We could cherry pick figures from that report to show how effective it is too, but really things like this can't be looked at in isolation. Yes the numbers of people cycling has increased, but we'd have seen that without the scheme given other parallel efforts. IMO the scheme has gotten others who wouldn't have cycled to try it, and definitely some to cycle to work.The report also found only a modest increase in cycling achieved by a small proportion of participants was required to generate social benefits whose value would exceed estimated cost of the scheme.
This would actually be way way way more expensive than the scheme. High end estimates peg the cost of the scheme around 4M a year. Vat from bikes is a lot more than that. High end bikes are really expensive these days and popular with the weekend warrior types.Why not do away with the scheme.
And if they want to make cycling more attractive remove the Vat element of the cost of a bike
You can't remove VAT from bikes due to EU rules, VAT rate could be reduced though.Why not do away with the scheme.
And if they want to make cycling more attractive remove the Vat element of the cost of a bike
That sounds unfair. I can't imagine any employer would refuse to accommodate an employee who wishes to avail of it in a bona fide manner. Then again, employers would be well advised not to accommodate suspected abuses of the scheme as there are serious penalties for aiding and abetting tax evasion.One side benefit of the scheme is finding out if a possible employer has the scheme or not. Why wouldn't any employer not set it up - it's usually out of laziness, if they can't do that then there's a lot more they won't be doing for their employees.
While I never availed of the scheme I did help countless people avail of it from your genuine bike to worker to the parent using the the scheme to buy their kids their first bikes and of all the sales I used to make it was the latter that brought me the biggest joyWhy not do away with the scheme.
It's up to the company to make the scheme available and some companies refuse to give it to staff (I used work for one - though for all I know maybe they were unique), the main cost to the company is extra paperwork for HR - since only a handful of employees would use it each year HR can find it hard to bother.That sounds unfair. I can't imagine any employer would refuse to accommodate an employee who wishes to avail of it in a bona fide manner. Then again, employers would be well advised not to accommodate suspected abuses of the scheme as there are serious penalties for aiding and abetting tax evasion.
If the lists of participating employers are being mined to draw inferences such as the one you've made here, that is reason enough on its own why they should not be published.
You're assuming every employer is big enough to have a HR unit.It's up to the company to make the scheme available and some companies refuse to give it to staff (I used work for one - though for all I know maybe they were unique), the main cost to the company is extra paperwork for HR - since only a handful of employees would use it each year HR can find it hard to bother.
Fair enough. But it's not a perk as such.I'd not expect anyone to mine for that sort of information, they'll mention perks during the interview (that's what the perks are there for), also you might know people who work or have worked there.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?