Cycle to Work Scheme – Transfer of Ownership

The cycle to work scheme is currently a hugely popular way of enabling employers to offer their employee's the chance of obtaining a tax free bike with most people saving in the region of 40% off the cost of a bicycle and accesories. In return the employee has to enter into a hire agreement with their employees over a set period and repay the cost of the bike (Minus VAT and with tax benefits) in equal monthly payments.

However, HMRC are threatening the very existence of the scheme.

HMRC's rules mean that an employer cannot state to the employee that they will either agree to enter into discussions to transfer the legal ownership of the bike before they sign up to the scheme, thus putting people off the scheme (who is going to want to pay up to a £1,000 for a bike without the guarentee of at least being made an offer to ownership in the future)

Secondly, HMRC state that the employee needs to pay what is known as a ‘fair market value' for the bike and accessories, otherwise further tax implications will apply for the individual concerned. The only problem is that they offer no guidance on how to do this other than that you cannot apply a rate of transfer on bikes across the board.

What instead they propose is that the bike is individually assessed, what this means in practice is that this increases the administrative burden associated with the scheme increasing costs and wasting resources by over complicating the process. They give no guarentee that this complies with their vague ruling thus reducing confidence in the scheme.

By also making the process more complicated and daunting than it needs to be it also makes the scheme less attractive to individuals wanting to sign up which will simply result in less people cycling and only contributing to this country’s huge carbon footprint.

It would be much simpler if a set of nationally agreed guidelines are drafted stating that a bicycle packages’ value after a defined time period is a % figure of the bicycle packages original retail value. This would make the scheme much easier to administer and it would save a enormous amount of time and effort from for organisations administering the scheme. As I say it is not just private sector businesses that run this scheme but public sector organisations too. This is one way government could actually bring about increased efficiency in the public sector.

Why is this idea important?

The cycle to work scheme is currently a hugely popular way of enabling employers to offer their employee's the chance of obtaining a tax free bike with most people saving in the region of 40% off the cost of a bicycle and accesories. In return the employee has to enter into a hire agreement with their employees over a set period and repay the cost of the bike (Minus VAT and with tax benefits) in equal monthly payments.

However, HMRC are threatening the very existence of the scheme.

HMRC's rules mean that an employer cannot state to the employee that they will either agree to enter into discussions to transfer the legal ownership of the bike before they sign up to the scheme, thus putting people off the scheme (who is going to want to pay up to a £1,000 for a bike without the guarentee of at least being made an offer to ownership in the future)

Secondly, HMRC state that the employee needs to pay what is known as a ‘fair market value' for the bike and accessories, otherwise further tax implications will apply for the individual concerned. The only problem is that they offer no guidance on how to do this other than that you cannot apply a rate of transfer on bikes across the board.

What instead they propose is that the bike is individually assessed, what this means in practice is that this increases the administrative burden associated with the scheme increasing costs and wasting resources by over complicating the process. They give no guarentee that this complies with their vague ruling thus reducing confidence in the scheme.

By also making the process more complicated and daunting than it needs to be it also makes the scheme less attractive to individuals wanting to sign up which will simply result in less people cycling and only contributing to this country’s huge carbon footprint.

It would be much simpler if a set of nationally agreed guidelines are drafted stating that a bicycle packages’ value after a defined time period is a % figure of the bicycle packages original retail value. This would make the scheme much easier to administer and it would save a enormous amount of time and effort from for organisations administering the scheme. As I say it is not just private sector businesses that run this scheme but public sector organisations too. This is one way government could actually bring about increased efficiency in the public sector.

Increase the biofuel content of diesel to 25% during the summer months

Currently diesel contains 5% biodiesel. The limiting factor is the viscosity of biodiesel at low temperatures.

At 25 deg C 25% biodiesel/diesel would have the same viscosity as as 5% biodiesel/diesel at -10 deg C.

Therefore the proportion of biodiesel could be 5% in Winter, 15% spring/autumn and 25% during the summer.

It is normal for ordinary diesel to be sold without winter additive during the summer months so it should be no problem to change the biodiesel/diesel blend.

Why is this idea important?

Currently diesel contains 5% biodiesel. The limiting factor is the viscosity of biodiesel at low temperatures.

At 25 deg C 25% biodiesel/diesel would have the same viscosity as as 5% biodiesel/diesel at -10 deg C.

Therefore the proportion of biodiesel could be 5% in Winter, 15% spring/autumn and 25% during the summer.

It is normal for ordinary diesel to be sold without winter additive during the summer months so it should be no problem to change the biodiesel/diesel blend.

Scrap the renewable energy RHI scheme

Whenever subsidies are paid they distort the market place. Organisations and people compete for their slice of the subsidy cake. e.g. you put a solar panel on your roof, the builder charges more because he knows you will get a subsidy and the insurance company charges more for the same reason.

It is possible to produce a renewable heating device that is financially viable without any subsidy. This is the device that should naturally be acepted by the market place, however the proposed RHI initiative will distort the market place by subsidising less cost effective technologies.

Why is this idea important?

Whenever subsidies are paid they distort the market place. Organisations and people compete for their slice of the subsidy cake. e.g. you put a solar panel on your roof, the builder charges more because he knows you will get a subsidy and the insurance company charges more for the same reason.

It is possible to produce a renewable heating device that is financially viable without any subsidy. This is the device that should naturally be acepted by the market place, however the proposed RHI initiative will distort the market place by subsidising less cost effective technologies.

Repeal the Climate Change Act of 2008.

This foolish piece of legislation, passed by MPs who did not understand how corrupt was the information on which it was based, would severely damage the economy of the UK while having no impact on climate or climate change.

Why is this idea important?

This foolish piece of legislation, passed by MPs who did not understand how corrupt was the information on which it was based, would severely damage the economy of the UK while having no impact on climate or climate change.

Becoming Greener

I think rather than remove red tape, in this case I would like to create some.

Essentially, I think that it should become law that all new houses built should have solar panels installed on the roof.For larger houses, this should be Solar Panels and possibly a smallish wind turbine in addition dependent on size. Also Cavity wall insulation and Triple Glazing should become mandatory. Yes Triple Glazing, not double glazing.

A further comment concerns electric cars. Yes, developing electric cars is a great idea, but not
if we use fossil fuels to generate all the electricity to run them – This is somwhat counterproductive.

Why is this idea important?

I think rather than remove red tape, in this case I would like to create some.

Essentially, I think that it should become law that all new houses built should have solar panels installed on the roof.For larger houses, this should be Solar Panels and possibly a smallish wind turbine in addition dependent on size. Also Cavity wall insulation and Triple Glazing should become mandatory. Yes Triple Glazing, not double glazing.

A further comment concerns electric cars. Yes, developing electric cars is a great idea, but not
if we use fossil fuels to generate all the electricity to run them – This is somwhat counterproductive.

Stop penalising Co2 emisions so much

All pollution is bad and all sensible people want to minimise it but hang on:-

Co2 is somewhere between 17 and 20 times less of a greenhouse gas than Methane (so about 5 or 6 percent as bad) yet no great effort is being made to reduce that.

The effect of Co2 on our climate is tiny (1 or 2 percent) compared to the variations of the Sun's electromagnetic radiation and the effect of that on our upper atmosphere.

Trees and other plants breathe in Co2 and breathe out Oxygen.

If exhaust emissions from engines were so bad there would be bare strips of earth either side of roads and railways – instead plants flourish there.

Why is this idea important?

All pollution is bad and all sensible people want to minimise it but hang on:-

Co2 is somewhere between 17 and 20 times less of a greenhouse gas than Methane (so about 5 or 6 percent as bad) yet no great effort is being made to reduce that.

The effect of Co2 on our climate is tiny (1 or 2 percent) compared to the variations of the Sun's electromagnetic radiation and the effect of that on our upper atmosphere.

Trees and other plants breathe in Co2 and breathe out Oxygen.

If exhaust emissions from engines were so bad there would be bare strips of earth either side of roads and railways – instead plants flourish there.

Compulsory overseas service for denial of climate change

Such offenders will be sent somewhere hot, and I mean HOT, prone to flooding by rising sea levels and with a large idigenous population who are hacked off at smug westerners who aren't prepared to adapt their lifestyles one iota to save them and future generations and the planet as a whole.

Counseling will be provided for all readers of the Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph, Times and Financial Times, as will a comprehensive education programme, to be delivered by scientists fully conversant with the facts of climate change.

Why is this idea important?

Such offenders will be sent somewhere hot, and I mean HOT, prone to flooding by rising sea levels and with a large idigenous population who are hacked off at smug westerners who aren't prepared to adapt their lifestyles one iota to save them and future generations and the planet as a whole.

Counseling will be provided for all readers of the Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph, Times and Financial Times, as will a comprehensive education programme, to be delivered by scientists fully conversant with the facts of climate change.

Stop producing policy designed to change behaviour

I am sick of the constant nagging from rent seeking groups like doctors unions and fake state-funded charities (e.g. Ash), telling us to stop doing the perfectly legal things we enjoy just because it offends something in their puritan hearts. I am even more angry that governments tend to hang on their every word.

Government should not listen to these groups and certainly should not be giving then my money. The state should not seek to change my behaviour as long as I do not break the law. Equally government should not enact meaningless new law after new law in an attempt to criminalise everything and gain control over me. Law should be based around protection of life, liberty and property only. Before repeal there needs to be a recognition of what law is for and an end to the culture of rent seeking groups seeking to use the state to enforce behaviour change. I am completely sick of the constant hectoring from "stakeholders" on the authoritarian left that passes for public debate.

Areas where you really need to think carefully about your approach are climate change legislation, restrictions on smoking and alcohol, initiatives designed to make us healthier, recycling, "toughness" on crime (leading slowly towards trial without jury and the destruction of habeus corpus), and child protection and social work. In these areas the last government lurched from one populist tirade to the next without pause. I sincerely hope that you will see, as Labour could not, that we do not like being herded like cattle in the direction of how the elite believe we should live. We own our own lives. You are only our government, not our masters.

Why is this idea important?

I am sick of the constant nagging from rent seeking groups like doctors unions and fake state-funded charities (e.g. Ash), telling us to stop doing the perfectly legal things we enjoy just because it offends something in their puritan hearts. I am even more angry that governments tend to hang on their every word.

Government should not listen to these groups and certainly should not be giving then my money. The state should not seek to change my behaviour as long as I do not break the law. Equally government should not enact meaningless new law after new law in an attempt to criminalise everything and gain control over me. Law should be based around protection of life, liberty and property only. Before repeal there needs to be a recognition of what law is for and an end to the culture of rent seeking groups seeking to use the state to enforce behaviour change. I am completely sick of the constant hectoring from "stakeholders" on the authoritarian left that passes for public debate.

Areas where you really need to think carefully about your approach are climate change legislation, restrictions on smoking and alcohol, initiatives designed to make us healthier, recycling, "toughness" on crime (leading slowly towards trial without jury and the destruction of habeus corpus), and child protection and social work. In these areas the last government lurched from one populist tirade to the next without pause. I sincerely hope that you will see, as Labour could not, that we do not like being herded like cattle in the direction of how the elite believe we should live. We own our own lives. You are only our government, not our masters.

More Focus on Renewable Energy

Believe we should focus increasing our energy security, and reducing our CO2 emissions we can do this in two ways.

  1. Tax brakes or insentiences for home renewable energy  like solar.
  2. Invest in large scale off shore wind and other options like wave.

The government has started to act on this issue but people say we will not meet our EU targets.

 

All the sources can be found on the internet and are easy to find and cast your opinion. 

Why is this idea important?

Believe we should focus increasing our energy security, and reducing our CO2 emissions we can do this in two ways.

  1. Tax brakes or insentiences for home renewable energy  like solar.
  2. Invest in large scale off shore wind and other options like wave.

The government has started to act on this issue but people say we will not meet our EU targets.

 

All the sources can be found on the internet and are easy to find and cast your opinion. 

Lets have a proper debate about global warming

We need an unbiased debate about whether or not global warming is happening and if it is man made.

This is an issue where the argument was closed down and any dissenters pilloried. Many eminent scientists including David Bellamy (remember him he used to be on the BBC until he refused to toe the global warming line) have expressed disagreement with the way this debate has been politicised.

Why is this idea important?

We need an unbiased debate about whether or not global warming is happening and if it is man made.

This is an issue where the argument was closed down and any dissenters pilloried. Many eminent scientists including David Bellamy (remember him he used to be on the BBC until he refused to toe the global warming line) have expressed disagreement with the way this debate has been politicised.