Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Subsidies for ebikes

Options
2

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Macy0161
    Registered Users Posts: 9,449 ✭✭✭Macy0161


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    it's probably been made above, but it's a trivial argument that e-bikes are subsidised if bought through the BTW scheme.
    however, as also mentioned above, subsidies are a minor factor in reasons why we don't see more e-bikes.
    I'm not sure it is. I considered an ebike for my full commute, rather than a park and drive. Bike to Work wasn't enough to make it work, for a decent ebike, for me. Yeah, a bottom end one, that wouldn't last, wouldn't be servicable for the expected time line, limited range...

    At the very least, ebike purchases should have a higher limit and be multi-year deductible. It would also clearly differentiate them in terms of mindset of the type of commute that might be possible - the 30km + that some guys do on here, comes into range of the current car or bus punter*. That's why I'd prefer it in a separate scheme.

    *my reason for looking was prevailing headwind and terrain heading home, when I'm under time pressure for childcare.


  • Options
    #33
    what_traffic
    Registered Users Posts: 4,971 ✭✭✭what_traffic


    Macy0161 wrote: »
    At the very least, ebike purchases should have a higher limit and be multi-year deductible. It would also clearly differentiate them in terms of mindset of the type of commute that might be possible - the 30km + that some guys do on here, comes into range of the current car or bus punter*. That's why I'd prefer it in a separate scheme.
    This is a good idea; ability to pay back over 2-3 years should help uptake; not sure employers would like that though?


  • Options
    #34
    Kaisr Sose
    Registered Users Posts: 3,256 ✭✭✭Kaisr Sose


    LeinsterDub wrote: »
    Are you also opposed to the subsidy for eCars? What about the subsidy motoring in general needs? I'm happy not to have eBike subsidy if cars fully pay their way.

    Fully in favour of e-cars subsidy, and would love to see Ireland follow the Norway model. The thread is about e-bike subsidy, its not about cars.

    However, what subsidy do standard cars get (or need) ? Do you mean roads getting built with EU grants or general funding from the exchequer? It has to be Bourne in mind there is more to roads than just driving from A to B for social, domestic and pleasure. Roads are a critical part of the national infrastructure and support economic activity, e.g movement of goods and labour.

    Motoring is already heavily taxed, VAT and excise on fuel, motor tax and VAT and penal VRT on new cars. I don't think there is scope to increase that. Maybe I am wrong there.

    Anyway, talk of an e-bike subsidy may be moot. I have not heard or read nothing about it in general media and the OP says they can't find the reference to it.

    If they do introduce one, I would hope they put together a robust grant application process, with a verification that the stated e-bike was purchased.


  • Options
    #35
    ted1
    Registered Users Posts: 23,535 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    Kaisr Sose wrote: »

    If they do introduce one, I would hope they put together a robust grant application process, with a verification that the stated e-bike was purchased.
    There’s a cost associated with that which could in all likelihood cost more than is lost by the grant being abused.

    Any abuse of the grant would be already covered under revenue laws.


  • Options
    #36
    LeinsterDub
    Registered Users Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    Kaisr Sose wrote: »
    Fully in favour of e-cars subsidy, and would love to see Ireland follow the Norway model. The thread is about e-bike subsidy, its not about cars.

    However, what subsidy do standard cars get (or need) ?

    Motoring has a massive externalised cost. https://rdrf.org.uk/2012/12/31/the-true-costs-of-automobility-external-costs-of-cars/

    Parking is also massively subsidised
    Kaisr Sose wrote: »
    Do you mean roads getting built with EU grants or general funding from the exchequer? It has to be Bourne in mind there is more to roads than just driving from A to B for social, domestic and pleasure. Roads are a critical part of the national infrastructure and support economic activity, e.g movement of goods and labour.
    The same can be said of walking , cycling and PT . Yet they get a pittance compared to cars
    Kaisr Sose wrote: »
    Motoring is already heavily taxed, VAT and excise on fuel, motor tax and VAT and penal VRT on new cars. I don't think there is scope to increase that. Maybe I am wrong there.
    Any yet you've an issue with a few million going towards eBikes but the billion propping up cars is basically 'shrug what are you going to do'
    Kaisr Sose wrote: »
    Anyway, talk of an e-bike subsidy may be moot. I have not heard or read nothing about it in general media and the OP says they can't find the reference to it.

    If they do introduce one, I would hope they put together a robust grant application process, with a verification that the stated e-bike was purchased.
    Isn't that the process we already have with bike to work?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    keane2097
    Registered Users Posts: 17,773 ✭✭✭✭keane2097


    Honestly the idea of the grant being misspent on lawnmowers strikes me as a laughably trivial issue.


  • Options
    #38
    Kaisr Sose
    Registered Users Posts: 3,256 ✭✭✭Kaisr Sose


    keane2097 wrote: »
    Honestly the idea of the grant being misspent on lawnmowers strikes me as a laughably trivial issue.

    Tax fraud is not trivial. What is laughable is that people think it'd OK to do this.

    I am not against a subsidy, just that it is given and used for the stated purpose. What's so wrong with stating that? Only those who would prefer to buy something else would have a problem with it. Tough is what I would say.

    Try getting a grant for attic or external insulation, or a gas boiler. It's checked and signed off. I would be happy to see such a system for an e-bike subsidy.


  • Options
    #39
    ted1
    Registered Users Posts: 23,535 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    Kaisr Sose wrote: »
    Tax fraud is not trivial.

    On the scale it’s happening with the bike to work scheme , then yes it’s trivial


  • Options
    #40
    keane2097
    Registered Users Posts: 17,773 ✭✭✭✭keane2097


    Kaisr Sose wrote: »
    Tax fraud is not trivial. What is laughable is that people think it'd OK to do this.

    I am not against a subsidy, just that it is given and used for the stated purpose. What's so wrong with stating that? Only those who would prefer to buy something else would have a problem with it. Tough is what I would say.

    Try getting a grant for attic or external insulation, or a gas boiler. It's checked and signed off. I would be happy to see such a system for an e-bike subsidy.

    You can't state it away and I completely agree with you but there are already mechanisms in place to ensure this non-issue is not an issue.


  • Options
    #41
    Mr. Grieves
    Registered Users Posts: 781 ✭✭✭Mr. Grieves


    Kaisr Sose wrote: »
    Tax fraud is not trivial.

    Using the potential for fraud as an argument against a subsidy is nonsensical.

    Imagine rates of fraud are 1% (if you have a more accurate estimate based on real data, please provide).You would deny 99 people the potential to avail of a subsidy which has also benefits society generally, just in order to ensure 1 person does not get something they are not entitled to.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    LeinsterDub
    Registered Users Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    Kaisr Sose wrote: »
    Try getting a grant for attic or external insulation, or a gas boiler. It's checked and signed off. I would be happy to see such a system for an e-bike subsidy.
    Checked and signed off , wink and a nod to the builder, few bits under the table , some how the VAT goes missing or the price is inflated to qualify for the higher grant! What an outrage best cancel the entire scheme!


  • Options
    #43
    Macy0161
    Registered Users Posts: 9,449 ✭✭✭Macy0161


    LeinsterDub wrote: »
    Checked and signed off , wink and a nod to the builder, few bits under the table , some how the VAT goes missing or the price is inflated to qualify for the higher grant! What an outrage best cancel the entire scheme!
    Same price to the punter with or without those grants is the biggest fraud/ issue. Paying VAT either way.

    And yes, I do have direct experience of this when getting quotes, rather than "someone down the local's brother's pal got a lawnmower on the bike to work"...


  • Options
    #44
    cdaly_
    Registered Users Posts: 6,440 ✭✭✭cdaly_


    Macy0161 wrote: »
    Same price to the punter with or without those grants is the biggest fraud/ issue. Paying VAT either way.

    And yes, I do have direct experience of this when getting quotes

    Not clear on this. Did you get the same price quoted whether you said you had the grant or not? Or was it a case of cheaper if you didn't have the grant?


  • Options
    #45
    nikkisscy
    Registered Users Posts: 8 ✭nikkisscy


    Seth Brundle wrote: »
    When are they planning to look into the idea of creating proper infrastructure?

    well, as with most plans for "proper" things ....its gonna take maybe several decades!


  • Options
    #46
    Padre_Pio
    Registered Users Posts: 5,211 ✭✭✭Padre_Pio


    LeinsterDub wrote: »
    Checked and signed off , wink and a nod to the builder, few bits under the table , some how the VAT goes missing or the price is inflated to qualify for the higher grant! What an outrage best cancel the entire scheme!

    It's increasingly rare that this happens.
    Revenue are the only government dept that actually seem to work.


  • Options
    #47
    Kaisr Sose
    Registered Users Posts: 3,256 ✭✭✭Kaisr Sose


    Again, I have no problem with any grant or subsidy for an e-bike. Can the detractors stop misquoting me on that.

    A % of people in this country still think nod and winkonomics is acceptable once you don't get caught. I pay a lot of tax and have a problem with this.

    Rather than say would I wish 'trival' fraud by a few prevent the majority getting a beneficial grant or subsidy, why not take the view that potentially a small few risk ruining something for everyone else that is not acceptable.

    Those who will comply with robust terms for a grant (and are the majority) have nothing to fear from a robust process. Whereas, the few that would prefer to buy something else would of course prefer it was run in a loose way and then complain when it gets shut down.


  • Options
    #48
    LeinsterDub
    Registered Users Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    Padre_Pio wrote: »
    It's increasingly rare that this happens.
    Revenue are the only government dept that actually seem to work.

    I know it is but for people like Kaisr Sose if one person cheats the system we shouldn't have a system at all


  • Options
    #49
    LeinsterDub
    Registered Users Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    Kaisr Sose wrote: »
    Again, I have no problem with any grant or subsidy for an e-bike. Can the detractors stop misquoting me on that.

    So after 4 pages of posts what exactly is your position or point?


  • Options
    #50
    rubadub
    Registered Users Posts: 32,381 ✭✭✭✭rubadub


    Macy0161 wrote: »
    Bike to Work wasn't enough to make it work, for a decent ebike, for me. Yeah, a bottom end one, that wouldn't last, wouldn't be servicable for the expected time line.

    they could at least give options for longer times between purchases. Like instead of 1k per 5 years it could have been 2k for 10 years if you chose to do so.

    My ebike is coming up on 5 years old and fingers crossed it might last another 5.

    I think it could go lower too, like 500 every 2.5 years, especially with the high rate of theft and minimal sentencing that goes along with it. If your bike is legitimately nicked the first day hard luck, wait another 5 years.


  • Options
    #51
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 29,050 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Kaisr Sose wrote: »

    Rather than say would I wish 'trival' fraud by a few prevent the majority getting a beneficial grant or subsidy, why not take the view that potentially a small few risk ruining something for everyone else that is not acceptable.

    Those who will comply with robust terms for a grant (and are the majority) have nothing to fear from a robust process. Whereas, the few that would prefer to buy something else would of course prefer it was run in a loose way and then complain when it gets shut down.
    There is a cost to a 'robust process' - a cost to the public body administering, a cost for each participant, a cost to the businesses selling the product. You reach a stage of diminishing returns, where the cost of compliance exceeds the compliance savings.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Kaisr Sose
    Registered Users Posts: 3,256 ✭✭✭Kaisr Sose


    LeinsterDub wrote: »
    So after 4 pages of posts what exactly is your position or point?

    Are you trolling? Read my posts. It's quite clear.


  • Options
    #53
    LeinsterDub
    Registered Users Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    Kaisr Sose wrote: »
    Are you trolling? Read my posts. It's quite clear.
    Kaisr Sose wrote: »
    I don't however see the need for a substantial subsidy for them
    Kaisr Sose wrote: »
    Again, I have no problem with any grant or subsidy for an e-bike.

    So you didn't see the need for them told us why you didn't for 4 pages and finally ended up at you've no problem with them and you actually think your position has been consistent?

    You're posts are a combination of maintaining the car status quo and nonsense about imagined abuse of a subsidy.


  • Options
    #54
    Macy0161
    Registered Users Posts: 9,449 ✭✭✭Macy0161


    cdaly_ wrote: »
    Not clear on this. Did you get the same price quoted whether you said you had the grant or not? Or was it a case of cheaper if you didn't have the grant?
    Same cost to me (as in what I'd have to pay the contractor) or minimal difference, with or without the grant. The grant effectively just goes straight to contractor with no benefit to the purchaser. I have personal experience of this across a number of schemes and a number of contractors, as well as family members experiencing the same. If you are willing to go cash (which I am not), there's a cheaper price again.


  • Options
    #55
    Macy0161
    Registered Users Posts: 9,449 ✭✭✭Macy0161


    rubadub wrote: »
    they could at least give options for longer times between purchases. Like instead of 1k per 5 years it could have been 2k for 10 years if you chose to do so.

    My ebike is coming up on 5 years old and fingers crossed it might last another 5.

    I think it could go lower too, like 500 every 2.5 years, especially with the high rate of theft and minimal sentencing that goes along with it. If your bike is legitimately nicked the first day hard luck, wait another 5 years.
    I still think a seperate scheme would be better to be honest. The Bike To Work Scheme works, so I'd be reluctant to mess with it too much (except reduce it to every 3 years, as proposed).


  • Options
    #56
    Kaisr Sose
    Registered Users Posts: 3,256 ✭✭✭Kaisr Sose


    LeinsterDub wrote: »
    So you didn't see the need for them told us why you didn't for 4 pages and finally ended up at you've no problem with them and you actually think your position has been consistent?

    You're posts are a combination of maintaining the car status quo and nonsense about imagined abuse of a subsidy.

    Am I on trial here? It certainly feels like it and you come across as very confrontational for no reason.

    I never said anything advocating car status quo. I cycle more km than I drive. You are putting things up to shape an opinion you have on this matter which is akin to trolling.

    E-bikes are great, I just don't see a need for a subsidy. If there is a subsidy, it should the receipt of it should be controlled better than Cycle scheme. That's my view so please don't distort or multi quote it to form a picture you find will suit your argument. Its tiring and very circular.

    Good luck.


  • Options
    #57
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 49,580 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    guys - can you please agree to disagree, and leave it at that? i'm not going to read back to see who has a greater right to feel aggrieved, so we can just park the argument here. thank you.


  • Options
    #58
    the.red.baron
    Registered Users Posts: 1,632 ✭✭✭the.red.baron


    I find the existing infrastructure is grand, been working well for me for decades


    Don't think your should subsidize things, of the 40 or so people i know who availed of the cycle to work, zero use the bike for commuting on a regular basis, maybe 2 used it at all


    The cost of electric bikes is a total rip of course, but if people pay it



    No adult below the age of 50 should be touching these anyway


    The 25 limit makes them a waste of time for anyone with any sort of fitness


    What they need to push is employers to have showers and some sort of parking solution at work and maybe 5 places for the public to leave bikes in town


    They need public transport hubs really, lot should use bikes to get across town to artery public transport, but don't because when they get back, the bike will be gone


  • Options
    #59
    LeinsterDub
    Registered Users Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    the.red.baron wrote: »
    I find the existing infrastructure is grand, been working well for me for decades

    https://twitter.com/JustBikeTbay/status/970510768901943298/photo/1

    This illustrates the point better than I could


  • Options
    #60
    rubadub
    Registered Users Posts: 32,381 ✭✭✭✭rubadub


    the.red.baron wrote: »
    of the 40 or so people i know who availed of the cycle to work, zero use the bike for commuting on a regular basis, maybe 2 used it at all
    seems high, I know one who blatantly scammed the scheme, did not get a bike at all. 1 got one and did not use it, was far more difficult than they thought, a ebike would have suited her. Then know 4-5 others who got them and do use a lot. Some will drive to work esp. in rain or wind, where rain & wind is no bother to me on an ebike.
    the.red.baron wrote: »
    The cost of electric bikes is a total rip of course, but if people pay it
    I consider it one of my best buys! would get one again in a heartbeat if it was nicked, even if the price doubled. Saved a fortune in taxis and public transport going places I never would have even considered on a regular bike.
    the.red.baron wrote: »
    No adult below the age of 50 should be touching these anyway

    The 25 limit makes them a waste of time for anyone with any sort of fitness
    There is good reason people would want them, read this guys post about it below...
    the.red.baron wrote: »
    they need to push is employers to have showers


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Utter Consternation
    Registered Users Posts: 926 ✭✭✭Utter Consternation


    the.red.baron wrote: »
    I find the existing infrastructure is grand, been working well for me for decades

    Where are you cycling?


    No adult below the age of 50 should be touching these anyway

    Not true, they're brilliant for anyone with long commutes, any underlying conditions or dodgy knees or hips.


Advertisement