beat cyclists with. A decent bike should also last 5 years if looked after.

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Hardly excessive in this day and age?
I could spend e2000 on a set of alloys and tyres for the car with that easily..

Depends who you are as to whether it is excessive or not. You could but alot of day to day commuters either cannot or won't. If anything, the scheme should be moved more to push it for all workers. There is no reasonable tax break for low income earners. Maybe have the ability that anyone who earns under a certain amount and avails of the scheme can also apply for a VAT rebate on the bike. I have never spent 2000euro on car wheels but have gotten decent replacements and good tyres for alot, lot less. Not sure what the point was here. You may spend 2000euro on wheels, you do not need it for the car to function adequately for the purpose you intend it for.

Not everyone wants to hang onto a bike for 5 years, esp. a cheapo e1000 and under bike.. most people probably only spend e600 and the rest on helmets/mudguards/jackets etc..

I would love a new bike every year, it does not mean I should have one. The scheme has a specific purpose, as it stands, it fulfills this purpose quite well. 1000euro is not cheap for a bike, in fact I have had many great bikes over the years, and only one has cost over 1000euro. Just because it is cheap to you, does not mean it is cheap to everyone else.

Not everyone wants to cycle a cheap bike to work.. I mean, why does someone need a 171 Audi Q7 to drive to work?

They don't, why don't they sell their 171 Audi, buy a 2000grand bike and buy a decent second hand car if they really need one for alot less. Your missing the point though, why should the state finance an overtly fancy bike. To be honest, if they can afford a 2000euro bike, chances are they can afford a more than adequate bike without the tax break. Some people find it hard to justify the 50euro hit to their wages every month, and these are the people who need to be encouraged.

The main benefit to me was not the tax saving but the ability to spread the cost, this has been the same for most people I work with.

Tenzor07 wrote: »

"There are more pressing costs for the State"

Can you expand on that point pls?

Basically when they announce a levy on something else, the first thing that will be dragged out for them to be hanged will be this, particularly if it is something that increases motoring costs.
1000euro is plenty for a decent commuting bike, it may not be enough for some but if they want more, they can pay the extra.
5 years is quite a reasonable time frame for a bike with very little maintenance, every year is just taking the piss.
For a change, the government actually came up with a reasonable scheme, one that was easy to implement, had no drawbacks when you look at reduction in costs to the state. It has had no major complaints and no huge issues and overall will save the state money both in the long and short term.

The only thing that really needs to be looked at is how did they get such a reasonable idea across the line without huge issue and in a functional manner. Then apply that to everything else.