Gladys Posted April 6 Share Posted April 6 1 minute ago, Anthony Ingham said: “Hey boss. You know the car you leased to enable me to do my job, which is here for the next four years? Do you mind just parking it up and paying me and extra £500 a month? Thanks” Yeah. Good idea 😂 But does it apply to those vehicles which are provided as a necessary tool to do the job? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Ingham Posted April 6 Author Share Posted April 6 1 minute ago, Gladys said: Isn't it intended to incentivise EVs as company cars? Yes, but the company isn’t being penalised, the employee with the car is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two-lane Posted April 6 Share Posted April 6 https://www.gov.im/news/2024/mar/09/revamped-benefit-in-kind-system-promotes-green-motoring/ 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted April 6 Share Posted April 6 (edited) Just now, Anthony Ingham said: Yes, but the company isn’t being penalised, the employee with the car is. Because it is targeted at the benefit in kind aspect, isn't it? Edited April 6 by Gladys 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Ingham Posted April 6 Author Share Posted April 6 1 minute ago, Gladys said: Isn't it intended to incentivise EVs as company cars? Yes, but the company isn’t being penalised, the employee with the car is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Ingham Posted April 6 Author Share Posted April 6 3 minutes ago, Gladys said: But does it apply to those vehicles which are provided as a necessary tool to do the job? Yes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted April 6 Share Posted April 6 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Anthony Ingham said: Yes Read the link provided by Two-Lane above. ETA applies to benefit in kind, as an alternative to salary. Edited April 6 by Gladys Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted April 6 Share Posted April 6 do what government do , pay staff X amount per mile to use their own vehicles for work. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Ingham Posted April 6 Author Share Posted April 6 5 minutes ago, Gladys said: Read the link provided by Two-Lane above. ETA applies to benefit in kind, as an alternative to salary. Its not an alternative to salary for lots of people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted April 6 Share Posted April 6 4 minutes ago, Anthony Ingham said: Its not an alternative to salary for lots of people. Well, if the vehicles are not required for the job and they are not willing to pay salary rather than provide a car, they may not fill the posts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two-lane Posted April 6 Share Posted April 6 (edited) 30 minutes ago, WTF said: do what government do , pay staff X amount per mile to use their own vehicles for work. Car insurance has not included business use as standard for years now, and I have no idea of what the extra cost of business use is. I hope that the gov. checks people's insurance policy before paying out mileage - I recall that decades ago the company I worked for in England wanted a copy of my insurance policy before letting me use my car to drive to another office. And just to lower the tone a little - the standard policy covers Social, Domestic and Pleasure. Apparently the last of those is required if you wish to visit Marine Drive. I wouldn't know. Others might. Edited April 6 by Two-lane as standard 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
x-in-man Posted April 6 Share Posted April 6 Are they paying to park yet? 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yibble Posted April 6 Share Posted April 6 The harsh reality is that it will always be middle earners that get stung for extra tax. Governments struggle to extract substantial (in public revenue terms) amounts of tax from the rich because (1) there are relatively few of them and (2) their wealth tends to be mobile; so greedy governments risk reducing the tax take and harming the economy (which is what Allinson and Co seem to be risking). Governments can't extract substantial revenues from poor people because they haven't got any money. It's a lovely idea that public sector spending shortfalls should be picked up by someone a bit wealthier than you / me / us, but sadly it rarely works that way. The problem here is excessive spending / government / public sector, not a lack of taxation. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Ingham Posted April 6 Author Share Posted April 6 25 minutes ago, Gladys said: Well, if the vehicles are not required for the job and they are not willing to pay salary rather than provide a car, they may not fill the posts. And if people are already in posts? The employee should just swallow a grand extra in tax or move job? My question was what is the logic behind this move. Nobody has answered it yet, because it’s illogical and based on a stupid preconception that people with company cars are self employed and taking the piss. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted April 6 Share Posted April 6 Just now, Anthony Ingham said: And if people are already in posts? The employee should just swallow a grand extra in tax or move job? My question was what is the logic behind this move. Nobody has answered it yet, because it’s illogical and based on a stupid preconception that people with company cars are self employed and taking the piss. I ask again, does this apply to vehicles necessarily provided to do the job? They are not a benefit in kind but a tool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.