T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
---|
2123.1 | | SUBURB::THOMASH | The Devon Dumpling | Thu Jul 22 1993 10:21 | 38 |
| You have not added the cost of "usable" things such as tyres and
exhaust.....clutch if you do loads of miles.
The 400 insurance looks low for this type of car.
If you then take account of the fact that people coming out of the
scheme may not be able to get full-noclaims.
Many insurers won't take info from your employer, and even if they do,
Digital can only give you the no-claims info for your current car, not
any previous ones.
Also, you will have to add business travel useage to the insurance
cover, and, if you are ever likely to carry any Digital property
(laptop, portable phone, diskettes, manuals?) that is also extra cover.
You have averaged the deposit over three years, this is a lump-sum
up front, you may not be able to afford this, and have to take a
loan over 3 years, the could skew the figures dramatically.
However, if you can, you can use the next years to save the next one,
which could have a bennificial effect on the figures.
You have not added the benefit of tax relief that you can claim for
using your private car on company business.
I have been working out this is about 2,000 rebate I will get over
the last 6 years, and I only went over 2,500 business miles once
(2,800), and only did in the region of 500 or so for the first few
years.
However, the Money Mail a few weeks ago went into these schemes, and,
apart from HP type deals, they are one of the most expensive around.
You could get better value by financing your car differently.
At the end of the day, your circumstances will decide the best option,
however, what this change might have done is get people to look at
the real figures for themselves, and not assume the lease car must
be the best deal.
Heather
|
2123.2 | tyres and exhausts are covered... | RDGENG::GOOD | | Thu Jul 22 1993 11:06 | 27 |
| Re: .1
The Vauxhall Mastercover includes all Tyres, Clutches, Exhausts,
Services, Parts, Labour, and any mechanical/electrical breakdowns.
It does not include accident/crash damage cover.
The cost I quoted was based on 36 mths/36000 miles.
If you do a higher mileage then the Mastercover costs will be higher.
(i.e 36 mths/60000 miles would be �1600) See the back of the
Vauxhall Cars Price Guide (21-JUN-93) for tables of costs.
I entered note 2123 purely to try and access the worth of the
new DEC scheme with what is available privately. I feel that
with negotiation the "buy" price of the car could be a lot less
than I quoted, which would make up for the extra on Mastercover for
higher mileage.
If someone could work out what the true cost of purchasing a new
car (Cavalier SRI 2.0I 5DR H/B) taking into account depreciation,
loss of interest on cash used to buy, or loan interest charges,
also road tax, insurance, services etc etc. and ending up with
selling the car at the end of 3 years (to compare like with like)
It would be interesting to see the figures.
Re: your statement on claiming tax relief for the use of a private
car on company business, Is this only available to non supplement
holders or can anyone claim ? Do you have details ?
Regards... Bryan
|
2123.3 | | SUBURB::THOMASH | The Devon Dumpling | Thu Jul 22 1993 11:58 | 36 |
|
> If someone could work out what the true cost of purchasing a new
> car (Cavalier SRI 2.0I 5DR H/B) taking into account depreciation,
> loss of interest on cash used to buy, or loan interest charges,
> also road tax, insurance, services etc etc. and ending up with
> selling the car at the end of 3 years (to compare like with like)
> It would be interesting to see the figures.
I've done that somewhere here....for a Pugeot 1.3 Gr to a MG Maestro
2.0EFI to a Montego 2.0gti........trading in the old for the new.
I'm just thinking about going to another one, as the Montego is
now 3 years old. Mazda 323 looks good at the moment....however, the
500 quid off deal on the vauxhalls may be worth a look.
> Re: your statement on claiming tax relief for the use of a private
> car on company business, Is this only available to non supplement
> holders or can anyone claim ? Do you have details ?
Anyone can claim part of their private car costs if they do business
miles in it.
You add up depreciation (25% of price per year), maitenance, insurance,
parts, car wash......etc.
Work out the percentage of business miles to private (you can work this
out from P11D and service records)
And claim the business percentage of all these.
Phone up your tax office, and they'll send you a form.........If you
haven't claimed this in the past, you can go back 6 years. I am busy
filling in 6 forms, and finding all the docs required.
And thanks to the person who pointed this out to me.
Heather
|
2123.4 | More complications, + and - | TIMMII::TOMMII::RDAVIES | Amateur Expert | Thu Jul 22 1993 12:06 | 40 |
| Another item to factor in is the variable tax levels. Because you take the
supplement as cash it doesn't mean you automatically pay 25%/40% of it as tax.
Your tax free allowance goes UP because you are no longer elligable for company
car tax liability.
Your tax liability is as follows:
GROSS SALARY
|------|---------|-------------------------------------------------|--------|
TAX TAXABLE TAXABLE next �23,700 Above this
ALLOWANCE �2,500 25% TAX 40% TAX
0% TAX 20% TAX
Now your income is:
BASIC SALARY
plus CAR ALLOWANCE
LESS LEASE COST
= TAXABLE INCOME
And your tax allowance (the 0% tax bit) is
Personal allowance �3,445
(IF MARRIED) PLUS �1,720
MEDICAL BENEFIT LESS �189 (For me, yours may be same)
CAR TAX *LESS* �2,990 (e.g. for 1.4-2 ltr, over 2,500 miles)
Now if you take the cash, you quite rightly say your taxable income goes up, but
your tax free limit ALSO goes up as your no longer liable for the CCT.
The net result is you pay NO tax on a proportion (equal to your current CCT
level) and, depending on your limits, increased NI etc, 25% and/or 40% on a
further proportion.
I have a complex EXCEL workbook which works out all the angles, net result (I'm
level 8, current lease costs �892) is if took the cash I'd *TAKE HOME* �302 per
month (�3,624 per year).
However, I aslo agree that you *have* to factor in the cost of finding the
deposit. I certainly don't have that lying around, so it would cost me.
Richard
|
2123.5 | | SUBURB::THOMASH | The Devon Dumpling | Thu Jul 22 1993 12:16 | 8 |
| >Another item to factor in is the variable tax levels. Because you take the
>supplement as cash it doesn't mean you automatically pay 25%/40% of it as tax.
>Your tax free allowance goes UP because you are no longer elligable for company
>car tax liability.
The way .0 has done the figures, the tax has been factored in correctly.
Heather
|
2123.6 | Excel spreadsheet | BAHTAT::HILTON | Beer...now there's a temporary solution | Thu Jul 22 1993 12:52 | 8 |
| re .4
I'm sure it's been mentioned before, but is the Excel spreadsheet on
the net?
Cheers,
Greg
|
2123.7 | No you have to buy it.... | RDGENG::RUSLING | Dave Rusling REO2 G/E9 830-4380 | Thu Jul 22 1993 13:02 | 6 |
|
Excel is part of the MicroSoft desk top software.
and you have to buy it. However, there are many
similar shareware packages....
Dave
|
2123.8 | not the product - the spreadsheet/workbook | BAHTAT::SKIDAW::aldertonm | | Thu Jul 22 1993 13:12 | 7 |
| re .-1
What Greg meant was ' is the excel workbook/spreadsheet mentioned
earlier on the net. He already has EXcel on his PC, he just needs the
calculations.
Malc
|
2123.9 | NO ALLOWANCES ON N.I. Contributions | CMOTEC::POWELL | Nostalgia isn't what it used to be, is it? | Thu Jul 22 1993 13:21 | 9 |
| Don't forget that NI Contributions (Briefly mentioned) is 10% of ALL your Income!
It doesn't matter if it is Basic salary, Job Supplement or anything else.
There is an upper limit over which you don't pay any further (well, there was)
but it is/was so high that it is academic.
No one seems to have taken this into consideration in the figures quoted - or did
I miss something?
Malcolm. 8-(
|
2123.10 | | SUBURB::THOMASH | The Devon Dumpling | Thu Jul 22 1993 14:05 | 18 |
|
>Don't forget that NI Contributions (Briefly mentioned) is 10% of ALL your Income!
>It doesn't matter if it is Basic salary, Job Supplement or anything else.
>There is an upper limit over which you don't pay any further (well, there was)
>but it is/was so high that it is academic.
I looked at my last NI payment, if it's 10%, then the NI limit is
about 14,200, so for everyone level 6 and above it is acedemic, and
also for those below, but on more than 14,200.
My NI is 118.40 a month - if you're paying that, you're paying the max.
There is also a limit of 8,500, below which you are not taxed on a
Heather
PS, the 10% on everything is based on your info, however, somewhere
in the back of my brain the number 21,000 rings a bell.
|
2123.11 | NI goes up in April 1994 | ZEM::ILETT | Phil Ilett | Thu Jul 22 1993 14:11 | 18 |
| From an article I read a few weeks ago the current rates of NI
are:-
7.2 % if part of contracted out pension scheme (which Digital's is)
9.0 % otherwise
plus some max per week which was not quoted
From April 1994 these rise to
8.2 % if part of contracted out pension scheme (which Digital's is)
10.0 % otherwise
420 pounds per week max. after which no more employee NI levied (=21840 per year)
Note, I'm 99.9% sure of the 420 figure from April next year.
Phil.
|
2123.12 | | SUBURB::THOMASH | The Devon Dumpling | Thu Jul 22 1993 14:24 | 13 |
| >420 pounds per week max. after which no more employee NI levied (=21840 per year)
That sounds more reasonable, I thought 21,000 seemed a better number.
That makes it acedemic for most level 8's and above (8 starts at around
20,400 I think), and for some 7 and under, depending on the position
in range.
You'll have to do the sums individually depending on salary.
Heather
|
2123.13 | .5 NOT true | TIMMII::TOMMII::RDAVIES | Amateur Expert | Thu Jul 22 1993 14:33 | 29 |
| Re .5,
Heather he HASN'T worked out the tax correctly:
>>Lease cost payable to Vauxhall = 4555 4555
>>Minus supplement taken as cash (40% tax) (25% tax)
>>Level 8/9 supp 3560 - tax = 2136 2670
This is straight 25/40%, he should work this out as a 0% on his current
allowance, then 25% or 40% if the remaining goes above his
Tax free PLUS 2,500 PLUS 23,700 This is NOT a straight cut!
Re the EXCEL workbook.
The workbook (not the software!) I've placed in TIMMII::GENERIC_.XLW.
It opens at the 'master' page, where you can input your numbers in the
cells that have a dotted underline. These are unprotected.(I've protected the
document to make overwriting less easy, but not impossible as there's no
password)
The real work gets done on other pages, but reflects back onto this master page.
The sheet shows
NOW Your current over 40% taxable/take home/tax per month
NEW LEASE What it'll cost when you change
NEW SCHEME The new Car tax impact
TO OPT OUT What the cash in hand is.
Richard
|
2123.14 | | SUBURB::THOMASH | The Devon Dumpling | Thu Jul 22 1993 14:54 | 13 |
|
.0 gives two examples to compare. 25% and 40%. It doesn't try to work
out every combination.
It also gives the figures for what it would cost to take a lease
and what it would cost to take a choices scheme
You are cutting it differently, ie what the difference is between
talking a lease now, and opting out to take the choices scheme.
Heather
|
2123.15 | | YUPPY::CARTER | Windows on the world... | Thu Jul 22 1993 15:38 | 21 |
| Total Rathole Alert...
Re .12...
Heather
You are making a sweeping assumption that people are in their correct
pay bands... after the recent "freezes" there are a number of people
who are NOT getting paid even the minimum of their current band...
A large number of people (I presume its a large number, because I
personally know several) have been promoted in the last 3 years without
a pay rise, or with the "sweetener" that the extra Car Allowance that
comes with level 8 will at least provide some sort of pay rise (and we
all know whats happened to that).
End of Rathole
Xtine
|
2123.16 | It's not me that's cutting anything! | TIMMII::TOMMII::RDAVIES | Amateur Expert | Thu Jul 22 1993 16:49 | 10 |
| Heather,
I AM NOT CUTTING IT DIFFERENTLY, the piece I quoted was from .0 and
it's *WRONG*. That's all I was pointing out. It underestimated the
cash equivalent by missing the possible tax advantage of opting out.
I realise you can't work out every combination, that was the point of
my explanation. So that others may understand the calculations
involved and do it for themselves.
Richard
|
2123.17 | Purchase instead of Lease ? | RDGENG::GOOD | | Thu Jul 22 1993 16:56 | 44 |
| Hi,
I picked up leaflet from the Bank in the street today entitled
"BARCLAYLOAN" and I thought I would try and work out what would
the cost of buying the Level 8/9 standard car would be, so it
could be compared with the Lease costs in .0 Regards.. Bryan
Purchase of a Vauxhall Cavalier SRI 2.0I 5DR H/B (and sell after 3yrs)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Price (JUN-93) 14175
Vauxhall Delivery charge 405
Total List cost + delivery 14580
Negotiated on road buy price (excl road tax) 13500
(ought be able to get 1000 off as a cash buyer)
Deposit out of personal savings 3500
Loss of interest on deposit = 3500*5%*3 yrs 525
Barclayloan for 10000 over 3 yrs = 359/mth = 12925 (APR 18.9%)
3 years road tax = 3*125 = 375
3 years insurance = 3*400 = 1200
Vauxhall Mastercover 3yrs/36000 miles 1050
Outgoings over 3 years 19575
Income from selling car as a 3 year old 4600
Income from personal savings increase
after 3 years 4600-3500 = 1100
Cost over 3 years 13875
Cost per year = 13875 / 3 = 4625 4625
Minus supplement taken as cash (40% tax) (25% tax)
Level 8/9 supp 3560 - tax = 2136 2670
Total Driver Cost per year (Purchase and sell) 2489 1955
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~
Vauxhall Lease Total Driver Cost (from .0) 2419 1885
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~
DEC Lease Total Driver Cost (from .0) 1985 1240
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~
|
2123.18 | | SUBURB::THOMASH | The Devon Dumpling | Thu Jul 22 1993 17:07 | 37 |
| >Heather,
>I AM NOT CUTTING IT DIFFERENTLY, the piece I quoted was from .0 and
>it's *WRONG*. That's all I was pointing out. It underestimated the
>cash equivalent by missing the possible tax advantage of opting out.
Okay, I'll explain again.
.0 has two things.
It starts from a base of not having a car or the cash, or supplement
It then gives the figures if you took the lease and the supplement
towards it. (including tax hit)
It then gives the figures if you take the cash and a choices
(which has no tax breaks)
Then compares the two
This is a valid comparison, and the taxes are correct.
You are starting from the point of already having the lease, therfore
you would have to count in the tax hit that this considers as a break
when you take the cash.
So, you are cutting it differently, you are starting with a lease and
working back (or forwards, however you cut it).
.0 is starting with nothing, and looking at two different scenarios.
as someone who takes the cash, I can categorically say there is no tax
break....it is all taxed at 40% for me.
(except the claim on business-to-private miles, which we discussed in a
different reply).
Heather
|
2123.19 | | WIZDUM::DAVE | Durelli, Gripping Stuff !!! | Thu Jul 22 1993 19:05 | 9 |
| But if you buy the car and keep it for more than the 3 years, you are onto
a real winner. The Car is paid for over the 3 years giving you all of
your 4th years supplement (less maintenance, tax and insurance).
A car at 4 years of age isn't too bad is it. Theres always personal plates.
just a thought.
Dave D.
|
2123.20 | You still assume too much | TIMMII::TOMMII::RDAVIES | Amateur Expert | Fri Jul 23 1993 11:48 | 29 |
| OK, Heather, lets take your points:
>>> It starts from a base of not having a car or the cash, or
supplement
Doesn't say so anywhere.
>>> as someone who takes the cash, I can categorically say there is no
tax break....it is all taxed at 40% for me.
Again, I repeat this depends on your circumstances. For this to happen your
salary *BEFORE* the addition of the car allowance had to be
Personal tax allowance 1,720
LESS medical benefit 189 -
Plus 20% threshold 2,500
Plus 25% threshold 23,700
-----
27,731
This would then put any allowance you had added to your salary directly
into the 40% tax bracket.
However for many, me included, and most definitely level sevens and below,
they would find (even ignoring the married persons tax free of 3,400)
themselves paying only 25% on the allowance.
And, if like me your already in the scheme and looking at the cost of
financing outside, you have to add the increased tax threshold.
Richard
|
2123.21 | Tax quibble | BONNET::BRAY | Certain Restrictions Apply | Fri Jul 23 1993 13:00 | 15 |
|
Re several.
The income tax bands quoted in a couple of examples are, I believe,
wrong. Allowances are tax free, the first 2500 is taxable at 20% and
from 2501 until 23700 is taxable at 25%. I.e. you hit 40% taxation
23700 above your allowances rather than 26200 (23700+2500) as implied
in a couple of responses.
Also, I believe that the numbers quoted for personal and married
allowances in .20 have been transposed.
Andy
|
2123.22 | | SUBURB::THOMASH | The Devon Dumpling | Mon Jul 26 1993 18:12 | 67 |
| >OK, Heather, lets take your points:
>>>> It starts from a base of not having a car or the cash, or
> supplement
It says it is comparing the current lease, to the Vauxhall lease.
It does not say it's giveing the figures to change from lease to choices.
Soooooooooo
If your salary without lease or supplement is Z
It first works out lease and allowance (call this x)
It then works out taking the cash plus choices (call this Y)
To look at the realative merits.
It then looks at the difference x - y (as Z is constant)
What you are doing is starting from Z+X
To get to Z+Y you have to do
start point (Z+X) -x + y
So, the way you cut things, you have to subtract the tax hit, as you
include it in the first place.
The way .0 cuts it you don't.
However the answer is the same.
>Again, I repeat this depends on your circumstances. For this to happen your
>salary *BEFORE* the addition of the car allowance had to be
>Personal tax allowance 1,720
>LESS medical benefit 189 -
>Plus 20% threshold 2,500
>Plus 25% threshold 23,700
-----
27,731
.0 does a 25% and a 40%, and as I said, it is good example for a
general comparison, before deciding if you want to go into the
detail of getting it exact for yourself.
However, if you want to nit-pick ...if your personal tax allowance is
only 1,720 then I would contact the taxman PDQ, this is way out.
Also, you do not understand tax thresholds.
Thresholds are just that thresholds, they are not taxable amounts.
the first 2,500 of taxable income is taxed at 20%
the next 21,200 of taxable income is taxed at 25%
This gives a taxable THRESHOLD for 40% of 23,700 , the taxable AMOUNT
at 25% is 21,500.
If your spreadsheet does what you say it does, it's got major
errors.
>And, if like me your already in the scheme and looking at the cost of
>financing outside, you have to add the increased tax threshold.
As I said before, it depends where you start from and how you cut the
numbers.
Heather
|
2123.23 | Er well that's what I meant to say, honest.... | TIMMII::RDAVIES | An expert Amateur | Mon Jul 26 1993 19:15 | 18 |
| OK Heather, I'll give you two home goals on that last one, I was not at
my best reading it. I meant that personal allowance should be �3,445,
the 1720 is the additional married persons allowance.
And your right, it's a long time since I wrote my spreadsheet formula,
=(IF(D114<$H$133,($G$133*$G$130)+((D114-$G$133)*$H$130),
($G$133*$G$130)+(($H$133-$G$133)*$H$130)+(H123*$I$130))/12)
As you can no doubt tell ^^^ this shows it's deducting the 20%
threshold from the 25% threshold to work out the amount it's taxed on,
so I think you'll find I do understand the rules, I just don't allways
remember them.
I think we should close this, you believe you have to work from
absolute zero, I believe you have to work from the status quo. we both
believe we're right about what .0 intended. In my case I take the tax
into account, in your case feel free to ignore and tax effect.
Richard
|
2123.24 | | SUBURB::THOMASH | The Devon Dumpling | Tue Jul 27 1993 10:03 | 6 |
| > In my case I take the tax
> into account, in your case feel free to ignore and tax effect.
Both tax the tax into account
Heather
|
2123.25 | DEFINITELY CHEAPER | RDGENG::GOOD | | Fri Jul 30 1993 18:27 | 81 |
| HI, RE: Notes 2123.0 and .17 Enjoy... Bryan
Vauxhall Private Lease DEFINITELY CHEAPER than DEC Lease.
Although the figures I presented were essentially correct, I have
made a logical mistake.
Both the above notes assume that you are a Level 8/9 employee
faced with the 3 choices of "Shall I go for a DEC Lease car, a
Private Vauxhall Lease car, or Purchase a car."
This really only applies to a new employee (rare sight these days).
What I should have considered is a Level 8/9 person who is
currently in the DEC Lease scheme and decides to come out, and
either takes on a Private Vauxhall Lease car or Purchases a car.
There is a distinct difference. This person has extra money in his
pocket to spend.
i.e New Employee Level 8/9 Supplement = 3560 3560
(40% tax) (25% tax)
Level 8/9 supp 3560 - tax = 2136 2670
Available to Spend = 2136 2670
~~~~ ~~~~
Existing Level 8/9 employee who comes out of DEC Lease scheme
Level 8/9 Supplement = 3560 3560
(40% tax) (25% tax)
Level 8/9 supp 3560 - tax = 2136 2670
Plus company Car Tax that was being paid = 1985 1240
Available to Spend = 4121 3910
~~~~ ~~~~
Now if we rework the figures from notes .0 and .17
DEC LEASE SCHEME Cavalier SRI 2.0I 5DR H/B List Price (JUN-93) �14175
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Based on less than 2500 business miles.
Level 8/9 Supplement = 3560 3560
DEC Lease cost = 3560 3560
IR Car Tax payable = 1985 1240
DEC Total Driver Cost = 1985 1240
~~~~ ~~~~
Vauxhall "Choices 123" Lease Scheme Cavalier SRI 2.0I 5DR H/B
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Based on 36 months/36000 miles.
Vauxhall Total Driver Cost (as in .0) = 4555 4555
Less Amount Available to Spend = 4121 3910
Private Vauxhall Lease Driver Cost = 434 645
~~~~ ~~~~
Vauxhall Lease Cheaper than DEC Lease by: 1551 595
~~~~ ~~~~
Purchase of a Vauxhall Cavalier SRI 2.0I 5DR H/B (and sell after 3yrs)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Total Purchase cost for 3 years (as in .17) 4625 4625
Less Amount Available to Spend = 4121 3910
Total Driver Cost/year (Purchase and sell) 504 715
~~~~ ~~~~
Purchase Cheaper than DEC Lease by: 1481 525
~~~~ ~~~~
Notes:
If in the DEC Lease Scheme you can claim business miles at 8p/mile.
If a supplement holder out of the scheme you can still only claim
8p/mile.
However, if out of the scheme you can also claim a percent of
the running/depreciation costs of your car against Tax therefore
making an even greater saving.
(see .3)
If a Vauxhall Lease works out cheaper than a DEC lease, then a
Ford or BMW lease probably would as well.
|
2123.26 | | YUPPY::CARTER | Windows on the world... | Fri Jul 30 1993 18:31 | 8 |
| You are assuming the new employee didn't have a company car in their
last comapny...
Just nit picking...
Xtine
|
2123.27 | Not so fast | BONNET::BRAY | Certain Restrictions Apply | Mon Aug 02 1993 13:15 | 19 |
| Re .-2
Before you get too excited, I think that your logic is a little flawed
(although I would prefer to take your view of it).
In the case of a DEC lease you pay nothing to DEC (for a car equivalent
to your allowance) but you pay X pounds a year to the IR for the
"benefit". If you buy or lease privately your pay Y pounds to Vauxhall
or AN other manufacturer and nothing to the IR. You also get the allowance
as taxed income (Z). The comparison is then Y-Z versus X (as previously
done).
However, in the private lease/buy you have added back in the "saved"
income tax as if the IR was actually giving you this money. They are
just not asking that you pay it anymore. So in effect you are double
counting the impact of the company car tax. (Y-Z-X versus X)
Andy
|
2123.28 | Y-Z-X versus X | RDGENG::GOOD | | Mon Aug 02 1993 15:32 | 26 |
| re: .27
You are correct as I was in the original .0 note
"The comparison is then Y-Z versus X"
BUT,
This only applies to someone who is NOT already in the scheme or
who does not currently take the supplement as cash.
(i.e a new employee, level 8/9, on joining the company
or someone promoted from level 7 to level 8/9 who currently does
not have either a DEC lease car or the supplement.
HOWEVER,
If you are already a level 8/9 and currently in the DEC lease Scheme
and decide at your next renewal to come out of the scheme, then
in working out how much extra cash you will have in your pocket to
spend on either buying your own car, or leasing privately, you must
take into account the saving you will make by not having to pay the
IR Car Tax any more.
In this case Y-Z-X versus X is therefore correct I believe.
Y= Cost of Vauxhall Private Lease
Z= Value of Supplement taken as cash (supplement-Income tax)
X= Amount of IR Car Tax payable that will no longer be paid.
Regards... Bryan
|
2123.29 | Still stands | BONNET::BRAY | Certain Restrictions Apply | Mon Aug 02 1993 18:01 | 18 |
|
No, I understand the comparison that you are trying to make which is
one that many people will now be making - namely does the extra salary
that one could get from taking the money rather than the car plus the
"extra" money that comes from not paying company car tax give you
enough to buy/lease something else.
But my comments still stand. The extra car allowance salary is real.
The "extra" car tax money is not extra income but only starts to be
extra when you make a comparison with the previous case where you had
to pay it. Comparing Y-Z with X makes the difference Y-Z-X. Comparing
Y-Z-X with X makes the difference Y-Z-2X and hence the double counting.
|
2123.30 | A worked example | TIMMII::RDAVIES | An expert Amateur | Sun Aug 08 1993 19:36 | 100 |
| All this X Y & Z confuses me, so like a good mathemetician I try some
worked examples to test the theory.
EXAMPLE 1 Pay the money, drive your choice
INCOME
Theoretical salary (for example) 22,000 +
Lease allowance 3,560 +
Car lease Cav SRi 3,560 -
------
Gross Salary 22,000
-------
TAX ALLOWANCE
Personal Tax allowance 3,445 +
Married allowance 1,720 +
Medical deduction 189 -
Car tax (SRi H/B) 14,175 x 35% 4,961 -
(less than 2,500 miles) ------
Tax free income 15
------
TAX
Salary 22,000
TAX FREE 15 x 0% 0
2,500 x 20% 500
Balance (less than 23,700) x 25% 4,871
------
TOTAL TAX 5,371
------
TAKE HOME
Salary 22,000
Less tax 5,371
------
TAKE HOME 16,629
------
(Caveat I know this is subject to NI, Pension, additional Medical,
SSC, but as these are VIRTUALLY the same for both scenarios
and we are looking for the DIFFERENCE they can be ignored)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXAMPLE 2 Take the money and run
INCOME
Theoretical salary (for example) 22,000 +
Lease allowance 3,560 +
NO Car lease 0 -
------
Gross Salary 25,560
-------
TAX ALLOWANCE
Personal Tax allowance 3,445 +
Married allowance 1,720 +
Medical deduction 189 -
NO Car tax 0 -
------
Tax free 4,976
------
TAX
Salary 25,560
TAX FREE 4,976 x 0% 0
2,500 x 20% 500
Balance (less than 23,700) x 25% 4,521
------
TOTAL TAX 5,021
------
TAKE HOME
Salary 25,560
Less tax 5,021
------
TAKE HOME 20,539
------
(Caveat I know this is subject to NI, Pension, additional Medical,
SSC, but as these are virtually the same for both scenarios
and we are looking for the DIFFERENCE they can be ignored)
Difference Cash 20,539
Car 16,629
--------
= 3,910 or 325 /month
--------
These are real worked examples, I'm sure you'll agree this is more than
the car allowance even before any tax deduction.
Note too that the base salary would have to be a few thousand more
before I would enter the 40% tax bracket.
Note three you can use the example 1 substituting your current lease &
allowance and the current tax codes to work out your current, and thus
the delta for the new car/TAX scheme.
Current tax scales 2,500 - 18,000
up to 1400 cc 2,310
1400 - 2000 cc 2,990
over 2000cc 4,800
over �19K 6,210
over �29K 10,240
Plus 50% for under 2,500 miles, minus 50% for over 18,000 miles.
Richard
|
2123.31 | FWIW | BONNET::BRAY | Certain Restrictions Apply | Mon Aug 09 1993 12:35 | 17 |
|
Your numbers are sound but they don't answer the double counting issue.
But, your numbers do show that you would have 3910 extra income to
spend on a car if you were out of scheme. The numbers quote in .0 and
.17 are 4555 and 4625 (i.e. both greater than your money to spend).
Hence this would imply neither means of financing a new car would be
cheaper than the DEC lease, as had been implied by some recent replies.
By the way, there is a faster way to get the 3910 that you quote. It
is the after tax value of the car allowance (3560*.75=2670), plus the
money that you save by not paying Company Car tax (4961*.25=1240). Add
them together and you get 3910 or 325 pounds per month.
(Assumes 25% tax).
Andy
|
2123.32 | | SUBURB::THOMASH | The Devon Dumpling | Mon Aug 09 1993 13:30 | 15 |
|
.30 doesn't include the fact that you can claim the percentage of
the lease used for business, against your tax.
The mail has an article today, it suggestes that companies should stop
providing company cars, and should give drivers cash in leiu of
cars and help them lease, with exchnge or purchase after 2-3 years....
modelled on Vauxhall choices or Ford options.
It says employees who face more tax from next year could be little or
no worse off, and "perk" drivers, who do less than 2,500 will gain
substantially.
Heather
|
2123.33 | | TIMMII::RDAVIES | An expert Amateur | Mon Aug 09 1993 18:02 | 19 |
| Andy,
check again and you'll find that .0 and .17 are in fact saying that the
Digital lease *IS CHEAPER* but by only several hundred pounds a year.
Much the same as my example shows.
However, the figures in .0/.17 are broad strokes based on AREyou/Are
you not a 25% tax payer. Do you know if you are and by how much?. .30
will show you this.
It may not actually prove or disprove double accounting, but it
provides unambiguously precisely how much you get in the two scenarios.
Heather, .30 doesn't show any reclaim for expenses because, in my case,
there are none. My company milage is 0. My company car is a benefit not
a tool. It will be quite simple to include into these calculations.
Richard
|
2123.34 | | SUBURB::THOMASH | The Devon Dumpling | Mon Aug 09 1993 18:15 | 9 |
|
Wow, zero company mileage.
Just 1 trip to Digital in Basingstoke is 30 miles.
Even when I thought I was doing negligable miles, 6 years ago, it was
400 in the year.
Heather
|
2123.35 | I'm such a saint! :-) | TIMMII::RDAVIES | An expert Amateur | Mon Aug 09 1993 18:24 | 4 |
| True heather, I have done the odd trip to basingstoke, but I believe it
would be more expensive to claim the 30 miles than to ignore them.
Richard
|
2123.36 | | VANGA::KERRELL | Pluck a Plump Plum | Tue Aug 10 1993 08:35 | 13 |
| re.30:
> EXAMPLE 2 Take the money and run
> INCOME
> Theoretical salary (for example) 22,000 +
> Lease allowance 3,560 +
^^^^^
Why did you include the full lease supplement and not the cash equivalent?
Thanks,
Dave.
|
2123.37 | Read .25 | BONNET::BRAY | Certain Restrictions Apply | Tue Aug 10 1993 11:12 | 16 |
|
Re .33
No. Read reply .25 which is the one that I first took issue with. It
aims to show that either a private lease or a private purchase is
definitely cheaper than a DEC lease to the tune of about 1500 pounds a
year. Your calculations would confirm that this is not the case.
As for assumptions on tax, as long as all comparisons use the same
assumptions then it is fair - it does not need to represent the actual
tax situation of the author. And, as Heather points out, to make a
totally fair comparison you would need to also "add" some tax claim for
running a private car on company business.
Andy
|
2123.38 | | SUBURB::THOMASH | The Devon Dumpling | Tue Aug 10 1993 11:26 | 15 |
|
You would be surprised how the "odd" trip mounts up over a year.
It's a 30 mile round-trip, 10 trips is 300, and definately worth
counting.
I've done 720 miles so far since April, all to-and-fro from Basingstoke.
For the money, it probably does cost more to reclaim than the money
you get back, however it's worth quite a lot for tax rebate reasons.
If you don't claim it, it's not on the P11D, so you can't get the
tax relief.
Heather
|
2123.39 | Daily Mail article on this very topic! | BAHTAT::ALDERTONM | Three feet of Powder at 8 am. | Tue Aug 10 1993 12:44 | 16 |
| Out of interest, their was an article in yesterdays Daily Mail about
this very topic!
It seemed to be suggesting that many companies are looking seriously at
doing Fleet deals, using the choices 1-2-3 type schemes that the
manufacturers now do.
The general comment was that it would prove cost effective for both
employer and employee.
If I remember, I will bring in the article tomorrow and post the
relevent details.
regards
malcolm
|
2123.40 | Have I got a plan for you. | ARRODS::SMITHA | Il y a une sange, dans l'arbre | Tue Aug 10 1993 14:55 | 17 |
| Interesting scheme offered by one of our customers for their qualifying staff...
1. You choose a car,
2. They give you the dosh up to a certain level,
3. You top up any shortfall,
4. They deduct a minor amount from you each month throughout the three years
you have the car, amounting to approx 10-15% of the cost of the car,
5. After three years the car is yours to keep, sell, give away with absolutely
no penalty or further cost !
The guy I was speaking to about this uses the resale value of his car towards the
cost of the new car.
So simple it's brilliant.
T.
|
2123.41 | | VANGA::KERRELL | Pluck a Plump Plum | Tue Aug 10 1993 16:08 | 3 |
| Who is it and are they hiring?
Dave.
|
2123.42 | | BAHTAT::DODD | | Tue Aug 10 1993 16:11 | 7 |
| This was common in the oil industry a few years back. Let me guess it
begins with M?
My wife is told to go out and find any car she likes up to a year old
and then gets a fixed amount of money and pays the rest. So long as the
MD likes the brand!
Andrew
|
2123.43 | That's what you get! | TIMMII::RDAVIES | An expert Amateur | Tue Aug 10 1993 21:03 | 6 |
| Re .26, Dave Kerrel asking why I included the full leaseallowance whn
taking the cash....
Because this is what you get. It's probably somewhere in the glossy,
but= was also in the management addendum to the pre-announcement mail.
Richard
|
2123.44 | | VANGA::KERRELL | Pluck a Plump Plum | Wed Aug 11 1993 10:40 | 3 |
| Yes, sorry about that! I forgot, that cut is not due until next year.
Dave.
|
2123.45 | Close, but not close enough | ARRODS::SMITHA | Il y a une sange, dans l'arbre | Wed Aug 11 1993 17:44 | 4 |
| re .41,
.42 got the right industry, but the wrong company. :-)
Amazing deal huh ? And no, they're not hiring :-(
|
2123.46 | Looks like a perk to me | NEWOA::FIDO_T | Conation is the key | Wed Aug 11 1993 18:01 | 14 |
| > <<< Note 2123.40 by ARRODS::SMITHA "Il y a une sange, dans l'arbre" >>>
>5. After three years the car is yours to keep, sell, give away with absolutely
> no penalty or further cost !
I would have thought that those nice men from the tax office would have
something to say about this last point. As far as the company's books
are concerned, the vehicle can only have been written down to a
minimum of 25% of its original value, so surely the company is giving
the employee a benefit, which should attract tax. Do the company pay
the tax ?
Terry
|
2123.47 | more on the "best scheme ever" | ARRODS::SMITHA | Il y a une sange, dans l'arbre | Thu Aug 12 1993 18:09 | 10 |
| re. .46
not aware of the full details because I was too gob-smacked by the concept of
having a 'company car' to sell having played with it for three years, and
keeping the money.
Yes, the taxmen are interested but the scheme caters for this in some way so that
you're taxed, not penalised.
T.
|
2123.48 | | NEWOA::FIDO_T | Conation is the key | Fri Aug 13 1993 09:44 | 6 |
| >Yes, the taxmen are interested but the scheme caters for this in some way so that
>you're taxed, not penalised.
What's the difference ? ;-)
Terry
|
2123.49 | Not an assett | FUTURS::LONGWY::LEWIS | | Mon Aug 16 1993 11:36 | 10 |
| re .46,
A lease car should never show up on the company's books - that is
the whole point of the lease. The lease company would have it on their
books, but I imagine that it would not be classified by them as a fixed
asset, so they could quite happily write it off after three years.
fwiw
Rob
|
2123.50 | Anyone asked? | BAHTAT::DODD | | Tue Aug 17 1993 17:58 | 13 |
| A thought which occurred to me about all these car company schemes,
Options, choices etc is what is the effect/cost of terminating the
scheme early? Has anyone asked?
One advantage of the Digital scheme is that if you leave/are made
redundant/sacked then you walk away with no commitment. With your own
car, however purchased one has a commitment for maybe three years, or
an asset to sell at a below best price.
One could take the opposite view and say that one would be, say, half
way to owning your own car so it is a bit swings and roundabouts.
Andrew
|
2123.51 | | SUBURB::THOMASH | The Devon Dumpling | Tue Aug 17 1993 18:16 | 12 |
|
> One advantage of the Digital scheme is that if you leave/are made
> redundant/sacked then you walk away with no commitment. With your own
> car, however purchased one has a commitment for maybe three years, or
> an asset to sell at a below best price.
Well, you then don't have a car, so you have to buy one.
If you already have one, you don't have to do that.
Heather
|
2123.52 | | BAHTAT::DODD | | Wed Aug 18 1993 13:03 | 10 |
| Heather,
I was suggesting that having taken out a 3 year deal with someone on
say a Vauxhall Carlton, this may not be the car one would choose to
support on the salary from one's new job as a checkout operator at
Tesco.
I agree that after 3 years one is arguably in a better position.
Andrew
|
2123.53 | | WARNUT::ALLEN | It works better if you plug it in.. | Wed Aug 18 1993 23:57 | 5 |
| But....
If the car you want for PERSONAL use doesn't exist on the car scheme in
GM variety then it suddenly becomes a whole lot more attractive. Risks
are also for taking otherwise life would get awfully dull.
|
2123.54 | | SUBURB::THOMASH | The Devon Dumpling | Thu Aug 19 1993 15:40 | 12 |
|
> I was suggesting that having taken out a 3 year deal with someone on
> say a Vauxhall Carlton, this may not be the car one would choose to
> support on the salary from one's new job as a checkout operator at
> Tesco.
If you worry about this, best thing is not to be in any car
scheme, buy one you can afford, and trade up when you've saved
what you need.
Heather
|