Have I heard correctly?
VED increase on diesels not to apply to vans?
Looks like I'll be buying a van then.
|
It's a sop....
Only applies to new cars, and only those not meeting E6 in the new 'real' (ha ha!) tests. In most cases it's only £20 for the first year (unless you are over 150g/km where it might be a couple of 00£. Hardly going to influence many purchases, and nothing to take older cars off the road. I doubt much impact on buying patterns.
|
Lots of people have mis-heard the announcement.
No change to any car that's already on the raod, or bought before the end of March 2018.
For cars bought from April 18, there will be an increase in the first year of road tax (only). And as that's included in the On-the-road price, all you'll see is the cost of larger engined diesels going up a little.
|
|
Rightly not an anti-diesel budget when the What Car? Comparison of a BMW 520D and a Passat GTE shows Nox emissions comparable but CO2 of Passat 5x worse!
|
>> Rightly not an anti-diesel budget when the What Car? Comparison of a BMW 520D and
>> a Passat GTE shows Nox emissions comparable but CO2 of Passat 5x worse!
>>
Can you put a link to that BB please, I can find it?
|
>> >> Rightly not an anti-diesel budget when the What Car? Comparison of a BMW 520D
>> and
>> >> a Passat GTE shows Nox emissions comparable but CO2 of Passat 5x worse!
>> >>
>> Can you put a link to that BB please, I can find it?
>>
It is reported on the Autocar website, so I pressume it is on the What Car website too.
|
www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/industry/autumn-budget-2017-diesel-tax-hike-confirmed
What Car? tests showed that the new BMW 520d emits just 0.035g of NOx per kilometre, identical to the amount produced by the Volkswagen Passat GTE, a hybrid-petrol model. The tests showed that CO2 output for the 520d is 0.038g/km, while the Passat emits 0.174g/km.
This is obviously a typo or a retarded journo - presumably they are referring to 38 milligrams of CO (monoxide) vs 174 mgs for the Passat, both of which are negligible amounts.
|
Particulates are also an issue for diesels which the industry assured was sorted.
But (bit behind on my reading of Auto Express) they are next going after tyres and brakes for particulates.... so EVs are not being ignored.
|
Fair enough. EVs seem to provide pretty cheap motoring if it suits your requirement anyway so some additional tax should be acceptable. I'm expecting something to change that sooner or later as the Govt can't afford to lose the tax take (it already has on fags, with so many less smokers)
Out of interest, my PHEV Ampera has a drive setting "L" which dramatically increases regeneration (and therefore "engine braking"), such that, driven sensibly, I barely need to use the brakes.
In fact it's said that Ampera brakes are often replaced due to rust and corrosion rather than wear., and people have posted suggested methods of deliberately using the brakes for short lengths of time to maximum effect (one tip being to put it in neutral while braking, to remove the regen impact)
I think there may be similar settings on other EV/PHEVs. Certainly the regen process reduces the demand on the brakes.
|
>>Comparison of a BMW 520D and a Passat GTE shows Nox emissions comparable but CO2 of Passat 5x worse!
That makes no scientific sense at any level re the CO2 levels.
If a 520D did 50mpg, a petrol car would need to be doing about 9mpg to produce 5 times the CO2 (petrol having very slightly less carbon per litre)
|
>> If a 520D did 50mpg, a petrol car would need to be doing about 9mpg
>> to produce 5 times the CO2 (petrol having very slightly less carbon per litre)
From memory a 520d co2 is 109, and my 540i is 164.
|
Those weeds on your drive will offset some of that though...
;-)
|
|
well its certainly not killing them
|
I doubt it's the case though the NOX of the Passat could be 5x worse.
Certainly clean diesels have a place and many hybrids such as the 330e and VW GTEs are currently BiK dodgers, though that's being corrected in part by a previously announced BiK hike I understand, not that it affects me ...
|
>>that's being corrected in part by a previously announced BiK hike I understand, not that it affects me ...
Pleased for you. Four flipping hundred and sixty flipping three quid a flipping month it's going to cost me shortly.
:-(
|
|
for 4 cylinders and a mutilated alloy!
|
|
Aye, but it's got a sunroof, and it's not green...
|
|
...normally, the appearance of weed and BMW 5 series in the same sentence conjures up an entirely different picture.....
|
>> ...normally, the appearance of weed and BMW 5 series in the same sentence conjures up
>> an entirely different picture.....
Anything for the weekend honky?
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 22 Nov 17 at 17:52
|
Weedol is very goos, but if you really want success do what I did when I first started driving lorries.
My mates all told me to park my little Volvo F7 up at night in puddles of fertilizer and it would grow into a bi F10 six wheel unit.
It worked....and it could work for you to, it may grow into a proper car one day;)
Pat
|
>> It worked....and it could work for you to, it may grow into a proper car
>> one day;)
we dont want it to grow too far, its already 6cm longer than yours.
|
Well. it's a BMW driver thing, isn't it.
Yours has always got to be bigger and what's 6cm between friends anyway!
Looks good:) Enjoy it!
Pat
Last edited by: Pat on Wed 22 Nov 17 at 18:47
|
>> My mates all told me to park my little Volvo F7 up at night in
>> puddles of fertilizer..........
I've got news for you, Pat. All those puddles around where lorries park up most definitely aren't fertiliser......
Last edited by: tyrednemotional on Wed 22 Nov 17 at 18:19
|
youll be telling me next those free bottles of pop are not Tizer
|
|
...well, they don't taste like Tizer......
|
I know that T&E,but it takes a bit of practice for a female to pee in a bottle in the cab!
We don't have the aim that you do, but at least we can hit an 18'' wide toilet without missing given the opportunity! More than most men can do.
Z, it's Lucozade, not Tizer;)
Pat
|
>>
>> We don't have the aim that you do, but at least we can hit an
>> 18'' wide toilet without missing given the opportunity! More than most men can do.
>>
.....I think most men could if they cheated and sat down........
|
...but you stand up to play darts?
The bull is far smaller that a toilet but you manage to hit that?
It's because you let your mind wander and don't concentrate on the job in hand, that's the problem.
Pat
|
on the job in hand, that's the problem.
>
never heard it called before...
|
>> ...but you stand up to play darts?
>>
>> The bull is far smaller that a toilet but you manage to hit that?
>>
...I suspect that for the average man, the performance in hitting the bull first (or every) time is considerably worse.....
|
>> Pleased for you. Four flipping hundred and sixty flipping three quid a flipping month it's
>> going to cost me shortly.
>>
>> :-(
Wowzers!!
There aren't many other sectors of the economy where you can take £2bn in taxes, and continue to turn the screws without inciting public outrage. Company car drivers are an easy target because they elicit no wider public support or sympathy. Quite the opposite actually. Many ill informed people are even openly hostile, because they believe it's still the 90s and you get a car for virtually nothing. They'd actually back a government sticking it to these privileged few.
I had the luxury of getting out, but I do a reasonable annual mileage. If I were a high mileage driver as I have been in the past, it would not be a good place to be in 2017.
|
Half a billion for electric car stuff I see. That's nice then.
|
|
Oh, was there a budget today?
|
>>If I were a high mileage driver as I have been in the past, it would not be a good place to be in 2017.
It is what it is I suppose, but in my case I do +/- 40,000 miles a year of which no more than 5000 are not business. I need a big car to carry my kit, but of course I could save a shedload of tax by having a van. But then, yesterday for example, I did more than 500 miles in one day, punctuated by a couple of fairly full on meetings, and I'm not sure I would have got there and home again quite as comfortably in a van. Also, if I had a van, I'd need to buy a private car as well because I'd more seats for my family life.
I could do some kind of deal with my employers where I run my own car I guess, but on my mileage it'd be marginal as to whether there was any appreciable savings and there would certainly be more financial risk.
Can't really win, but as you say, it'd tough to get public sympathy, so any tax changes in my favour are a no hoper.
|
>> It is what it is I suppose, but in my case I do +/- 40,000
>> miles a year of which no more than 5000 are not business.
It would be incredibly difficult to run your own car covering mileage like that. It's not a nice place to find yourself. I've done 35k a year before, but that was back in the 90s, and on 20% tax, where I was paying about £40 a month for a Peugeot 406 diesel. A no brainer.
Different world now, unfortunately. :-( I remember my dad expressing his absolute disbelief that I'd opted out of the cushy world of company cars, until I told him what it was costing me, and what the projections were over the next couple of years. I don't actually think he believes me to this day.
Last edited by: DP on Wed 22 Nov 17 at 20:12
|
|
Go to website called "comcar", plug in a choice of car and your salary and it shows you what you'd pay now and what is coming in the next few years...
|
Back in the late 90s I got up to 35k business miles one year. All in a Vectra - not so nice!
That was when you benefitted from lower BIK if you did more than 18k miles a year. Not that the saving was worth being in the car for as long.
I do about 8k personal miles per annum at the moment - seems consistent over the last 6 years or so.
Now Humph could get a car with even more space than his E class estate if he'd drop down to the depths of a Skoda Superb. And get it with a lower emission engine and therefore pay less BIK. He must prefer to continue paying the extra BIK for the Mercedes. I currently pay about £230pm BIK for a £30k car. Probably got more options than the E class estate - okay I didn't spec the panoramic sunroof but it's an option.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Wed 22 Nov 17 at 20:51
|
would have got there and home again quite as comfortably in a
>> van. Also, if I had a van, I'd need to buy a private car as
>> well because I'd more seats for my family life.
>>
I think it'd be a big change going from a fairly plush car to a van. I suppose many do 40k in a van but whether you'd be comfortable would be debatable. Spacewise you can get 'half and halfs' (not a twin cab) that carry 7 and still have plenty of space. We've got a few at work.
|
There aren't many other sectors of the economy where you can take £2bn in taxes,> and continue to turn the screws without inciting public outrage. Company car drivers are an easy target because they elicit no wider public support or sympathy. Quite the opposite actually.
>> Many ill informed people are even openly hostile, because they believe it's still the 90s and you get a car for virtually nothing. They'd actually back a government sticking it to these privileged few.
Not sure it's that, I think it's because they are under the radar a bit. There's not many about, there's only 1 million out of 30 million cars. So big enough to get tax from but small enough that it only impacts a small minority directly.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Wed 22 Nov 17 at 21:09
|
You get a benefit in kind and it is taxed on it . Its not costing you anything is it? You are getting the benefit of a nice car, all found aren't you?
What is the problem? You don't think you should pay tax on benefits? You want sympathy because you have to pay tax? You think tax rates are too high?
|
|
Cgn your post is in response to DPs?
|
|
Yes or anyone else who can explain why they think company car drivers are badly treated.
|
>> What is the problem? You don't think you should pay tax on benefits? You want
>> sympathy because you have to pay tax? You think tax rates are too high?
In short, yes you should pay tax on benefits, no I don't want sympathy (it doesn't apply to me), and yes, I think the tax rates are too high in some cases.
If you're doing very few business miles, a company car is a perk so should be heavily taxed. It is also unnecessary for your job, so if you don't want to pay the tax, you can opt out and run your own car.
If you're doing 35,000 business miles a year, a car is an essential part of your job, whether you provide it, or your employer does. If you provide your own, the cost is way beyond the level that would apply to a normal private motorist. Lease costs, maintenance and upkeep, tyres, depreciation are all of the order of double those that would apply to a normal 10-12k PA private motorist. And you'd need to replace the car more frequently. So most people take the company car because short of leaving your job, you have no choice.
Ramping up taxation on company car drivers who do high mileage as part of their job is like shooting fish in a barrel. That's my issue with it. I had the option to get out because my mileage is reasonable. Many don't.
The old system that gave three BIK discount bands (0%, 33%, 66%) based on your business mileage rates was much fairer. Perk drivers paid top whack, dependent users got a discount.
As others have said, when you do mileage like this, the last thing you want to do is "enjoy" your car privately, and there is no way that the benefit to you is the equivalent of someone who goes and buys that car themselves, uses it modestly for a sensible commute, and whose employer has no say in what that vehicle does or what it is used for. It is not at any point "your" car, whether you have use of it or not.
|
>> it would not be a good place to be in 2017.
>>
It's supposed to equate, you either have the money and are taxed on it or a car to the same value and are taxed on it.
However you are not taxed on servicing, tyres, insurance, RFL, hire cars when you need them etc etc, all costs that the private driver has to cover out of already taxed income.
A company car is still great value, no doubt.
|
>> Pleased for you. Four flipping hundred and sixty flipping three quid a flipping month it's
>> going to cost me shortly.
I've a lot of sympathy for idea that car as perk and car as business tool should be treated differently.
OTOH if £460pcm is buying you a fully expensed E Class estate I'm kind of thinking what it would cost me in depreciation, lost interest on capital, and insurance, servicing etc to cover that.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 22 Nov 17 at 22:40
|
As a company car driver for 35 years of my 40 year career, it has always been the simplest, least hassle way to get a brand new car every 33 months / 3 years / 4 years (the leases have got longer over time) at a reasonable cost, now only costs me for the tax as the lease is part of my salary package. Which, for the new one from April will be about 140 a month.
Don't expect sympathy, it is what it is as a way to do higher than average miles over most of these 35 years without the costs & risks.
I may have more to share in a couple of years when I retire and I am paying for my own motoring.
Edit: to HC it's not supposed to equate to anything, it is a balance between cost benefit for the company and cost benefit for the employee, along with the expectation for a job package along with pension, rises, health etc.
Last edited by: commerdriver on Thu 23 Nov 17 at 08:12
|
Totally agree that a company car available for private use should be taxed as a benefit in kind. No argument. Where it gets a bit woolly to me is that the beneficiary pays the same whether it is a pure perk only used for private purposes or whether they primarily use it for work.
Nigh on 90% of my use is business and being taxed on that element makes about as much sense as taxing an office worker for the use of their chair.
|
Not sure that follows, a car is an expensive item and is a perk especially the more expensive ones. I don't think an office chair is such.
Whats the tax rate if your car is strictly for business use only?
|
>> Whats the tax rate if your car is strictly for business use only?
>>
It used to be zero as long as you started and finished at your place of work, which could in some circumstances be your home, but you couldn't even use the car to pop down to the shops for a pint of milk.
We are not all after sympathy but neither are we tax dodgers or well off with them.
I guess most have the choice, I do, to take an allowance equivalent to the lease amount and balance the cash + reduced tax etc if that's what we prefer, I don't but many in my company do.
|
I thought it might be, I've known people with company vans with such clauses. Not much use if want to use it outside work but then their tax bill was minimal,iirc it was about 20 a month.
But the government would quite like company car drivers to stay as they are, brings in money from a small group of people.
|
>> Not sure that follows, a car is an expensive item and is a perk especially
>> the more expensive ones.
Not even slightly questioning that Sooty. You are absolutely correct and in fact I support the taxation of company cars as a benefit. My argument is that in a scenario where a specific type or size of vehicle is necessary for the job, and that is provably its primary usage, that it seems at least lumpy that the person it is allocated to still pays the same amount of tax on it as someone given the same vehicle as a perk, and who only uses it for private purposes.
In truth, in my case, at the weekends I quite often use my wife's or my son's cars just to give my backside and my mind a holiday from my company car for a couple of days, but even if I never used it privately, ( which of course I do ) I'd still have to pay the full rate of tax on it because it's "available" to me.
I think the office chair analogy stands though, while I'm at work, I have no option but to drive the car allocated to me, in much the same way that a bus driver has to drive the bus allocated to them or the airline pilot has to fly the plane he or she is given. I have to sit in that car to work, just as the office worker has to sit in their chair, and no one would see it as reasonable that the office worker paid tax on that benefit for the time they were at work would they?
If I have access to the vehicle when I'm not working then I should pay some tax for that benefit of course, but it wouldn't it be much fairer if that was calculated pro-rata to its usage?
Won't happen though, for all the reasons given above. I'll just have to bend over and take it like everyone else in that situation.
|
I think the idea that if it's available for private mileage it's the same perk regardless of the breakdown of miles.
I think you undermine your chair analogy in your next paragraph. You have access to the car privately, bus drivers, pilots, office chair sitters don't have access to their work equipment at home, regardless of practicality more the principal.
I think the only way it'd be the same is if you had no access to the car privately. Poster upthread said that's zero tax if you do that. Is that a route open to you?
Last edited by: sooty123 on Thu 23 Nov 17 at 16:58
|
|
And therin lies the problem, people don't want to see the difference, but there is one. But, like I said, it's all rather moot because there will be no willingness to take that view.
|
>> And therin lies the problem, people don't want to see the difference, but there is
>> one.
There isnt one, you are trying to sell us one. At the end of the day you have use of an expensive posh fully expensed vehicle for private use, the bus driver or airline pilot does not. I understand paying for it hurts, and you consider it a tool for the job, but at the end of the day a van would do.
I was a company car driver for 33 years, I always considered it a bit of a perk, despite the fact i rarely did less than 15k company miles a year.
|
>> And therin lies the problem, people don't want to see the difference, but there is
>> one. But, like I said, it's all rather moot because there will be no willingness
>> to take that view.
>>
It's moot because there is no difference, if you do 1k or 50k business miles you still have the benefit of the car 365 days a year.
And as for the size argument, if you need a big vehicle you could drive a van or a basic Insignia etc, you don't need an E-Class, at least not one with a sunroof ;-), though if you want one you need to pay tax on it.
Furthermore as a company car driver you don't pay tax on the benefit of the insurance, the servicing, the tyres, the RFL etc, all things a private owner has to pay for out of their net, taxed, income.
|
|
If Humph got a Skoda Superb 1.6 diesel in poverty spec it would have a larger load capacity and a much lower BIK charge. He chooses to have a more luxurious car. Although a Lauren & Klement 190PS 4x4 diesel Superb Estate might still be cheaper than the E-Class.
|
A Skoda?
Don’t be ridiculous!
;-))
|
>>I think the only way it'd be the same is if you had no access to the car privately. Poster upthread said that's zero tax if you do that. Is that a route open to you?
Its probably changed, but many years ago when I enquired "private mileage" on a company car included commuting. So theoretically you would have to leave it in the office car park every night.
|
Which, given that my office is 168 miles from my home might be a bit tricky.
Anyway, no matter, it is what it is.
|
>> Its probably changed, but many years ago when I enquired "private mileage" on a company
>> car included commuting. So theoretically you would have to leave it in the office car
>> park every night.
Depends where your designated place of work is or even if you have one.
|
>>Depends where your designated place of work is or even if you have one.
Yes, that's right now you mention it. But there were also rules about when you could or could not say that your home was your regular place of work. And for whatever reason, I couldn't. Too long ago now to remember much more, but if you really don't use it socially it might be worth looking at. Perhaps you could use the tax saved to buy something you'd like. Something fibre glass, perhaps.
|
>> Its probably changed, but many years ago when I enquired "private mileage" on a company
>> car included commuting. So theoretically you would have to leave it in the office car
>> park every night.
>>
When I made the reply upthread I assumed the IR would take a more relaxed view to that now as many people, especially consultants, techies and other client based people are now officially based at hime for mileage purposes, at least by their company.
|
...I think we've been round this before somewhere....
If his home is his designated place of work (which I suspect it is for other reasons as well, including current expenses) then all mileage from home that is strictly work-related is not "private" mileage (and this includes occasional visits to, say, head office).
It should also be possible to have the car supplied on a strictly "not available for private use" basis
- the delivery of a letter from the MD, or a contractual clause, may well be enough - though it is worthwhile taking legal advice/clearing with the taxman in advance.
Patently, such an arrangement is restrictive (strictly no personal use at all, including minor diversions on the way to/from business calls), but some people do make it work, and if/as the tax premium rises, given the availability of other cars, then it is certainly worthwhile of consideration.
|
|
X class. It's the future. ;-)
|
Patently, such an arrangement is restrictive (strictly no personal use at all, including minor diversions
>> on the way to/from business calls), but some people do make it work, and if/as
>> the tax premium rises, given the availability of other cars, then it is certainly worthwhile
>> of consideration.
>>
I think more might do this if taxes on company cars get high enough.
|
Are you people who go on business trips by car aware of the HMRC triangulation rule? I wasn't until last week, and I stopped work a few years ago!!
Even if your employer makes you deduct your normal home to office mileage from an expensed mileage claim, the whole trip (or presumably the bit not covered by the employer, as you couldn't claim both, I think) can be claimed against tax. That's the gist of it.
|
>> Are you people who go on business trips by car aware of the HMRC triangulation
>> rule? I wasn't until last week, and I stopped work a few years ago!!
The Apsimmon triangle. Does not count if you work at home and dont have another single designated place of work tho.
Edit, a customer site you travel to a lot or are based at for a significant period of the week can be classed as your designated place of work, the triangle and commuting comes into play
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 23 Nov 17 at 17:39
|
>> The Apsimmon triangle. Does not count if you work at home and dont have another
>> single designated place of work tho.
We had fun and games in the Quango over that issue.
Members were appointed by a Minister. They were expected to devote (IIRC) 44 days a year to the role of which 12 were monthly meetings in London. The rest were used in visiting the various bodies under our oversight or at home writing reports on oversight visits or contributing to ongoing projects. There base was their home address. They were paid a yearly 'retainer' latterly equal to around £200/day - these were people who's day rate for consultancy was £1k+.
This worked fine for years until some new broom at Inland Revenue decided their base was actually the London office and that their travel expenses to London were therefore taxable. Given they were spread from the Borders to Cornwall the sums they were not on a normal commute level!
In the end our sponsor dept rolled over (wrongly in my view) and we ended up paying the tax on their expenses and some further gross up because the tax being met was a further 'perk'.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 23 Nov 17 at 18:20
|
My daughter, currently in N.I. and unable to get a job in Primary School education, works as a domiciliary caregiver. (A fraction above minimum wage and a zero hours contract).
She uses her own car to travel to her calls.
Her employer allows a VERY modest 21p per mile for travel between calls.
The problem is, of course, not all calls follow directly on from each other and rather than sit in a car park for , say, an hour or three. she returns home.
From home, her next call may entail a few miles to get to it, it may be the only call, or there may be a follow-on call or two. Again the only mileage expense is between calls.
Take it, or leave it, applies.
(They need the money she earns for parental contribution to her children's education, weekend trips, uniform and non-funded end of half/term travel etc.)
They and by extension, us, are grateful for the CEA funded education but free it is not!
|
>> Take it, or leave it, applies.
What you describe is the ruination of public services and the country. Having been privatised to save a bit of capital, long since squandered, they now cost more, less money goes to the people at the sharp end, services are threadbare, the lowest level of employees subsidise them with the unpaid time they put in and the cost of travel between tasks, and the owners of capital get ever richer and pay sod all in tax.
Welcome to Great Britain (and Northern Ireland).
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 25 Nov 17 at 21:40
|
Are you sure?
edit: Confused. I don;t think I am quite grasping the principle.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 23 Nov 17 at 17:43
|
May have been after you left these shore Mark, but the inland Revenues have been able to count any place you visit or know you are going to visit for work, for 2 years becomes another permanent place of work and you're expenses including travel, are taxed as if it were home.
That would also come in to play in this.
|
Ah yes, I've dealt with that.
It also comes into play when relocating people and picking up their increased travelling expenses as part of their relocation package. Had to be an increase of more than 15 miles and payable for less than 2 years - or something like that.
But I still don't quite get the triangle thing.
|
|
That's behind a subscription/pay wall
|
|
Don't worry, I searched for it on Google and that let me into the article.
|
|
It becomes hellishly complex, fortunately not in the taxmans favour when you add multiple business destinations into your days trip to the office
|
|
That jogs my memory, I remember there being quite a few no win no fee adverts at work to claim money back. It related to travel expenses / fuel costs if they were at that post less than 3 years. I don't remember the details. I think quite a few people had claimed a few quid through it.
|
It came to my attention because someone in SWMBOs office is temporarily working 2 days a week on a site which is closer to his home than the office is. He claimed company mileage allowance for home to site but his manager told him he couldn't as it was a shorter journey than his home to office.
HR were involved and said he is entitled to claim it.
That circumstance doesn't align with what I thought the principle was, but it's quite possible the story has become a bit twisted.
|
I don't think that's quite right.
I think he is entitled to claim the expenses against his tax, but i don't think that means the company have to pay him expenses.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 23 Nov 17 at 18:53
|
>> I don't think that's quite right.
>>
>> I think he is entitled to claim the expenses against his tax, but i don't
>> think that means the company have to pay him expenses.
>>
>>
I think you are right Mark, that was certainly the rules we used to work on in the past, it has changed in more recent years as may of us live so far from any base office as to make any sort of location based setup unworkable.
|
I do as close to 0 business miles these days as I can help. If I need to be anywhere it tends to be central London so have to use the train.
I am classed as a mobile work I think (not home based) but means I claim business mileage from home. If I was officially office based I'd have to subtract that distance to the office - did at one time. But shortest route to office is about 8 miles (I go another way and it's 15 each way) but for expense purposes I'd lose 16 miles per business journey if I claimed.
Except we can't claim business miles anyway with a fuel card (does not cover personal miles) :-) Day rate includes mileage (not public transport).
|
Agree, changing the reduction for business miles over 18k a year was a backward step, I suppose they were trying to get us off cars and on to public transport, which, if you had to carry anything or if the starting and ending points were not well and directly connected, was always a non starter.
The one I always remember was Marlow to Corby, try doing that on public transport.
|
>> The one I always remember was Marlow to Corby, try doing that on public transport.
>>
Piece of cake
www.traveline.info/
Less than 4 hours, some journeys as few as 3 changes.
|
>> Less than 4 hours, some journeys as few as 3 changes.
Compared to 1.5 hours each way in the car, which one am I more useful to my client or my bosses on, given that the nature of the work involved working on the client's servers in those pre internet days (this was around 1993-4 sort of time.
The biggest thing that companies get from mobile employees having company cars is often faster access to clients & jobs and billing time than you could achieve in most cases on public transport.
In contrast, when I worked at DVLA in Swansea for about 18 months I never drove there once. SWMBO dropped me at Maidenhead station on Monday morning and picked me up from there Thursday night
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 23 Nov 17 at 10:21
|
>> to my client or my bosses on, given that the nature of the work involved
>> working on the client's servers in those pre internet days (this was around 1993-4 sort
>> of time.
I'm guessing that was British Steel as it was then, our paths crossed maybe. Oh and there was no train service to Corby then, the station and line had closed to the public. Since reopened.
|
>> I'm guessing that was British Steel as it was then, our paths crossed maybe. Oh
>> and there was no train service to Corby then, the station and line had closed
>> to the public. Since reopened.
>>
It was actually RS Components although the steelworks, and its west of Scotland influence, was very much part of the town.
I did my time at British Steel in the late70s / Early 80s further north at Redcar when they were part df Newcastle DP branch (where I started) territory
|
>> Agree, changing the reduction for business miles over 18k a year was a backward step,
I disagree. I made damn sure I did 18,000+ business miles at that time, if necessary by combining business trips with private ones, taking my own car in preference to going in somebody else's, basically doing the opposite of trying to minimise my mileage. I had a fully expensed car at the time so I wasn't claiming any cash I wasn't entitled to, but by doing plenty of miles and classifying as many as possible as business I halved my tax on the car element.
The private benefit of the car is no different regardless of the business miles it is used for. Better in fact, if you get a new car more frequently.
I hadn't realised until I read it here that there are now only about a million company cars. Which makes it all the more astonishing that there are still so many expensive 'prestige' cars on the road. Granted, many will be on PCP matched by a car allowance (extra wages) but at that stage it is their own money - the benefit of running a cheaper car would be theirs.
|
>> changing the reduction for business miles over 18k a year was a backward step,
>>
>> I disagree. I made damn sure I did 18,000+ business miles at that time
I never did that, I know people who were token to in. our company for unnecessary car trips "to make money" in years gone by.
>> The private benefit of the car is no different regardless of the business miles it
>> is used for.
Correct, however, if you need a particular car type such as a large estate car, is's a bit unfair to have you paying the extra fuel etc for private motoring or run your own car, also if you are already driving 18000 plus miles a year how much do you feel like getting in the car at weekends.
>> I hadn't realised until I read it here that there are now only about a
>> million company cars. Which makes it all the more astonishing that there are still so
>> many expensive 'prestige' cars on the road.
>>
That's usually people's own choice, in our large organisation which prides itself on its worldwide "green" credentials, it is not possible for anyone to get a company car with CO2 numbers over 120 g/km, i.e. late 2 litre diesel is about as executive as you get, late engine Chelsea tractors are not on the list. Our project director, senior partner liked of level, has a Tesla.
|
There is one for you to calculate how it affects you.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17442946
Anyone a basic rate tax payer will be £8 per month better off.
A higher rate tax payer up to £123k will be £19.67 better off.
Anyone earning £123k+ will be £8 better off.
|
>> There is one for you to calculate how it affects you.
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17442946
>>
Do we really measure a good or bad budget on whether we gain our lose financially from it?
Surely there are wider issues to measure this sort of thing
Will it keep the economy & debt under control, have areas that we think need help got some, has the chancellor got the right balance between stimulating some economic factors and keeping the lid on costs & inflation,
I find for the last, say 5 to 10 years I am more worried about what it will do for the future that what it does now, 3 kids trying to find their ways in grown up life, housing, jobs, schools & hospitals for them & grandkid(s) is more important than whether my salary / pension is enough to meet the bills.
And that's totally different from being well aware of other strata of our society for whom weekly income is the furthest they can look.
Sorry for the rant, just needed to get it off my chest.
|
|
That is fair comment, in that although you get what you pay for in terms of private use, it might not be what you would choose.
|
>> Edit: to HC it's not supposed to equate to anything, >>
No, it is supposed to equate, as I say in tax terms you either have the money and are taxed on it or a car to the same value and are taxed on it.
|
HC,
It does not equate to anything, it is one of a range of optical benefits available for employers to offer as part of the remuneration package for their employees, just like medical insurance, pension better than the minimum, travel insurance etc.
It is an efficient way for both employers and employees to be able to offer something attractive to keep employees happy, they are all, broadly, equivalent to salary
I guess you either have never had the offer of a decent car as part of your remuneration or else you were splashed by one as a small boy or something judging by the dislike you have for them now :-)
|
>> HC,
>> It does not equate to anything, it is one of a range of optical benefits
>>
Not sure if you are missing the point or what. It's simple, in tax terms you pay tax on the benefit of having a company car equal to as if you were earning an equivalent amount extra in salary. It's supposed ro equate in value terms though whether it does or not is dependent on BiK tax rates and is subjective in that one person may prefer a company car and another may prefer the money.
And no, I have nothing against company cars, I had one from '89 to '04 and '09 to '11, rather I am saying that they are still very much a perk as BiK rates are favourable and tax is not appliied to insurance, servicing etc which are costs that non company car drivers pay out of already taxed income.
|
|
Exactly HC. The clue is the term Benefits in Kind. You are taxed on what is nominally calculated to be the cash value of the benefit supplied be it a car, or health insurance.
|
>> It's supposed ro equate in value terms ...
>>
No it's not, it's taxed however the Government chooses to tax it, like everything else.
It is based, as you probably know on a percentage rate on the list price of the vehicle as a mechanism for varying it, with a fuel / CO2 number worked in to try to guide what emissions choices you make, nothing to do with the perceived value of the private benefit you get from having a car.
The tax system is, and always has been, about raising money and guiding behaviour.
|
Whilst I would have to concede that the emissions link undermines the pure "value equivalent" argument, it could just as easily be argued that it is an incentive to choose less polluting cars - the BIK on electric has been stupidly low, despite the fact that many PHEV drivers who have benefited might rarely plug the car in.
At one time company cars were a useful way to pay people and reduce tax all round. That 'loophole' should arguably never have existed. I suspect it still does. Does it attract NI?
Do people complain about paying the tax on medical cover too?
And what happened to Luncheon Vouchers?
I had company cars from 1979 until 1998. It always amazed me how much people complained about their restricted choice of car, being charged an excess if they crashed them,and so on. They were an absolute bargain as far as I was concerned (even though I was denied a Legacy 4 cam turbo as being "too risky").
|
>> nothing to do with the perceived value of the private benefit you get from having a car.
>>
That's exactly what it is to do with, though whether it achieves it is down to tax rates and a multitude of subjective judgments.
|
If you have the option for a cash allowance or car, these days you pay BIK on whichever is greater: either the cash allowance or the taxable value of the car. So trade down and go for a cheap, efficient small car and you'll end up paying tax on the allowance instead. So no incentive to trade-down these days.
I'd pay roughly the same BIK on a Skoda CityGo 1.0 as I do on a Superb.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Fri 24 Nov 17 at 12:23
|
Budget 2017 - RichardW
