Conference terri::cars_uk

    
    The best we (as drivers) can hope for is for thinks to stay the same
    (No increase in Road Fund Licence or Petrol Duty). It's POSSIBLE that
    they may lower duty on unleaded by a small amount, but I doubt it.
    
    I heard on breakfast TV this morning that they're suggesting benefits
    for cars with Catalytic convertors. Anyone got any idea what sort of
    benefits? Will it, perhaps, mean a lower special car tax? Or, dare I
    hope, something tangible for those of us with Cats already?
    
    Since _most_ noters are probably considered company car drivers by
    Grandpa Munster, I guess we'd _most_ like to see some kind of reduction
    in the taxable value of the car as a benefit, but I doubt that very
    much.
    
    Mark

    
    I bet the business mile magic number goes up from 2,500 to 4,000
    bu that the tax numbers for having a company car stay the same.
    
    Rich
    

    
    That'd be good! :^(
    
    An interesting point made on the news was that if company car perk tax
    goes up again, many people will stop driving company cars and buy
    second hand and/or foreign cars, which could completely anhiliate the
    British car manufacturers (already weakened by the recession), since
    many fleet buyers still buy 'British'. Given the impending general
    election can Grandpa afford to upset any more of his party's, previously,
    faithful?
    
    Mark

    To be honest *I* think that there needs to be a basic rethink in the Co
    Car Tax scheme.
    
    Realistically, when the TAX was introduced, it was designed to capture
    the minority of people who have company cars as a perk.  What has
    happened is the majority of income from this tax comes from people who
    cannot do there jobs without a company car!
    
    Maybe tyhe chancellor should change the scale where diesels are
    concerned... ie. make a diesel 2.5L equal to a car upto 1999 CC.
    
    This would mean less fuel being used, and better efficiency!
    
    Bob (And no I am not a Diesel driver... but I could not do my job
    without a Co car)

    
    Bob,
    
    While I don't doubt that there are a lot of people who really do need
    a car to do their job, I can't believe that they are the majority!
    
    If you doubt this, take a look at the number of cars belonging to
    lease companies which either sit in company car parks all day, or 
    spend their days in BR car parks!
    
    Mark

    
    
    I agree that the majority of Co cars are not required, mine when I had
    one in the TSC was one such case, BUT i doubt very much that if people
    were encouraged to go out and buy thier own cars they would pick
    foreign cars and hurt the Balance of payments, Most people with 
    company cars choose so called quality/prestigous cars like BMW's , Mercs 
    and porsche's, they may decide to buy Nissans instead but it wont have
    any effect on the UK car manufacturers. I think whoever said that was
    just trying to worry the Chancellor into help the car industry per se.
    
    Company cars are a waste and have been shown to keep the price of cars
    artificially high in the UK for quite some time now. BAN EM.
    

    
    Company cars *ARE* a perk.
    
    Why take one if your not going to be better off than without.
    
    Stop whinging on this point and consider the possible increases in fuel
    which affect everyone.
    
    Chris
    

    I too used to work down in variables, I take the money and not the car.
    In 3 years I done maybe 1500 miles for the company by road., I now work in 
    Enterprise House and a car is a hinderance here. Although I'm in and out 
    to customers a fair bit, the underground or even shoe leather is cheaper
    and more efficent that a car. Most if not all the people in the group 
    I work take the money. I think its safe to say that the biggest majority
    of people working in places like central London do not need a car to do a 
    days work. How many people struggle to do the minimum mileage, as apposed to
    those who clock up the minimum mileage per month. I would suspect that
    a majority struggle to meet the minimum and by far the minority exceed
    the 18,000 miles or whatever it is to take the lower level tax.
    
        If the differnce between a perk car and owning your own were to
    swing the other way ,my guess is that the number of cars on the road
    would drop , maybe even the price of cars would drop. But on the other
    hand where's the bugger going to increase tax to make up for the loss.
    
    
    	Garr
    	

    Some ideas around the industry this week for the budget:
    
    Increase price differential between petrol and diesel - favouring derv.
    
    No change in Raod Fund tax
    
    Reduction of Special car tax but only by 2.5% (5% would be a bonus)
    
    Considerable structural change in the car benefit taxation system to
    reflect reality - this is more likely to be an announcement not an
    introduction.
    
    Doug
    

Where's the money going to come from.

IMHO.

Increase tax on car phones to help pay for accident costs related to their
usage.

Increase tax on portable phones to help pay for some serious self image
counselling centres.

Double tax on tobacco related products. I don't mind people killing themselves
but I wish they'd find a more socially acceptable and economical way of doing
it. In addition force tobacco companies to pay for smoking related health care.

Lower tax on alcohol. Hey, this only affects me, I've not heard of passive
drinking. Make alcohol companies pay for alcohol related health care.

Lower tax on unleaded fuel. Increase tax on diesel (filthy fuel) and leaded
petrol (I don't use it any more).

Increase VAT to be inline with other European countries (12% Spain). Well
wasn't this excuse given for increasing it to 17.5%. No doubt a politician
will be able to convince me that 12% is greater than 17.5% and that I should
be thankful that the present governments economic policies mean I have more
money in my pocket to spend on VAT whoops luxury goods (food, clothing etc...)

Tax every one on gross income + benefits. No deductions allowed. Too many
people manage to claim this and that deduction and end up paying less tax
than those who earn only a small proportion of their income.

If every body paid their fair share of tax then the rates could be lowered.

Higher tax rate for high earners.

Just some thoughts.

Chris

    
    They tried to tax car phones last time round, but found that many 
    small businesses rely on them now to keep them in business (Mr Plumber
    comes around to do a job for you and doesn't miss two jobs for next
    week because he wasn't at home). It would prove very difficult to
    decide who had a phone as a perk and who had one as a genuine business
    expense.
    
    How about doubling the tax on BMWs?
    
    Mark

From what I've heard Mr. Plumber loads his bill to cover the calls he may have
missed while he was out seeing to your drains.

Double tax on Plumbers.

Also from discussion elsewhere about the cost of protable phone charges it
would be cheaper (and more pleasing on the eye) for Mr. Plumber to hire a
secretary.

Chris

    
    Yes, you're probably right about plumbers, but portable phones can
    serve a useful purpose. However, it would be nice to hit that sector
    of the population who consider them an essential business item like
    a BMW and a Rolex.
    
    Mark

    
    Emergency workers (doctors, nurses etc) I can see as good examples of
    people who may need to be contacted wherever they are.
    
    Wallies on street corners poking peoples' eyes out should be put out of
    their misery.
    
    Solution : Have pool phones.
    
    Pool cars are non-taxable. When not in use they should be kept on
    business premises or some such rule.
    
    Chris
    

Increase in Company Car Tax by 25%

All (vehicle) fuels up by 5%

re.7:

> Why take one if your not going to be better off than without.

I took a car because my job was changing to a job where I was expected to
travel on company business. Knowing from experience that the 8p a mile expenses
does not cover depreciation due to high mileage, the lease car looked a good
deal even though it was going to cost me more in operational cost for an
equivalent car to my (then) current car. I don't think I benefited other than
I'm no longer taking the risk on 2nd hand car values. Wow, what a perk!

/Dave.

    Increase min. business related milage to 3,500 miles .
    Decrease tax on car sales .
    Petrol up by 8p leaded , 5p unleaded , derv no change.
    Road tax no change .
    
                          KR
    P.S. Income tax down 2% to 23%, higher rate increase from 40% to 41% .
         Tax allowance increase in line with inflation.
         
    

    
    Re: .16
    
    Not taking a risk on second hand values, mainentance costs etc. is a
    luxury not everybody has.
    
    All in all you are better off.
    
    The question still stands.
    
    Why take a car if you are not going to be better off? You have the
    choice. It's no use making a decision and then whinging about how hard
    done by you've been.
    
    Chris.
    

There was a roo-mer in todays papers that the upper-mileage of 18,000, at which
your tax bill gets halved MAY ACTUALLY BE REDUCED.

This is because an awful lot of company cars drives use the car when perhaps
they normally wouldn't - just to get over that magic figure.

Weird logic maybe, but i bet we all know someone who is close to 18,000 and is
keen to make it!

mb

    To answer a question....
    
    	It would cost me less to rubn around in a second hand car!
    
    	It would not however be any use to me for business purposes.
    
    	To drop out of the lease scheme, and buy a car, that car would half
    to be approved by my cost centre manager, as being suitable to do the
    job... (I am a CS Engineer).  
    
    I cannot think of any reason why an office based worker would need a
    company car, unless they needed to travel extensively for business
    purposes.  IE... why have a company car if all of your customers are in
    a small area, where public transport is acceptable...
    
    Or in my case the area I can be expected to work in covers about 300
    miles north to south and around 150 miles east to west.  There is only
    one train service and that is about as regular a a general election.
    
    So do I need a company car...?  I SAY YES!!
    
    		Bob

    
    Ah, so you've changed your position from _MOST_ people with a car need
    one to _I_ need one. That's a pretty radical jump. From what you say,
    I'd reckon that you are one of those people who does have a pretty good
    claim on a company car, but can you offer a good reason why you
    shouldn't use a company vehicle to travel around for work and then
    return to base and collect your own car to drive home?
    
    Mark

    No problem... Callouts and Standby!
    
    Would you really subject me to unloading everything I might need into
    my own car, driving home, using my own car to attend callouts during
    the night, then load up my company car again in the morning...?
    
    To say I could simply drive to the office to pick up the company car
    may be a resonable solution to you, but for me that would waste an
    awful lot of time that my customers are paying for...!!!
    
    From my original entry I would still say *Most* but perhaps I should
    clarify this to say that in the office where I work from, *MOST* people
    need their CO cars.
    
    		Bob

    
    Yep, I was playing Devil's advocate in this case, I reckon you'd be
    one of the few cases where a car really IS justified in an organisation
    such as this.
    
    Maybe _most_ people in your office (presumably H/w service related?) do
    need a company car, but mosey on down to DEC Park or most of the
    Basingstoke sites or here at Newbury and you'll find quite the opposite
    is true. As a whole the company car is merely another benefit alongside
    private health insurance and the company pension. They're nice to have,
    and many people consider they're something the company should provide,
    but at the end of the day they're not essential for _MOST_ people to do
    their job.
    
    Mark

    Point Taken....
    
    Anyway, we can't change what Lamont is going to do.... but you can bet
    your shirt on a *soft* budget...
    
    
    		Bob

    
    I _TOTALLY_ agree with that! 
    
    Mark

    
    Bribe or no bribe. Which is the best option, another conservative
    govenment or a Labour one. Some people have said ( don't know the
    source) that they expect the next election to leave a hung parliament
    (best thing for some of them). I would tend to agree with a soft budget 
    as a sweetner, but I bet they find a way of taking any thing they give
    away ,back again just as quick.
    
    
    	Garry

    
    The best solution is to start giving politicians more realistic wages
    and start lowering taxes and start properly paying the people who *are*
    underpayed ( doctors, teachers and er.. network specialists 8^) ).
    
    -Tony

    re : .10, PASSIVE ALCOHOLISM does exist !
    
    I think that families of alcoholics could fall into this category.
    There is a support burden to be bourne by the taxpayer, either within
    the family, or consequential damage/injury of Drunks In Charge, i.e.
    victims of *excessive*drinkers habits.
    

    So far
    
    Car tax scales only up by inflation 
    Intention to introduce a car-cost based system
    If the company offers you a cash alternative, a system will be set up
    to enable them to pass you the VAT element 
    
    Car purchase tax reduced to 5%
    
    Richard

    Re VAT.
    
    The actual wording was:
    
    "...companies that offered their employees the alternative of cash or
    car have found themselves liable to pay VAT on the salary forgone by
    those who chose the car, That is clearly nonsensical. ... from 1 April
    a VAT charge will no longer be imposed in these so-called salary
    sacrifice cases."
    
    It was the VAT ruling that lead to the cash option being withdrawn at
    DEC a few years ago. I assume now that we will all be able to come in and
    out of the scheme at will again now.
    
    Ian.

    I missed the part about taxation on company cars changing from engine
    size to vehicle cost.
    
    Were any details given (e.g. bands) or an implementation date?
    
    JK

    >>     Were any details given (e.g. bands) or an implementation date?
    
    	The Inland Revenue are to publish a consultative document in the
    	summer on the details and timing of the move
    
    	Ian.

    Ok so when are all the prices on VTX going down, since the SCT was
    cut,and when is the petrol price per mile going up :^)
    
    
    Greg

    I don't think the lease company will pass all the 5% saving in the
    purchase price of new cars on to the leaser via the lease price .
    I expect they will use the cash saving to try to prop up falling
    profits due the continuing drop in the resale value of used cars.
    
                      KR

    My point is that people who are using their company car as part
    of their tool kit are still subject to the same tax payment as someone
    who parks their nice shiny car outside the office all day.
    
    I woudnt hold your breath waiting for a reduction in lease costs.
    I think the leasing companies will pocket the reduction in car tax.
    
    

    
    Re .38
    
    But of course that's what the mileage bands are supposed to deal with.
    
    Mark

    Re 39
    
    Yes but the government doesnt take into account that a 
    working vehicle is a bootless two seater car for most of the
    and is actually used to bring company revenue in not sit pretty
    in a car park all day.
    
    
    K 
    
    
    

	If the new car cost drops, then, in these economic climes, I would 
	expect the resale value to drop too.

	So there would be no change in lease car prices.

	Re VAT, People who take the money instead of a car have a deduction
	in the money for the VAT element. 
	I wonder if this will change, she says hopefully

	Heather

    Re .40
    
    I don't quite see your point. Mark's earlier comment answers the
    question. I do not cover many company miles at the moment and I pay
    a lot of extra tax for that reason. Presumably if you are on the road a
    lot your tax is seriously reduced. As you have the car for personal use
    then you must agree it is still a perk.
    
    The only company car that is not a perk would be if you drove your own
    car to work and  picked up a pool car for business use and drive your
    own car home again.
    
    Roy

    Re 42
    
    
    2501 miles = 1100 pounds taxable income
    
    17999 miles = 1100 pounds taxable income
    
    Every man and his dog probably do 2500 company miles a year
    
    The point is there are a lot of people who once had a use for
    a company car but have moved on to jobs that dont require co cars.
    The rule should be if you move to a job which no longer requires you 
    to have a revenue earning car, the car should be removed an replaced
    with a cash sum, so normal income tax applies.
    
    Then the people who really need company cars wouldnt get screwed for
    someone elses perk
                     
    Which would you sooner do 17999 at 8p a mile in a car full of stuff
    or 2501 in a empty office car at 8p a mile,  But still pay the same tax
    
    Over and out
    
    K

... maybe i will pick whether i want it taking of GROSS or NET depending on the
one that means less tax :-)

But seriously, we currently pay for the extra off GROSS, but that has been
agreed with the taxman. The new situation will most probably mean that
all qualified car users will be worse off from a "Digital compenation and
benefits" point of view.

One bad point about the current Digital lease scheme is that if you lease the
WHOLE of the car (you are an unqualified user), then due to the fact that you
are taking payments off GROSS, you can only claim 8 pence per mile, rather than
the 30-odd pence for private car drivers, EVEN THOUGH YOU ARE PAYING FOR THE
CAR YOURSELF!!

Price-based benefits is certainly fairer, but they should introduce it after
3 years to allow existing company car users to make a decision about their
next car.

mb

> Every man and his dog probably do 2500 company miles a year

I (and my dog) don't.  I'm sure there are people at Digital who fit
into every possible category of private and company car use.

Before anyone starts a rathole on why I joined the scheme with such low
company mileage, I calculated it was cheaper at the time based on my
private mileage and insurance cost.

Jon
 

    re .46
    
    The 30p per mile is designed to cover all the costs ie
    servicing,tyres,petrol etc involved in taking your own car one mile.
    The 8p per mile is supposed to cover petrol and oil, servicing etc are
    covered in the lease cost. So you are not comparing as you should.
    
    Andrew

	Also re .46, if you have your own private car, are an unqualified
	user, and take the supplement as cash (the taxmen love that), you still
 	get 8p mile, not 30p.

	Heather

    Re: .49 ...."(the taxman love that)".....
    
    Would you care to elucidate?
    
    JK

Re .48 and .49,

Correct me if I've got the terminology wrong, but I understand an
unqualified user means someone like me who doesn't qualify for Digital
to pay for a car.  Thus if I want a lease car, I have to pay the entire
cost out of my salary.

>    The 8p per mile is supposed to cover petrol and oil, servicing etc are
>    covered in the lease cost. So you are not comparing as you should.
  
Yes, but I'm paying the lease cost myself so whether servicing is
included in the lease and comes out of my salary, or I pay for it
directly with a credit card is irrelevent (apart from the tax implications).

>	Also re .46, if you have your own private car, are an unqualified
>	user, and take the supplement as cash (the taxmen love that), you still
> 	get 8p mile, not 30p.

As I understand it, being an unqualified user means you *don't* get a
supplement for a car or in cash, so this statement is meaningless.

Jon

    
    I think one of the likely benefits of the change in taxation on
    company cars is likely to be an increased choice in engine size
    for the consumer.
    
    I expect that the manufacturers will move very quickly to a system
    where you pay for the trim level and then decide (within reason)
    which engine you want. 
    
    In the old days, larger fuel injected engines probably cost a lot more 
    to manufacture than a cheap four pot single carb no electronics
    job. Nowadays with all cars needing fuel injection and masses of
    electronics to beat the emission regs, the costs must be very similar.
    And certainly more simliar than their extravagant pricing differentials
    would suggest.
    
    Richard.
    

    The other interesting question will be how they work out engine size
    equivalence to favour (or not!) diesels.
    
    JK

    
    Re .last
    
    If they use a "car cost" tax, the taxman won't care what sort of
    engine it has... petrol, diesel, rotary, jet, electric etc.
    
    Richard.
    

    

>Correct me if I've got the terminology wrong, but I understand an
>unqualified user means someone like me who doesn't qualify for Digital
>to pay for a car.  Thus if I want a lease car, I have to pay the entire
>cost out of my salary.


	I get the supplement, I am an unqualified user, and I take the cash.

	A qualified user (even if we still use this term?) is someone who
	needs the car to do the job - I think there used to be a guideline
	of over 6,000 company miles a year.
	You could be qualified at whatever level you were, and get a supplement
	towards the car costs.
	Also, it used to be the case that a qualified user HAD to take the car.

	Just because you have the supplement, doesn't mean you're a qualified
	user.

	Heather

    Surely, you must be a qualified user otherwise you wouldn't get the
    supplement.
    
    Just because you take the cash doesn't make you unqualified.
    I understand "Qualified" means you are entitled to a car _or_ the cash
    equivilent.
    
    Roy