How Much Should "Cycling Allowance" Be?

On 06/08/2011 22:11, Nick wrote:

On 06/08/2011 20:46, Mr. Benn wrote:
"Nuxx Bar" wrote:

The usual suspects on uk.rec.cycling.censored are whinging that
someone is only being given 6p/mile "cycling allowance" when
travelling for work purposes. Apparently in some places it's *20p/
mile*!
But why should it even be as much as 6p/mile when we're told that one
of the "many benefits" of cycling is that it costs so little?

Cycling has mileage-related costs just like using using cars although
much less. I haven't done the maths to work out how much but 6p/mile
sound reasonable but generous. 20p/mile would be a ridiculously
generous. The mileage rate has to reflect the financial cost.

Has anyone calculated what the real costs associated with cycling are
per mile travelled? I assume wear and tear will dominate the cost.
What about the cost of food calories?

On a 4+ thousand mile yearly commute I can easily get costs up to £600
(equivalent 15p per mile). I'm sure I forgot some stuff. Still about
half what I would claim for public transport.

But you cannot make such a claim for commuting. At least, not without the
Revenue either refusing you the tax relief or regarding the money claimed as
income (which is what it would be). That boils down the same either way: you
have to cover commuting costs out of taxed income. An employer cannot
legitimately pay a mileage allowance for commuting - it counts as income and
falls to be taxed and to be subject to NI (and any marginal superannuation
deductions).

Food used for cycling is negligible (although I do bill for lunch
separately), clothes are not.

Clothing can be tax-0deductible (good luck with any claim that you need it
for commuting - you will find that the revenue has a flat rule for commuting
costs which can be pithily expressed in two Anglo-Saxon words).

Personally I think if they are offering travel subsidies the rate should
be the same regardless of transport method. Why subsidise a polluting
car more than an environmentally friendly bike.

There is *no* subsidy involved.

Costs (real costs, which would otherwise be a loss) are simply being covered.

That it is p[ossible for some misguided people to see that as "subsidy" says
something about them and nothing about the scheme.

Best would be to invent a method that most advantaged those who avoided
the travel.

Not having to pay for it is the advantage.

But you have totally missed the point - mileage which can be legitimately
claimed has to be non-commuting mileage done on behalf of the employer or the
business (commuting to the normal workplace doesn't count) and which the
employer has asked the worker to do. Your several references to "commuting"
and the costs of commuting show that you have misunderstood.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 06/08/2011 22:19, Peter Parry wrote:
On Sat, 06 Aug 2011 21:14:40 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

20p/mile is the Inland Revenue's figure. We all know that the
Inland Revenue are bastions of charity and love nothing more than
handing out lavish allowances to taxpayers.

Actually this is one very lavish allowance given as a green sop to
some pressure group.

{{citation needed}}

- --
Guy Chapman, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
to be worth at least what you paid for them.
PGP public key at http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public.key
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJOPb8nAAoJEJx9ogI8T+W/YncH/Ra3ZPu/C5IdSFPXOvz48HLC
uZGiwWvwYRTUNSmNhMhPCncFVtCxX6u4adIhS1T5bRRcW/S89ngDLyUZMZImLo3z
ubzVuIUlloaBfhPXhg6Lq3eVS1sfUYrvPt1C3GoiMCc4AQcRJ4 FtZ0XM1+YZ2YfU
qWWUq2UahsDda7udgrrg9vO5WMYM5IAvKzsYoKErsbHwjkXimk oFOy+2qpnKm43R
IavEFDVR62+Sak/jLrb5jZQ06mha7bzrBMRHYymh0aDtIfO9WM1BdJs1V1Lvkogj
jsxOYu0kP8JKtfJINScyQMtaiCtzgRggv2FVy6HHUNErsXwqyp s4uHKC8IQ3fRc=
=IZNk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On 06/08/11 22:11, Nick wrote:
On 06/08/2011 20:46, Mr. Benn wrote:
"Nuxx Bar" wrote in message
...

The usual suspects on uk.rec.cycling.censored are whinging that
someone is only being given 6p/mile "cycling allowance" when
travelling for work purposes. Apparently in some places it's *20p/
mile*!

But why should it even be as much as 6p/mile when we're told that one
of the "many benefits" of cycling is that it costs so little?
================================

Cycling has mileage-related costs just like using using cars although
much less. I haven't done the maths to work out how much but 6p/mile
sound reasonable but generous. 20p/mile would be a ridiculously
generous. The mileage rate has to reflect the financial cost.

Has anyone calculated what the real costs associated with cycling are
per mile travelled? I assume wear and tear will dominate the cost.
What about the cost of food calories?

On a 4+ thousand mile yearly commute I can easily get costs up to £600
(equivalent 15p per mile). I'm sure I forgot some stuff. Still about
half what I would claim for public transport.

Food used for cycling is negligible (although I do bill for lunch
separately), clothes are not.

Personally I think if they are offering travel subsidies the rate should
be the same regardless of transport method. Why subsidise a polluting
car more than an environmentally friendly bike.

Best would be to invent a method that most advantaged those who avoided
the travel.

Not sure clothes should be counted, you don't need specific clothing for
cycling in the same way that you need to replace worn out components.

On 06/08/2011 22:36, JNugent wrote:
On 06/08/2011 22:11, Nick wrote:

On 06/08/2011 20:46, Mr. Benn wrote:
"Nuxx Bar" wrote:

The usual suspects on uk.rec.cycling.censored are whinging that
someone is only being given 6p/mile "cycling allowance" when
travelling for work purposes. Apparently in some places it's *20p/
mile*!
But why should it even be as much as 6p/mile when we're told that one
of the "many benefits" of cycling is that it costs so little?

Cycling has mileage-related costs just like using using cars although
much less. I haven't done the maths to work out how much but 6p/mile
sound reasonable but generous. 20p/mile would be a ridiculously
generous. The mileage rate has to reflect the financial cost.

Has anyone calculated what the real costs associated with cycling are
per mile travelled? I assume wear and tear will dominate the cost.
What about the cost of food calories?

On a 4+ thousand mile yearly commute I can easily get costs up to £600
(equivalent 15p per mile). I'm sure I forgot some stuff. Still about
half what I would claim for public transport.

But you cannot make such a claim for commuting. At least, not without
the Revenue either refusing you the tax relief or regarding the money
claimed as income (which is what it would be). That boils down the same
either way: you have to cover commuting costs out of taxed income. An
employer cannot legitimately pay a mileage allowance for commuting - it
counts as income and falls to be taxed and to be subject to NI (and any
marginal superannuation deductions).


The question was how much cycling allowance should be. I was indicating
what genuine costs were.


Food used for cycling is negligible (although I do bill for lunch
separately), clothes are not.

Clothing can be tax-0deductible (good luck with any claim that you need
it for commuting - you will find that the revenue has a flat rule for
commuting costs which can be pithily expressed in two Anglo-Saxon words).


Actually travel costs are deductible for an employee working
continuously at a temporary client workplace for up to 24 months. Travel
costs from the normal office to the temporary office that is. So in some
cases commuting is tax deductible.


Personally I think if they are offering travel subsidies the rate should
be the same regardless of transport method. Why subsidise a polluting
car more than an environmentally friendly bike.

There is *no* subsidy involved.

Costs (real costs, which would otherwise be a loss) are simply being
covered.

That it is p[ossible for some misguided people to see that as "subsidy"
says something about them and nothing about the scheme.


A company travel allowance paid to employees is a subsidy, under the
normal English dictionary definition. This is what was being referred to
in the OP. While the word subsidy often refers to payments from
government it is also commonly used to refer to payments from employer
to employee.

Best would be to invent a method that most advantaged those who avoided
the travel.

Not having to pay for it is the advantage.

But you have totally missed the point - mileage which can be
legitimately claimed has to be non-commuting mileage done on behalf of
the employer or the business (commuting to the normal workplace doesn't
count) and which the employer has asked the worker to do. Your several
references to "commuting" and the costs of commuting show that you have
misunderstood.

The question was how much a company cycling allowance should be. I
actually only mentioned commute once and as I pointed out I was giving
an indication of real life cycling costs.

If we are answering the question by quoting HMRC rules (as you appear to
be doing) the answer is easy, 20p per mile.

So what point have I misunderstood?

On 06/08/2011 23:39, Adam Lea wrote:

Not sure clothes should be counted, you don't need specific clothing for
cycling in the same way that you need to replace worn out components.

I'm not sure what point you are making. I could work to walk then I
would need to replace bike components. I do however find it advantageous
to cycle. I also find it advantageous to wear special clothes to cycle
in and hence find it easy to cost them. I think this is a perfectly
reasonable thing to do.

On 06/08/2011 23:48, Nick wrote:

On 06/08/2011 22:36, JNugent wrote:
On 06/08/2011 22:11, Nick wrote:
On 06/08/2011 20:46, Mr. Benn wrote:
"Nuxx Bar" wrote:

The usual suspects on uk.rec.cycling.censored are whinging that
someone is only being given 6p/mile "cycling allowance" when
travelling for work purposes. Apparently in some places it's *20p/
mile*!
But why should it even be as much as 6p/mile when we're told that one
of the "many benefits" of cycling is that it costs so little?

Cycling has mileage-related costs just like using using cars although
much less. I haven't done the maths to work out how much but 6p/mile
sound reasonable but generous. 20p/mile would be a ridiculously
generous. The mileage rate has to reflect the financial cost.

Has anyone calculated what the real costs associated with cycling are
per mile travelled? I assume wear and tear will dominate the cost.
What about the cost of food calories?

On a 4+ thousand mile yearly commute I can easily get costs up to £600
(equivalent 15p per mile). I'm sure I forgot some stuff. Still about
half what I would claim for public transport.

But you cannot make such a claim for commuting. At least, not without
the Revenue either refusing you the tax relief or regarding the money
claimed as income (which is what it would be). That boils down the same
either way: you have to cover commuting costs out of taxed income. An
employer cannot legitimately pay a mileage allowance for commuting - it
counts as income and falls to be taxed and to be subject to NI (and any
marginal superannuation deductions).

The question was how much cycling allowance should be. I was indicating
what genuine costs were.

"Cycling allowance" will either be a reimbursemt of actual expenses incurred
(low, one would have thought) or it will be income. It cen certainly *be*
high enough to be an income (that's up to employers), but it will be subject
to tax and Nat Ins).

Food used for cycling is negligible (although I do bill for lunch
separately), clothes are not.

Clothing can be tax-0deductible (good luck with any claim that you need
it for commuting - you will find that the revenue has a flat rule for
commuting costs which can be pithily expressed in two Anglo-Saxon words).

Actually travel costs are deductible for an employee working
continuously at a temporary client workplace for up to 24 months. Travel
costs from the normal office to the temporary office that is. So in some
cases commuting is tax deductible.

That isn't commuting (using the definition of travel between home and
permanent workplace). Any claim for such non-commuting travel may well be met
- subject to a deduction of the cost that would have been incurred in
(genuine) commuting. That is done to ensure fairness as between a worker
asked to work at a temporary client workplace and any other (normal) employee.

In effect, we're talking about two different things.

Personally I think if they are offering travel subsidies the rate should
be the same regardless of transport method. Why subsidise a polluting
car more than an environmentally friendly bike.

There is *no* subsidy involved.
Costs (real costs, which would otherwise be a loss) are simply being
covered.
That it is p[ossible for some misguided people to see that as "subsidy"
says something about them and nothing about the scheme.

A company travel allowance paid to employees is a subsidy, under the
normal English dictionary definition.

No, it is not.

This is what was being referred to
in the OP. While the word subsidy often refers to payments from
government it is also commonly used to refer to payments from employer
to employee.

Maybe, in certain unenlightened circles. Among people who understand the
meaning of English words, it is not so used. That's because to use the word
"subsidy" or any of its derivatives would mislead.

Best would be to invent a method that most advantaged those who avoided
the travel.

Not having to pay for it is the advantage.
But you have totally missed the point - mileage which can be
legitimately claimed has to be non-commuting mileage done on behalf of
the employer or the business (commuting to the normal workplace doesn't
count) and which the employer has asked the worker to do. Your several
references to "commuting" and the costs of commuting show that you have
misunderstood.

The question was how much a company cycling allowance should be. I
actually only mentioned commute once

It was more than once.

and as I pointed out I was giving
an indication of real life cycling costs.

Which are very low. MUCH lower than marginal driving costs.

If we are answering the question by quoting HMRC rules (as you appear to
be doing) the answer is easy, 20p per mile.

So what point have I misunderstood?

The thread title.

On 06/08/2011 23:56, Nick wrote:
On 06/08/2011 23:39, Adam Lea wrote:

Not sure clothes should be counted, you don't need specific clothing for
cycling in the same way that you need to replace worn out components.

I'm not sure what point you are making. I could work to walk then I
would need to replace bike components. I do however find it advantageous
to cycle. I also find it advantageous to wear special clothes to cycle
in and hence find it easy to cost them. I think this is a perfectly
reasonable thing to do.

Fine.

Just don't expect to earn more than people who walk, take the bus, or drive
to work.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 06/08/2011 22:11, Nick wrote:
On 06/08/2011 20:46, Mr. Benn wrote:
"Nuxx Bar" wrote in message
...



The usual suspects on uk.rec.cycling.censored are whinging that
someone is only being given 6p/mile "cycling allowance" when
travelling for work purposes. Apparently in some places it's
*20p/ mile*!

But why should it even be as much as 6p/mile when we're told that
one of the "many benefits" of cycling is that it costs so little?
================================

Cycling has mileage-related costs just like using using cars
although much less. I haven't done the maths to work out how much
but 6p/mile sound reasonable but generous. 20p/mile would be a
ridiculously generous. The mileage rate has to reflect the
financial cost.

Has anyone calculated what the real costs associated with cycling
are per mile travelled? I assume wear and tear will dominate the
cost. What about the cost of food calories?

On a 4+ thousand mile yearly commute I can easily get costs up to
£600 (equivalent 15p per mile). I'm sure I forgot some stuff. Still
about half what I would claim for public transport.

Food used for cycling is negligible (although I do bill for lunch
separately), clothes are not.

Personally I think if they are offering travel subsidies the rate
should be the same regardless of transport method. Why subsidise a
polluting car more than an environmentally friendly bike.

Best would be to invent a method that most advantaged those who
avoided the travel.

Tyres, cycling shoes, chains, new cassettes, rims. A fair number of
things that actually do wear out if you do meaningful mileage on a bike,
none of which are free. And of course the cost of the bike itself.

- --
Guy Chapman, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
to be worth at least what you paid for them.
PGP public key at http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public.key
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJOPkp5AAoJEJx9ogI8T+W/xjkIAJoZY8Ekpuh9qcFhsnkmPnPt
KjEg38yobhRPsIccOd61XQibddHqhfdW8w5vqTITnV7D63sOw9 4tFOE0mxZcYycN
MM02zMV4mzuV2vuetZ+4AGDVMdCzX6tuatttflXPaIaITmoEQj bQrjbTxDi+qZjg
sBShAT6TJHNKabSDEwAAGu/AtJREmC83hPPyqX7hazhY0UsUKeK5tGygzT5e5jsX
1u4wl7xaK8mCwhsQQYb8iocvRRzoLF10ZJnQ3uCImJ4dOY3lrg 2DvYRuZeGWfTTJ
b+fWuS/T85wlKJYC7KS0YeZnY/7BZYSuU8WofwPQXJSx8Ybd7Ex5xATCgJXhfTc=
=R5lR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Sun, 07 Aug 2011 09:19:05 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

snip


Tyres, cycling shoes, chains, new cassettes, rims. A fair number of
things that actually do wear out if you do meaningful mileage on a bike,
none of which are free. And of course the cost of the bike itself.



Hello Porky

Please explain how anyone (other than a courier) is going to any significant
number of miles on their push-bike whilst on company business.
--

Total number of posts to URC from
IP Address:80.254.146.36 over 6 years = 7

Guy Chapman : 5
Lou Knee: 2

Coincidence?
(Guy Chapman Dell Magnet)

On 07/08/2011 09:19, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 06/08/2011 22:11, Nick wrote:
On 06/08/2011 20:46, Mr. Benn wrote:
"Nuxx Bar" wrote in message
...



The usual suspects on uk.rec.cycling.censored are whinging that
someone is only being given 6p/mile "cycling allowance" when
travelling for work purposes. Apparently in some places it's
*20p/ mile*!

But why should it even be as much as 6p/mile when we're told that
one of the "many benefits" of cycling is that it costs so little?
================================

Cycling has mileage-related costs just like using using cars
although much less. I haven't done the maths to work out how much
but 6p/mile sound reasonable but generous. 20p/mile would be a
ridiculously generous. The mileage rate has to reflect the
financial cost.

Has anyone calculated what the real costs associated with cycling
are per mile travelled? I assume wear and tear will dominate the
cost. What about the cost of food calories?

On a 4+ thousand mile yearly commute I can easily get costs up to
£600 (equivalent 15p per mile). I'm sure I forgot some stuff. Still
about half what I would claim for public transport.

Food used for cycling is negligible (although I do bill for lunch
separately), clothes are not.

Personally I think if they are offering travel subsidies the rate
should be the same regardless of transport method. Why subsidise a
polluting car more than an environmentally friendly bike.

Best would be to invent a method that most advantaged those who
avoided the travel.

Tyres, cycling shoes, chains, new cassettes, rims. A fair number of
things that actually do wear out if you do meaningful mileage on a bike,
none of which are free. And of course the cost of the bike itself.

*If* the total of all that could be shown to be anywhere near 20p a mile (the
very idea makes one chuckle), the equivalent tax-free mileage rate for a
motor car would be a couple of quid per mile.