BOOST Scheme

Centurian_Oooyabass said:

Anybody here actually got their employer to take part in the BOOST Scheme ..
attitude of mine is "there no such thing as a free lunch, end of story"

Thanks.

Could you explain the BOOST scheme?
--
Best Regards
Richard

Richard Lucas said:

Centurian_Oooyabass said:

Anybody here actually got their employer to take part in the BOOST Scheme ..
attitude of mine is "there no such thing as a free lunch, end of story"

Thanks.

Could you explain the BOOST scheme?

IR176 is the appropriate reference for the inland revenue.

In practise the employer can buy a bike (or computer) for the employee.
The employee can then pay for this out of gross salary (technically
known as a salary sacrifice). After a period of time the employee can
purchase the item from the employer for it's residual value.

Benefits:
1. You don't pay income tax/NI on the portion of salary sacrificed.
2. You don't pay tax on the benefit of having the bike (it is
specifically excluded)
3. The employer doesn't pay NI on the cost either
4. Depending on the employer you may not have to pay VAT either (except
on the final purchase which can be written down to near zero after an
appropriate length of time. the rules changed for this to allow
standard depreciation rather than actual market value to be used.)

Disbenefits:
1. A tiny bit of admin once the scheme is up and going.

In theory the uni here have the scheme being rolled out for computers,
so extending to bikes should be trivial.

...d

"Centurian_Oooyabass" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Anybody here actually got their employer to take part in the BOOST Scheme
.. attitude of mine is "there no such thing as a free lunch, end of story"

Thanks.

Our request for Sheffield stands was rejected after I spent 18 months
trying. A nearby plant left some soot particles on dozens of cars. Money was
found to give then a full buff and polish. Nuff said.

Booost scheme?

http://www.ukcyclestore.com/acatalog/Booost_Scheme.html

David Martin said:

Richard Lucas said:

Centurian_Oooyabass said:

Anybody here actually got their employer to take part in the BOOST Scheme ..
attitude of mine is "there no such thing as a free lunch, end of story"

Thanks.

Could you explain the BOOST scheme?

IR176 is the appropriate reference for the inland revenue.

In practise the employer can buy a bike (or computer) for the employee.
The employee can then pay for this out of gross salary (technically
known as a salary sacrifice). After a period of time the employee can
purchase the item from the employer for it's residual value.

Benefits:
1. You don't pay income tax/NI on the portion of salary sacrificed.
2. You don't pay tax on the benefit of having the bike (it is
specifically excluded)
3. The employer doesn't pay NI on the cost either
4. Depending on the employer you may not have to pay VAT either (except
on the final purchase which can be written down to near zero after an
appropriate length of time. the rules changed for this to allow
standard depreciation rather than actual market value to be used.)

Disbenefits:
1. A tiny bit of admin once the scheme is up and going.

In theory the uni here have the scheme being rolled out for computers,
so extending to bikes should be trivial.

..d

and the company I work for has rejected the scheme on the grounds that
it can't make any profit out of it (it appears to be successful with the
computer version of this scheme)

Simon Mason said:

Our request for Sheffield stands was rejected after I spent 18 months
trying. A nearby plant left some soot particles on dozens of cars. Money was
found to give then a full buff and polish. Nuff said.

f**k me, that is quite unbelievable. :-)

"stupot" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Simon Mason said:

Our request for Sheffield stands was rejected after I spent 18 months
trying. A nearby plant left some soot particles on dozens of cars. Money
was found to give then a full buff and polish. Nuff said.

f**k me, that is quite unbelievable. :-)

That's nothing - but I can't tell you anymore until I retire, or I'll be
forcibly "retired".

stupot said:

Simon Mason said:

Our request for Sheffield stands was rejected after I spent 18
months trying. A nearby plant left some soot particles on dozens
of cars. Money was found to give then a full buff and polish.
Nuff said.

Quoted message said:

f**k me, that is quite unbelievable. :-)

It's not a fair comparison. The Sheffield stands would have been
capital expenditure increasing provision above the current level. The
cleaning and polishing was to restore property to its previous
condition that had been affected by an incident.

--
Dave...

dkahn400 said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Our request for Sheffield stands was rejected after I spent 18
months trying. A nearby plant left some soot particles on dozens
of cars. Money was found to give then a full buff and polish.
Nuff said.

Quoted message said:

f**k me, that is quite unbelievable. :-)

It's not a fair comparison. The Sheffield stands would have been
capital expenditure increasing provision above the current level.

But possibly increasing cycle use -> reduced car use -> reduced car
parking spaces -> reduced maintenance on car parking spaces + reduced
levels of staff illness -> reduced overall costs.

R.

That's far too logical.

Where I work they rent spaces for overflow parking. It costs over a
grand a space per year.

What do cyclists get? A bit of chain bolted to the building because
stands were too expensive. No shower (too expensive). Nothing else.

Oh, and they backed out of the cycle scheme as it was "too complicated"

"iakobski" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

That's far too logical.

Where I work they rent spaces for overflow parking. It costs over a
grand a space per year.

We had a huge overflow car park built as a temporary measure as the main one
would be closed for 6 months. It will never be used again and lies
completely empty.

Our local *primary* school has individual bike lockers!

"Richard" <[email hidden]>
wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It's not a fair comparison. The Sheffield stands would have been
capital expenditure increasing provision above the current level.

Yeah - that 35 quid per stand would have put Europe's largest company in
serious financial difficulty!

Simon Mason said:

"Richard" <[email hidden]>
wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It's not a fair comparison. The Sheffield stands would have been
capital expenditure increasing provision above the current level.

No, I only quoted that bit. :-)

R.

"Richard" <[email hidden]>
wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Simon Mason said:

"Richard" <[email hidden]>
wrote in message

Quoted message said:

>It's not a fair comparison. The Sheffield stands would have been
>capital expenditure increasing provision above the current level.

No, I only quoted that bit. :-)

Sorry - chopped too much.

Richard said:

dkahn400 said:

Quoted message said:

>Our request for Sheffield stands was rejected after I spent 18
>months trying. A nearby plant left some soot particles on dozens
>of cars. Money was found to give then a full buff and polish.
>Nuff said.

Quoted message said:

f**k me, that is quite unbelievable. :-)

It's not a fair comparison. The Sheffield stands would have been
capital expenditure increasing provision above the current level.

But possibly increasing cycle use -> reduced car use -> reduced
car parking spaces -> reduced maintenance on car parking spaces +
reduced levels of staff illness -> reduced overall costs.

I don't dispute that, but it's irrelevant to my point.

--
Dave...

dkahn400 said:

Richard said:

dkahn400 said:

>>Our request for Sheffield stands was rejected after I spent 18
>>months trying. A nearby plant left some soot particles on dozens
>>of cars. Money was found to give then a full buff and polish.
>>Nuff said.

>f**k me, that is quite unbelievable. :-)

It's not a fair comparison. The Sheffield stands would have been
capital expenditure increasing provision above the current level.

But possibly increasing cycle use -> reduced car use -> reduced
car parking spaces -> reduced maintenance on car parking spaces +
reduced levels of staff illness -> reduced overall costs.

I don't dispute that, but it's irrelevant to my point.

I know, I was just further illustrating the company's failure of
thinking. :-)

R.

Simon Mason said:

"Richard" <[email hidden]>
wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It's not a fair comparison. The Sheffield stands would have been
capital expenditure increasing provision above the current
level.

Quoted message said:

Yeah - that 35 quid per stand would have put Europe's largest
company in serious financial difficulty!

It's still not a fair comparison, however grotesque it seems. The money
spent cleaning the cars was spent to restore property that had become
damaged while in the company car park. Of course, if your bike had also
been spattered with soot and the company had refused to put that right
too you would have had a point.

The money spent on the extra car park is not a valid comparison either,
however odious it seems. This was to replace an existing facility that
was being made temporarily unavailable. If they'd suddenly decided you
couldn't leave your bike where you leave it, and not provided an
equivalent somewhere else, again you would have had a point.

Of course, just because I don't accept your comparisons, that doesn't
mean I don't think they should spend real money on provision for
sustainable transport and start trying to discourage car use, because I
do.

When I was at GlaxoSmithKline many cagers were noisily upset about the
limited parking and the money that was being spent on cyclists. In a
newsletter to the BUG I outlined the economic, health and environmental
arguments that could be advanced to counter them. I also said not to
bother with any of that, and simply go "Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha." :-)

--
Dave...

iakobski said:

Oh, and they backed out of the cycle scheme as it was "too complicated"

Yep, our company said the same thing basically - 'Cant be arsed'

"dkahn400" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

The money spent on the extra car park is not a valid comparison either,
however odious it seems. This was to replace an existing facility that
was being made temporarily unavailable. If they'd suddenly decided you
couldn't leave your bike where you leave it, and not provided an
equivalent somewhere else, again you would have had a point.

We have" wheel benders" and I have locked by bike to the perimeter fence for
6 years rather than using their so called facilities. Suddenly, they decided
bikes on the fence were an obstruction and threatened to remove any bikes
not "locked" to a wheel bender.

I then wrote a 25 page document which I posted to the top brass which stated
that I will file a case for bullying and harassment to an independent body
(which the company provides) if they threaten me again. So far I've had no
more threats.

Centurian_Oooyabass said:

Anybody here actually got their employer to take part in the BOOST Scheme ..
attitude of mine is "there no such thing as a free lunch, end of story"

Thanks.

mines "that sounds like a bit of effort. screw it"