Increase to Mileage Allowance?

kylieM_2

swanny65 wrote: »

There have been articles recently about how the failure to increase the £0.40 mileage allowance has helped fill the governments pockets.

Have you got a link to these articles, I wouldn't mind having a read.

Thanks

lisyloo

whereas just about every cost associated with motoring has increased over that time.

This in incorrect.
The cost of buying a car in real terms has fallen dramatically as has the cost of parts.
Tax for certain cars has fallen.
Servicing intervals for some models has increased.

Until very recently the overall costs of running are car hasn't change much since the 70s in real terms.

I can't quote official figures but I suspect that in the last year costs have risen a bit because of fuel increases.

lisyloo

I was of the view that anybody who was loosing money on 40p/mile should stop using a 4.2l Jaguar for business miles.

My view is that someone doing business miles should be able to have a decenet standard of car i.e. with airconditioning, cd player etc and have a reasonably comfortable ride on the motorway.
I have an "old banger" without air conditioning and occasionally it has been 42 degrees inside. Not really great to turn up at a meeting covered in sweat.

My car costs about 20p a mile to run but my costs are very low.

I think it's becoming marginal for a "decent" car that's going to get you there in comfort.
My husband travels for long hours and I think a bit of comfort and air conditioning is not too much to ask if you're coming back from the aiport at midnight.
I think 40p per mile is touch and go for say a decent Subaru (not a jag) especially for anyone young.
I am 39 and my insurance is peanuts but youngster have to pay several thousands for insurance.

Andy_L

Most people would say that at ~20k a Subaru is more than a "decent" car.

lisyloo

Most people would say that at ~20k a Subaru is more than a "decent" car.

People are of course entitled to their own opinions but I would make the following points:

1) Why should anyone change their personal car which is primarily bought for personal travelling to suit company requirements?
It is first and formost a personal possession bought for personal use.
Some people greatly care about the type of car they have and derive a great deal of enjoyment out of it.
Going back to the original quote about not driving the 4.2 jag on business.
Seriously, what would you expect somone with this type of car to do?
Sell it and buy something more sensible? I don't see why they should change their personal possession to suit the business.
In some cases they could get public or priavte transport but I know certain cases where that would be impossible or not convenient.
Now you could argue that the business should pay for the "required" part and anyone that wants extra luxury should pay the rest themselves.
I would wholehartedly agree but then the argument would center around whether 40p is enough and I think in recent times its getting marginal.

2) My hubbie claims that a powerful car allows him to overtake (safely and legally) in places he could not with a less powerful car.
This greatly helps him to get home at a reasonable hour when he works long (17 hour) days and therefore I'm pretty sure he would argue that a powerful car was very necesary for him to work long days.
The requirements for driving a short distance in a 9-5 scenario may be different from someone that works and drives long hours.

3) In my opinion (and many people of my status) you should not be forced to drive something lesser than you would pay for yourself.
Similarly you should not be forced to stay in hotels that are considerably worse than those you would chose if spending your own money.
I do genuine believe it's different if you are CEO than if you are the janitor. People have "standards" that are of course affeted by their income.
Why should you be expected to "rough it" (whatever that means in your terms). Surely a company should AT LEAST meet your own personal standards.

4) Many people in my type of job work very long hours. Having decent cars and decent hotels is not a luxury. It's what makes some jobs bearable.
So it comes down to the context.
Are we talking about a 9-5 person going to a meeting round the corner or
are we talking about someone working very long hours that need speed or
are we talking about someone going to Nigeria that needs an armoured car and armed escort.
What's "decent" is down to context of the job.

hopon

lisyloo wrote: »

This in incorrect.
The cost of buying a car in real terms has fallen dramatically as has the cost of parts.
Tax for certain cars has fallen.
Servicing intervals for some models has increased.

Until very recently the overall costs of running are car hasn't change much since the 70s in real terms.

I can't quote official figures but I suspect that in the last year costs have risen a bit because of fuel increases.

That's the point costs "in real terms" taking inflation in to account they probably have dropped. BUT THE MILEAGE RATES HAVEN'T INCREASED AT ALL.

The cost of a car is probably much of a muchness - you just get a higher spec as standard. Servicing intervals may have increased in some cases but the rates charged have also increased as the hourly rates have risen and so has the cost of the parts needed. My 1st interim service (Audi) cost £280 for basically an oil change.

Tax for most cars has increased

Now lets just look at the cost of one major item, petrol.

2007 price £1.05 per litre
2002 price £0.74 per litre - according to national statistics office.

Now by my reckoning thats an increase of 41.8%, please tell me how that is a real term reduction.

Regardless of how much the mileage allowance should or shouldn't compensate for an individuals choice of car, (and if you are driving a lot who would want to spend half their day in a crap one?) they should cover the additional costs incurred and at 25ppm in a large % of cases the don't.

My car costs about £50 to fill up and does about 250 miles per tank so £0.20, a set of tyres at £720 lasting say 15000 miles is another £0.048, there's the 25p gone. Doesn't lease a lot to cover everything else does it?

lisyloo

I agree with you on the major issues hopon.
I just don't agree that "just about every cost has increased" but to be honest I see that as a minor argument given that we agree on the major issues.

Doesn't lease a lot to cover everything else does it?

I think 25p is terrible.
If it was not part of my contract then I personally would not use my car for that amount and would get public or private transport i.e. taxi.
If it was part of my contract then I would have factored in the rates and made sure that overall I was happy with the compensation package or not accepted the offer.

Why are people using their own cars for 25p a mile if they are not contractually obliged to?

I get paid 40p per mile and I'm very happy with that because my costs are around 20p per mile (almost completely petrol).

BTW - my company pays 40p for the first so many miles (is it 4000). There are quite a few people who record their mileage and stop using their own car at this point as the subsequent allowance is too low. They then book taxis.

lisyloo

I do hope that your husband is travelling at speed, overtaking safely and legally, in his powerful car after working 17 hour days on different roads to the ones I drive on.

Well he's has over 20 years of driving experience without ANY conviction or accident but let's not let his record, training, qulifications of skills mar your snap judgement.

If you don't want to be with people who've had a long day (regardless of their record, training, qualification or skills) then I suggest you avoid the main roads from airports on an evening, because lots of people will have been up for that length of time.

He is one of the best drivers I know and I knnow he wouldn't put anybody at risk.

Unlike my 18 year old nephew who recently wrote off 2 cars and broke someone's ribs. My 80 year old father-in-law is dreadful too, so I'd avoid them too if I were you.

Andy_L

Couple of thoughts

The Government (& Oposition) have established Green policies to encourage the use of fuel effecient cars (whether they right is neither here or there) so are not going to introduce a higher rate for large engined cars.

Even if they did your employer isn't obliged to pay it (see Hopon in message 17 only getting 25ppm) especially if you can't prove you're losing money so you'd only get the tax relief.

lisyloo

Even if they did your employer isn't obliged to pay it

I don't think most people are obliged to use their own vehicles for their job (see my post #18).
I have many colleagues who either don't have cars or their wife needs it during the day.
They simply get trains, buses, taxis or hire cars.
I also have some colleagues who chose to stop driving their cars after they've done 4000 business miles and the rate drops.

Of course there may be exceptions where it's in the contract or people agreed to it but as I said in post 18, it's then their responsibility to negotiate a package that they are happy with prior to accepting the job.

Most people DO have the choice of not using their own car.
It's not always the most convenient but it IS a choice.

A green policy (for employers or government) is totally cool in my view and YES I should change my gas guzzling Subaru and I will, but I never expected it to last 17 years, so I thought I would have to change it before now.