Salary sacrifice ULEV / company car ULEV
+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Posts 11 to 15 of 15
  1. #11

    Fingers like lightning

    gables's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    618
    Thanks (Given)
    1
    Thanks (Received)
    24
    Likes (Given)
    264
    Likes (Received)
    118

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SeanT View Post
    Ah yeah, I have an E46 M3 for tulips and giggles, but would like something newer for once (the newest car I've ever owned was made in 2008). Also appear to have accumulated six cars in total, so one of the existing ones will have to go!
    Good effort, I thought with my 2 cars, 1 van and 1 motorbike it was time to lose a car, maybe not then

  2. #12

    More time posting than coding


    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Hayling Island
    Posts
    243
    Thanks (Given)
    6
    Thanks (Received)
    29
    Likes (Given)
    118
    Likes (Received)
    65

    Default

    Oh dear. 5 cars (All Jaguar's, from a derv to a stonking V8) and two bikes. My van just failed it's MOT rather spectacularly so it's going to become a "loss".

  3. #13

    Still gathering requirements...


    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    43
    Thanks (Given)
    2
    Thanks (Received)
    1
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SeanT View Post
    Exactly, I'm wondering when the 100% FYA for ULEV will be abolished completely, they already dropped it to 50g/km from April '18
    It's very odd how the government is doing it - but actually things are due to suddenly get much better from 2020 after getting progressively worse before that. Specifically, fully electric cars and hybrids with at least 130 milles electric range will carry only 2% BIK from 2020 onwards. See here:

    https://www.fleetnews.co.uk/fleet-fa...-bik-bands-/3/

    I'm not sure what the BMW hybrids' electric ranges are, but FWIW, even the mainstream electric cars like Nissan Leaf and soon Tesla model 3 will have electric range well over 130 miles in the 2018+ versions. I expect real world ranges of 200 to 300+ miles will be very common by 2020.

    Of course this all depends if the Tories will honour these rates; they do have a history of cutting anything envionmentally progressive to the point it's not viable. A mainstream decent electric car like the Nissan Leaf (and soon Tesla Model 3) costing around 30k is not worth buying through the company for a standard rate dividend payer, while for a higher rate payer it's not worth except on low business mileage.

    But on expensive cars it's easily worth getting through the company, and I'd bet on it staying that way. Tories only recently announced the 2020 changes I mentioned above, and even if Labour comes into power they'll likely adopt environmentally progressive policies which will benefit everyone.

    This reminds me of when solar panel incentives were cut a few years ago, to the point it was no longer viable for anybody to invest in them. At the time I looked at other green investments out of interest, and the only one that was still viable on a pure cost basis was ground source heating. Funnily enough, it was by far the most expensive option with a capital cost of around 20k, and also required a large south facing garden of the a size that relatively few people will have. But for anybody who had the funds and the garden space, there were annual incentives worth a guaranteed profit of around 30% IIRC on a 20k investment, over something like 7 years - even before the energy savings were considered!

    Great to see see the Tories are helping (the top 5%) to make environmentally progressive and economically sound investments
    Last edited by Zylon; 11th November 2017 at 14:44.

  4. #14

    Super poster

    Fred Bloggs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    4,748
    Thanks (Given)
    21
    Thanks (Received)
    84
    Likes (Given)
    78
    Likes (Received)
    282

    Default

    @Zylon well, I guess you could argue (I'm not) that the top 5% will have proportionally a much larger carbon foot print that those lower down the income scale. Those people are far more likely to be running large cars, (and more than one) live in a large centrally heated house, perhaps with a swimming pool, obviously consume much more electricity and gas and generally have far higher per capita spending on non essentials. So, economically, on a bang per green buck basis it is probably a reasonable use of scarce resources?
    Public Service Posting by the BBC - Bloggs Bulls**t Corp.
    Officially CUK certified - Thick as f**k.

  5. #15

    Still gathering requirements...


    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    43
    Thanks (Given)
    2
    Thanks (Received)
    1
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fred Bloggs View Post
    @Zylon well, I guess you could argue (I'm not) that the top 5% will have proportionally a much larger carbon foot print that those lower down the income scale. Those people are far more likely to be running large cars, (and more than one) live in a large centrally heated house, perhaps with a swimming pool, obviously consume much more electricity and gas and generally have far higher per capita spending on non essentials. So, economically, on a bang per green buck basis it is probably a reasonable use of scarce resources?
    In some cases I would agree. I know what you're getting at, and I'm not the type who will criticise any progressive incentive which happens to benefit the wealthy more than others. It's unavoidable that early adopters of certain technologies will often be wealthier, and if government incentives are the only way to develop the positive technologies to fall then I fully support it.

    However, in the case of green energy subsidies, no it wasn't the best bang for buck in any sense. The energy savings were of a similar magnitude but the solar panel incentives were worth a few hundred pounds per year, while ground source heat pump were worth several thousand. When the incentive is so strong that it provides a strong profit above what's already a sound investment in its own right, it's just a taxpayer funded giveaway.

    Also, spend per household is higher in the wealthy groups, but not by a huge margin. Rather, poorer households spend a much higher proportion of their income on fuel. (https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulat...yearending2016)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.