MPs claiming mileage allowance for riding a bike !!!
How could he have the nerve to put in such a claim?
If Sammyboy gets government money for new bike, why not the MP?
Originally Posted by PDR
I'm for allocating a modest mileage allowance for the use of a bicycle for business purposes. 40 pence per mile is not proportionate of course, given that is an average car mileage allowance but something like 10 or 20 pence per mile is surely reasonable to account for bicycle wear and tear, parts, consumables etc ?
It's not fair that someone is additionally remunerated for travelling to their normal place of work , and there is no suggestion that the MP here has done that but travel for work purposes outside of travelling to and from work should be remunerated fairly. I'd submit the MP here has actually saved the taxpayer money by not using a car in connection with travel for work.
I use a bicycle for business transport myself usually to attend off site meetings, consult with clients and what have you. I get 8 (soon to rise to 15) pence per mile and I do , on average 20-30 miles per week work related cycling. If I get a puncture whilst out travelling by bike for work purposes why should I pay out of pocket for that ? Why should I be treated any differently from the business purposes car driver ? Why should that MP for that matter. A modest allowance will cover the cost of a new tube, a few repair kits, a bottle of oil etc just about. You wont be making a profit on those margins.
40 pence is patently unreasonable of course but I don't believe the concept is nor is the Westminister allowance of 20 pence in my view. Riding a bike is not free, everything costs money except for the air in the tires, but it costs money to get air into those tyres and to keep air in them. It costs money to degrease and oil a chain and so on and so forth...
If more employees were given a modest allowance for using a bicycle as an alternative to car use surely this benefits not only the cycling fraternity but the community (and planet) as a whole ?
Last edited by rpf; 02-04-11 at 04:49 AM.
Absolutely ! The cycle to work scheme is an excellent programme.
Originally Posted by kamtsa
A converted ambulance as a "claims clinic" would indeed make my piss boil ! If that isn't an example of how litigation crazed our society in the Uk has become I don't know what is.Good grief ! And with regards to your comments on people not taking personal responsibility for "trippers" as I used to call them (I'm a refugee from the legal profession) I warmly agree.
I'm also no stranger to funding issues, working now in the Voluntary Sector myself I have made my fair share of sacrifices also. I know things are getting particularly grim in Higher Education so the very best of luck to you with further funding.
I'll have to respectfully agree to disagree with you on the topic's issue, what I would say is the other 650 MP's will no doubt have claimed car mileage. I just feel in this situation the MP has been treated unfairly and that a policy of modest remuneration for work related bicycle travel is warranted. But to each his own of course, and I respect your position particularly given the personal sacrifices you have chose to make.
It's got electrolytes!
As a cycling reimbursement, it's unfair, but as a cycling subsidy it is not only fair, but will also pay itself back many times in the long run (both for the UK government and the human race in general).
I like it.
I don't understand the argument in the article. It doesn't appear to be irritation over bike vs. car prices. Rather, it goes something like this:
1. He's claiming reimbursement for riding his bike.
2. But lots of people ride bikes and they don't get a reimbursement.
Um, yes, but MPs also apparently get a reimbursement for riding cars to work. But lots of people ride cars and they don't get a reimbursement. Where's the anger there?
It would seem to me that if MPs are getting reimbursed for using a car, reimbursement for a bike should be just as much, if not significantly more, if only as an incentive to use a bike instead of a car.
I sometimes used my bike for going to/from business meetings and filed vouchers with my employer for 4 cents/mile based on my estimated wear/tear costs of maintaining my bike (primarily new tires and chains). I also estimated that my cycling cost an additional 6 cents/mile for fuel but didn't claim that separately since meal costs incurred during business meetings were already reimbursed.
Personally I would rather he claims 40p a mile and rides his bike, rather than claim 40p a mile and uses his car. There was a similar issue a while back when Bristol City Coucil was found to be paying all its employees 40p a mile whether they used car of bikes to do any travel. Their arguement was that each extra journey taken by bike doesn't cost the council tax payer any extra and takes a car off the roads.
My question is are most MP's cycling and not claiming for it or are they driving and claiming for it?
Also reading the article he is claiming 20p a mile, half what he could claim for using a car so hes saving the taxpayer money.
It's got electrolytes!
True, except since cycling cost less money you couldn't really call it "reimbursement". No doubt the bureaucratic morons in charge will have difficulty processing that.
Originally Posted by feijai
It's far easier to count dollars than time, personal hardship, etc, which I think is a very real problem in our society as waste is inherently more likely to generate proof/evidence than efficiency.
Meh. How about giving everyone a fixed "travel stipend" based on expected travel distance, regardless of mode of transportation. Anyway, this sounds like a tempest in a teapot. The guy's doing the moral thing and getting called on it.
Originally Posted by chucky
I don't know about the UK but with our version of the MPs, I would reimburse some of them for staying at home.