Originally Posted by
treadtread
According to:
http://www.nctr.usf.edu/programs/cle...mmutebenefits/
bike commuters can get up to $20 per month. Seems a bit unfair, considering that other modes of transport receive up to $240 a month, and they are far more polluting. What is the rationale behind this? Maybe I'm missing something simple. $20 doesn't even buy me a decent helmet, pump or lock - forget other costs.
I think the argument would be that other modes of transport are more expensive.
Even though it's only $20 a month I wouldn't find it that hard to get a pretty good benefit out of this. A lot of my cycling costs are for items that aren't that expensive: chains, tires, blinkies, tubes, bearings, lube, pads, patch kits. As long as I spaced the purchases out, $20 would allow me to get that stuff for free or at a pretty good discount.
The problem is though that since it's a reimbursement for actual expenses there's paperwork involved. The company ends up spending more on admin costs than the benefit is worth to the employee. It would be better to have an annual benefit of $240. Then my organization could say, OK, we'll support this benefit but we'll process these expense requests no more than once a quarter, twice a year or whatever to keep the admin cost down.