The bike to work scheme cannot benefit the most poorly paid

[Guineveretoo]

oh boo hoo someone said a sweary word and used insulting language, deal with it for fuck's sake

Oh, grow up, will you!

 

[sir.clip]

They tried this very thing in Cambridge a few years ago. Ideally suited for such a trial, one would have thought.

It didn't work, and was abandoned really quickly, as the "green" bikes (which had been mended and painted by people on community service, and which were all bikes which had been reclaimed from rivers and suchlike anyway) were dumped all over the town, but never at the bike stands specially set up for them.

What a load of pants on cambridges community service officers & councillers & the genral all round poopness of the british society..
Who ever puts the idea into action must ensure it works & people will follow the scheme..
The people in charge of the schemes should have been made to go round in wearing nothing bt speedos, collecting the bikes at midday for simply not ensuring that it worked.. Cunting world is messed..

 

[Guineveretoo]

What a load of pants on cambridges community service officers & councillers & the genral all round poopness of the british society..
Who ever puts the idea into action must ensure it works & people will follow the scheme..
The people in charge of the schemes should have been made to go round in wearing nothing bt speedos, collecting the bikes at midday for simply not ensuring that it worked.. Cunting world is messed..

What do you think they should have done that they didn't?

 

[sir.clip]

What do you think they should have done that they didn't?

Well you got to forget the word 'they' mate..As Its us..
In society we all have a responsibillity in over seeing projects for the community.. As it benefits us all..
I read that link & it made me laugh. Because, after one day all the bikes went & where obviously never returned...
So its clear it is down to us all..
I'm quite hard line, So my views will not be to appreciated on this site, as I have come to realise this in past posts..
But I would be out everyday myself making sure that what bicycles where not hoaded away where collected up & ready for use the next day.

If the poor decided to keep the bicycle for everyday Or minimal use thats o.k But the should then register it & then recieve free maintinance at workshops set up in the city . where offenders would fix and repair them for nish.. & learn about sharing & community spirit. Its a big scheme to put in place but it is so so so simple to put in place...



"Simon Sedgwick-Jell", that fellow in charge of the scheme sums it up in his own gesture...


"He withdrew from Cambridge politics after the May 1995 elections and in March 1996 left the Labour Party (CEN 15-Mar), citing dislike of the New Labour under Tony Blair. "

Hah ha ahhh haha tony blair You cUNT on your bike you 3 house owning bee gee blowing middle class fart...The only thing green about blair is his wifes eyes for that fox fur coat..
Yeh sorry..

I wish we could all share a bit more...

 

[Herbsman.]

Oh, grow up, will you!

So you're not leaving the thread then?

Bit hypocritical of you to tell me to grow up, don't you think? After you're the one who decided to leave the thread because you couldn't handle the fact that someone said a naughty word at you.

 

[eoin_k]

Everything that Herbsman has written is well argued and based on fact. The scheme reduces the cost of cycling as a means of transport but is not accesible to those on the lowest incomes. Since everyone who works has to travel to work and cycling to work is one of the cheapest modes of traffic (probably the cheapest with the exception of walking or bunking on a bendy bus). People on minimum wage have to pay their travel costs and manage their budget accordingly so there is no logic to excluding them from this scheme.

Another injustice of the scheme is that those on higher incomes benefit more than those on lower incomes as they are entitled to more of a tax break if they pay higher rate income tax.

 

[Guineveretoo]

Everything that Herbsman has written is well argued and based on fact. The scheme reduces the cost of cycling as a means of transport but is not accesible to those on the lowest incomes. Since everyone who works has to travel to work and cycling to work is one of the cheapest modes of traffic (probably the cheapest with the exception of walking or bunking on a bendy bus). People on minimum wage have to pay their travel costs and manage their budget accordingly so there is no logic to excluding them from this scheme.

Another injustice of the scheme is that those on higher incomes benefit more than those on lower incomes as they are entitled to more of a tax break if they pay higher rate income tax.

Do you think this "your fuckwittery is only exceeded by your stubbornness." is well argued and based on fact?

I can't believe that you really think that herbsman is an expert on salary sacrifice schemes, because he is not.

It's quite true that it is not available to people who on the minimum wage, and quite right that it should not be. They sacrifice some of their salary (the clue is in the name). The scheme was not designed to help people who are on the minimum wage. There are other schemes that do.

The salary sacrifice scheme has a lot of flaws, whether it is used for childcare costs , computer or bike purchase, or something else. One of its flaws is that it is not accessible to people on very low income.

Herbsman got it into his head that I don't know how these schemes work, and resorted to petty insults because I irritated him.

I think salary sacrifice schemes should be handled with great care, and we need to ensure that, for example, they are not affecting how much pension people are able to build up, and ensure that they do not affect performance bonus payments when these are paid etc. etc.

I completely support the law on minimum wage, though, which means that an employer is not able to hold back some of a person's salary if this brings them below the legal minimum wage and, as I said, the line needs to be drawn, and if this means that the salary sacrifice scheme cannot be used, so be it.

It doesn't stop an employer from running a credit union, or offering interest free loans, or running a pool of bikes available to its staff!

In fact, there are lots of things an employer can do to help people on the minimum wage. They could pay them more, for a start!

 

[Herbsman.]

1. Still hung up on that comment? Get over it.

2. Show me where I've said that you don't know how the schemes work

3. You don't need to be an expert in salary sacrifice schemes to have an idea of what's fair and what's not fair

 

[roryer]

I don't think you get what I'm saying. If you read the rules of this thing, you'll see that you pay the loan back by sacrificing part of your salary. However your salary after the sacrifice must not be less than minimum wage therefore if you're already on minimum wage you cannot sacrifice any of your salary. Thus, you can't take the loan out in the first place, because you can't pay it back. Now do you understand?

Thansk Herbsman, I didn't know that, it is an interesting point, and one that might need to be addressed, where did you get the quote, can you send me the link?

 

[Herbsman.]

Thansk Herbsman, I didn't know that, it is an interesting point, and one that might need to be addressed, where did you get the quote, can you send me the link?

It's on the dft website, so if you google "bikes for work scheme site:dft.gov.uk" (without the quote marks) it should come up as top result...

 

[Guineveretoo]

Thansk Herbsman, I didn't know that, it is an interesting point, and one that might need to be addressed, where did you get the quote, can you send me the link?

The point is about salary sacrifice schemes, not specifically about bikes so, if you are interested, you may wish to do some research on those.

The rules on salary sacrifice do not, for example, apply to an employer who wants to offer an interest free loan for bike purchase, but are specific to the salary sacrifice scheme.

I don't know if that makes sense, but I am at work at the moment, so can't really find the energy to provide more detail right now.

 

[eoin_k]

Do you think this "your fuckwittery is only exceeded by your stubbornness." is well argued and based on fact?

I hadn't read half the thread when I wrote that. I hadn't noticed the last page. Things may have got a little bit heated afterwards. I wouldn't have accused you of fuckwittery. I think Herbsman should appologise or be more precise by saying something like "When I accused you of fuckwittery I meant don't be such a pedantic fool".

I can't believe that you really think that herbsman is an expert on salary sacrifice schemes, because he is not.

I don't think he is an expert on salary sacrafice I just agreed that it was unjust that people on the lowest incomes couldn't choose to participate in a scheme which would reduce their travel costs, improve their health and reduce their environmental impact.

It's quite true that it is not available to people who on the minimum wage, and quite right that it should not be. They sacrifice some of their salary (the clue is in the name). The scheme was not designed to help people who are on the minimum wage. There are other schemes that do.

It would make you seem less like a pedantic fool if you could recommend some of these schemes as alternative.

The salary sacrifice scheme has a lot of flaws, whether it is used for childcare costs , computer or bike purchase, or something else. One of its flaws is that it is not accessible to people on very low income.

Herbsman got it into his head that I don't know how these schemes work, and resorted to petty insults because I irritated him.

I think salary sacrifice schemes should be handled with great care, and we need to ensure that, for example, they are not affecting how much pension people are able to build up, and ensure that they do not affect performance bonus payments when these are paid etc. etc.

Having never had a minimum wage job which included an occupational pension and performance bonuses these issues didn't occure to me. I think you are raising some points worth discussing here. However, I would still prefer to be able to make an informed choice then to be denied access to the scheme. For many people on minimum wage who don't enjoy these benefits participation in a salary sacrafice scheme could still increase their net income after travel costs.

I completely support the law on minimum wage, though, which means that an employer is not able to hold back some of a person's salary if this brings them below the legal minimum wage and, as I said, the line needs to be drawn, and if this means that the salary sacrifice scheme cannot be used, so be it.

I think we are probably all agreed in the spirit of what you are saying, but we might disagree with defending the principle of a minimum wage even when it makes people worse off.

It doesn't stop an employer from running a credit union, or offering interest free loans, or running a pool of bikes available to its staff!

Or transforming their business into a self organised workers co-operative, or general treating people with dignity and respect... The difference with this scheme is that it is harder for for the employer to have a problem with it as the tax payer covers most of the cost and retailers are keen to help the implement it. In fact the employer can benefit from a fairly marginal reduction in NI contributions.

In fact, there are lots of things an employer can do to help people on the minimum wage. They could pay them more, for a start!

Agreed, but we live in the real world.

 

[Guineveretoo]

I admit to being a pedant, but dispute the use of the word "fool"

I am concerned at any use of salary sacrifice schemes, as they are not necessarily the best for the worker. I think they need to be treated with caution, and I believe they are. Part of that caution is ensuring that they are not ending up with an expected and unwelcome consequence where, for example, because someone's taxable income is reduced, their sick pay entitlement or maternity leave entitlement is also reduced, or their pension entitlement, as I referred to earlier.

I also would not welcome anything which undermined or weakened the legislation on the provision of the minimum wage.

Those are the two points I was trying to make, apparently not clearly!

I am totally in support of schemes which help an employee to get to work safely and cheaply and in a way which improves their health and the health of the environment.

I just don't think salary sacrifice schemes are the best or only options.

Does that help?