Cycle to work scheme dishonesty

[Easy_Rider]

If I could do it through my work then I'd be all over it. I never cycle to work (bit hard with a trolley full of tools!) but I wouldn't have a single twinge of guilt.
We live in a country that pisses our hard earned money down the drain on pointless wars, a government full of thieves and on housing and feeding any tom dick or harry that manages to blag their way in, so I for one would grab anything back that I can.
It may not be 'right' but I for one wouldn't give a toss!

I admire your honesty

In relation to the MP's expenses though...

Every MP is due an amount up to X because they have to keep their own home in the town they live (usually their constituency) and work most of the week in London and the rest in their constituency. It's only right they be given money to help do this just as you would expect money from your employer if they tuned round and said you need to work 3 days a week in London but still come in the office 2 days a week oh and you could loose your job in five years (when there is an election). The problem came on how they claimed, it quickly became a culture of "well i'm entitled to the full X" so people claimed, just as we do in society for this or that. People claiming child benefit but already earn a huge wedge, is that right? Now in terms of law 99% of the MP's didn't break any rules, just dishonest, only a couple are facing trial.

If someone knowingly claims on this scheme for a bike with no intention of using it for work then that it breaking the rules of the scheme, so it can be argued to be worse that the MP's expenses scandal, no?

I prefer not to join the masses and claim for things I shouldn't. That's just me, maybe i'm too Victorian in my outlook and probably why i'm so poor

 

[Easy_Rider]

E_R I'm with you on this one, can I ask though do you think there should be a limit on the spend My BTW is up to £3000, I've had a few fantasy builds that I would use for work sometimes (I had a bike I'd use for summer and now have a more robust wintery type bike in mind) but they would deinately be used elsewhere too.

Really I started this thread to get peoples views and to debate it, I'm not wanting to judge anyone with what they do. It's not up to me and nor should it be. I may be coming across as the rule book basher though

 

[Tallpaul]

It's not up to me and nor should it be.

But you did convince a colleague not to get a bike (as per your first post) :?

 

[Neil]

It's not up to me and nor should it be.

But you did convince a colleague not to get a bike (as per your first post) :?

No he didn't.

He convinced a colleague it would be dishonest to use the scheme to buy a bike.

 

[Easy_Rider]

It's not up to me and nor should it be.

But you did convince a colleague not to get a bike (as per your first post) :?

Well, it wasn't a colleague but a friend and I just put my argument to her, she ultimately decided. She was unaware how it was funded and it was meant as a cycle to work scheme, once she realised what it was she decided not to go for it.

 

[pigman]

There's no definitely right, nor wrong; its not black or white.
There's guys in our club using the scheme to part fund their latest exotica. The public perception of the scheme is that its a purchasing benefit rather than a specific boundary-laden tax break. Anyone who uses it "illegally" isnt seen as acting immorally.

In some way its no different to passing your car park ticket onto the guy who takes your space. The landlord is losing out, the guy taking your ticket is essentially stealing, but public perception is that its just prcatical common sense.

You also have to remember that every bike that is bought through the scheme attracts VAT, income/corporation tax in the industry, provides employment and is likely to lead to additional purchases - helmets, locks etc, so the "defrauded" value is mitigated by other financial inputs into the coffers.


Makster makes a good point also. Whilst the big fish claim and squander huge amounts, undeniably immorrally, we sadly debate and worry where the moral boundaries lie for a pittance of pennies.

 

[saltyman]

my work does the cycle to work scheme, though this year there was just a 3 week window to buy a bike....... :roll:

we all drive vans so no need for a bike.

its a loan from work, to get there employee's off there butts and to get fit basically. so work will still benefit from a fitter work force. and we get a slightly cheaper bike.

 

[cyfa2809]

money is the root to all evil

 

[Easy_Rider]

Interesting points pigman, I'm inclined to agree on the whole but then I still think dishonesty is what it is and monetary value doesn't come into it, but your analogy with car park tickets does makes you think. I have been tempted to do what everyone else does and pass on the ticket in the past but haven't yet. After all where will the line be drawn and by whom? I guess HMRC could bring cases, but will they, i doubt it very much.

my work does the cycle to work scheme, though this year there was just a 3 week window to buy a bike....... :roll:

we all drive vans so no need for a bike.

its a loan from work, to get there employee's off there butts and to get fit basically. so work will still benefit from a fitter work force. and we get a slightly cheaper bike.

The official cycle to work scheme is a government tax break that's what i'm referring to. I can't comment on your specific scheme, but I do believe that a lot of people think it's funded by the company alone and that it is just to get a bike, a benefit as has been suggested in the past. Certainly this is what my friend thought it was.

money is the root to all evil

amen to that

 

[Tallpaul]

I guess HMRC could bring cases, but will they, i doubt it very much.

I would imagine that they would have to bring them against the employer. But, the scheme does not require any records of use to be kept nor acceptance criteria for employees wishing to undertake the scheme. The rules are clear, but it is the enforcement of them that is not. This is partly why I feel that not even the HMRC actually care what the bikes are for.

I know it's rare in government thinking, but I believe there is a dregree of benevolance behind these types of schemes. IMO the only morally indefensible use of the scheme is by those who buy to sell for profit.