Bike shops in Dublin that sell second hand bikes

Andy Magic

I'm after a specific time trial bike that unfortunately has to be second hand considering the price of it new (I can't afford it). I've got a cycle to work voucher approval so I can't go with done deal but need to find the bike first if possible. I would appreciate any recommendations for bike stores that have second hand bikes that may have taken it as a trade in. Dublin preferably but I am willing to travel and check with stores to see what they have in stock. Thanks

68 lost souls

Cycle superstore have a used bike section - http://usedbikes.ie/bicycle/user/profile?user_id=64

Wheelworx sometimes do also I believe

Worth calling around and seeing who has what in stock as they may also have ex demo bikes or similar

Eamonnator

You can't use the cycle to work scheme to buy a second hand bike.

cython

Andy Magic wrote: »

I'm after a specific time trial bike that unfortunately has to be second hand considering the price of it new (I can't afford it). I've got a cycle to work voucher approval so I can't go with done deal but need to find the bike first if possible. I would appreciate any recommendations for bike stores that have second hand bikes that may have taken it as a trade in. Dublin preferably but I am willing to travel and check with stores to see what they have in stock. Thanks

Just be aware that the Taxes Consolidation Act (which provides for/enables the BTW scheme) does not provide for second hand bikes to be purchased under the scheme, only new/unused.

magicbastarder

is there any rationale for that?

cython

magicbastarder wrote: »

is there any rationale for that?

Rationale for what, the exclusion of second hand bikes? One reason I can imagine is that the cost to the exchequer of the current scheme is offset/reduced by the fact that there is still 23% VAT payable as part of the bike purchase when bought new, whereas second hand bikes I don't think (but am open to correction on this) would be liable for VAT, as ultimately the VAT has already been paid at the point of original purchase.

Regardless of the motivations, however, the text of the act is pretty clear and unequivocal about the need for the bicycle and any "safety equipment" to be new (bolded below):

TCA wrote:

Subsection (1) shall not apply to expense incurred by the body corporate in or in connection with the provision, without any transfer of the property in it, for a director or employee of a mechanically propelled road vehicle which is—

(a) designed or constructed solely or mainly for the carriage of goods or other burden, and

(b) of a type not commonly used as a private vehicle and unsuitable to be so used.

(5G) (a) Subject to paragraph (c) of this subsection, subsection (1) shall not apply to expense of up to €1,000 incurred by the body corporate in, or in connection with, the provision for a director or employee of a bicycle or bicycle safety equipment, where—

(i) the bicycle and bicycle safety equipment provided is unused and not second-hand,

(ii) the director or employee uses the bicycle or bicycle safety equipment, or the bicycle and the bicycle safety equipment, as the case may be, mainly for qualifying journeys, and

(iii) bicycles or bicycle safety equipment, or bicycles and bicycle safety equipment, as the case may be, are made available generally to directors and employees of the body corporate.

(b) In this subsection—

“bicycle” means a pedal cycle;

“bicycle safety equipment” includes—

(i) bicycle bells and bulb horns,

(ii) bicycle helmets that conform to European product safety standard CEN/EN 1078,

(iii) bicycle lights, including dynamo packs,

(iv) bicycle reflectors and reflective clothing, and

(v) such other safety equipment as the Revenue Commissioners may allow;

“normal place of work” means the place where the director or employee normally performs the duties of his or her office or employment;

“pedal cycle” means—

(i) a bicycle or tricycle which is intended or adapted for propulsion solely by the physical exertions of a person or persons seated thereon, or

(ii) a pedelec,

but does not include a moped or a scooter;

“pedelec” means a bicycle or tricycle which is equipped with an auxiliary electric motor having a maximum continuous rated power of 0.25 kilowatts, of which output is progressively reduced and finally cut off as the vehicle reaches a speed of 25 kilometres per hour, or sooner if the cyclist stops pedalling;

“qualifying journey”, in relation to a director or employee, means the whole or part of a journey—

(i) between the director’s or employee’s home and normal place of work, or

(ii) between the director’s or employee’s normal place of work and another place of work, where the director or employee is travelling in the performance of the duties of his or her office or employment.

(c) A director or employee shall not, by virtue of this subsection, be relieved from a charge to income tax under subsection (1) more than once in any period of 5 consecutive years of assessment, commencing with the year of assessment in which the director or employee concerned is first provided with a bicycle or bicycle safety equipment.

terrydel

cython wrote: »

Rationale for what, the exclusion of second hand bikes? One reason I can imagine is that the cost to the exchequer of the current scheme is offset/reduced by the fact that there is still 23% VAT payable as part of the bike purchase when bought new, whereas second hand bikes I don't think (but am open to correction on this) would be liable for VAT, as ultimately the VAT has already been paid at the point of original purchase.

Regardless of the motivations, however, the text of the act is pretty clear and unequivocal about the need for the bicycle and any "safety equipment" to be new (bolded below):

VAT is only paid once so you are correct. You never pay vat on 2nd hand stuff.

PaddyFagan

terrydel wrote: »

VAT is only paid once so you are correct. You never pay vat on 2nd hand stuff.

Correct for bikes (and most things) but not works of art, collectors' items and antiques, and second-hand movable goods* - http://www.revenue.ie/en/tax/vat/leaflets/margin-scheme-second-hand-goods.html

* The appendix lists powered vehicles and farm machinery as 'movable goods'

Paddy

magicbastarder

terrydel wrote: »

VAT is only paid once so you are correct. You never pay vat on 2nd hand stuff.

OT, but i was having a discussion last night with a bemused friend who works for the revenue commissioners, saying victims of crime should get tax relief of what has been stolen from them.
e.g. if i spent €1000 on a bike, which nets €230 for the taxman, i have to spend €1000 to replace the bike - so the taxman gets €460 from me, even though i did not get the benefit of the first bike.
(this may be a poorly thought out argument at the moment).

ted1

magicbastarder wrote: »

OT, but i was having a discussion last night with a bemused friend who works for the revenue commissioners, saying victims of crime should get tax relief of what has been stolen from them.
e.g. if i spent €1000 on a bike, which nets €230 for the taxman, i have to spend €1000 to replace the bike - so the taxman gets €460 from me, even though i did not get the benefit of the first bike.
(this may be a poorly thought out argument at the moment).

But the person who buys your stolen bike for 60 euro doesn't pay VAT.

magicbastarder

i at least hope they'd be declaring the income to the revenue commissioners. not doing so would be just wrong.

Beasty

Tax relief for stolen items is not only open to abuse but also it's the responsibility of the owner to look after their property. Why should the rest of us through our taxes subsidise someone who does not lock their bike up or insure against theft?

magicbastarder

that's easily the biggest flaw in the argument i can think of too.

Chuchote

Doesn't stolen goods come under the tough titty law?

ted1

Beasty wrote: »

Tax relief for stolen items is not only open to abuse but also it's the responsibility of the owner to look after their property. Why should the rest of us through our taxes subsidise someone who does not lock their bike up or insure against theft?

Tax relief is very different than your taxes subsidising some one else .

Bikes that are locked are also robbed. Some of the thefts have multiple convictions, it's the failure of the state to either rehabilitate or incarncate them that is more to blame than the poor chap who buys a bike to commute and has his locked bike from his locked shed

magicbastarder

as mentioned, my argument was not very mature - i was making it up as i went along last night, but the reason i enjoyed doing it was i think there's a nugget of truth in it.
ties into another current thread, re waste disposal. you can (or used to be able to) claim tax relief on your waste disposal. which i would argue is a far less logical thing to be able to claim tax relief on than restituting the results of a crime.

the reason it came up was a colleague and her partner had a break in recently, and seven bikes in total stolen. one of which was only a few months old, and cost a few thousand. replacing that bike alone would net the taxman €750, and it just seemed fair that that part at least was one which it would be fair for the taxman to waive given the circumstances.
i'm not suggesting she'd get a free bike - it would still cost an eye-watering amount of money to replace - so it's not subsidising her, because there is no extra cost to the revenue.

Chuchote

If we put our heads together, I'd say there are enough brain cells in here to find a solution to bicycle theft. Suggestions?

ted1

magicbastarder wrote: »

as mentioned, my argument was not very mature - i was making it up as i went along last night, but the reason i enjoyed doing it was i think there's a nugget of truth in it.
ties into another current thread, re waste disposal. you can (or used to be able to) claim tax relief on your waste disposal. which i would argue is a far less logical thing to be able to claim tax relief on than restituting the results of a crime.

the reason it came up was a colleague and her partner had a break in recently, and seven bikes in total stolen. one of which was only a few months old, and cost a few thousand. replacing that bike alone would net the taxman €750, and it just seemed fair that that part at least was one which it would be fair for the taxman to waive given the circumstances.
i'm not suggesting she'd get a free bike - it would still cost an eye-watering amount of money to replace - so it's not subsidising her, because there is no extra cost to the revenue.

It doesn't cost the tax man. The bike itself still has 23% VAT, which revenue get. The problem is that something like 33% of people don't replace bikes and give up cycling this then means that the tax man either has to provide them with public transport which is subsidied or improve road infrastructure for additional traffic which is costly , money is most in traffic.

When someone stops doing physical activities the health risks increase which is costly to the state .

Also with regards public transport the tax saver cards are annual and worth up to about 2k which over 5 years is 20 times the tax relief offered to cyclists.

jive

Chuchote wrote: »

If we put our heads together, I'd say there are enough brain cells in here to find a solution to bicycle theft. Suggestions?

Give all cyclists a gun and never leave your bike out of your sight. Implement new law where cyclists have the right to kill those attempting theft.

Make Ireland great again

Chuchote

jive wrote: »

Give all cyclists a gun and never leave your bike out of your sight. Implement new law where cyclists have the right to kill those attempting theft.

Make Ireland great again

Sounds good. But serious ideas, really. A gun is no good. The tealeaf is long gone, along with your beloved two-wheeled pal, by the time you arrive.

Wishbone Ash

ted1 wrote: »

....Bikes that are locked are also robbed....

A bike can't be 'robbed'. Apologies for being pedantic but it's a pet hate of mine that so many people don't know the difference between 'robbed' and 'stolen'.

jive wrote: »

Give all cyclists a gun and never leave your bike out of your sight. Implement new law where cyclists have the right to kill those attempting theft.

Make Ireland great again

What about the wall? Will we build it?

Chuchote

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

A bike can't be 'robbed'. Apologies for being pedantic but it's a pet hate of mine that so many people don't know the difference between 'robbed' and 'stolen'.

What about the wall? Will we build it?

My bike was robbed. It had a bungee cord serpent on the back and someone stole it from the bike.

ted1

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

A bike can't be 'robbed'. Apologies for being pedantic but it's a pet hate of mine that so many people don't know the difference between 'robbed' and 'stolen'.

Ah come on , you can't leave it there , educate me and expand

Wishbone Ash

Chuchote wrote: »

My bike was robbed. It had a bungee cord serpent on the back and someone stole it from the bike.

I see where you're going but no, despite what you may think, your bike is an inanimate object so it can't be 'robbed'.

(I do realise I'm setting myself up for a fall here as I'm normally less than perfect in the grammar/spelling area!:eek:)

Wishbone Ash

ted1 wrote: »

Ah come on , you can't leave it there , educate me and expand

If a bike is 'stolen' - the owner is 'robbed'. Only a person or an institution (such as a bank) can be 'robbed'. An inanimate object can't be 'robbed'.

BTW you are not alone - many sections of the media and the Gardai regularly make this mistake.

ted1

ted1 wrote: »

Ah come on , you can't leave it there , educate me and expand

Right I looked up and a bike can be robbed, a bike itself is stolen but to say it's robbed means that it was Unlawfully tasking from me.

Wishbone Ash

ted1 wrote: »

... but to say it's robbed means that it was Unlawfully tasking from me.

You were robbed (of the bike) - the bike was stolen.

Chuchote

I learned this too. All the same, looking at the etymology, the idea of robbery as so specific an idea of someone being taken from seems fairly modern:

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=rob

rob (v.) Look up rob at Dictionary.com
late 12c., from Old French rober "rob, steal, pillage, ransack, rape," from West Germanic *rauba "booty" (source also of Old High German roubon "to rob," roub "spoil, plunder;" Old English reafian, source of the reave in bereave), from Proto-Germanic *raubon "to rob," from PIE *reup-, *reub- "to snatch" (see rip (v.)).
Lord, hou schulde God approve þat þou robbe Petur, and gif þis robbere to Poule in þe name of Crist? [Wyclif, c. 1380]
To rob the cradle is attested from 1864 in reference to drafting young men in the American Civil War; by 1949 in reference to seductions or romantic relationships with younger persons. Related: Robbed; robbing.

Beasty

ted1 wrote: »

Tax relief is very different than your taxes subsidising some one else .

Who do you think funds your tax relief then?

shutup

The OP asked about second hand bike shops.

ted1

Beasty wrote: »

Who do you think funds your tax relief then?

No one , it's not funded. In most cases it's a tax that the revenue wouldn't have got .
A grant is funded , relief isn't .