Edinburgh politician under fire for claiming £2.40 expenses for bike commute

he said...

" I have to have a specific reason to claim it back, like a committee meeting. If I just cycle in to do a bit of work then head off again I don't claim for that."

and as Simon mentioned, Council work is probably not his main job, so to get in for extra meetings and such they are allowed to claim. Seems fair enough to me, they dont do it for free. Its the stupid claims like duck houses that we should be shouting about, much of what gets plastered about the papers is perfectly fine if you catually realise what/how there work is organised.

From the story he's claimed expenses for travel TO and FROM work, not travel for expenses whilst AT work. If it's in the rules that he can claim that fine, but if it's only supposed to be work-incurred expenses then travel by any means should be questioned. I work for a local authority and can't (and rightly so) claim for travel to and from work - does anyone else get to claim money for how they get to work?

40p per mile mught not cover the cost of running some cars, but it seems *reasonable* to me. If people want to run more expensive cars then fine, but shouldn't expect not to pay the difference themselves (or at least be taxed on the difference).

And of course it goes down to 25ppm after the first 4,000 miles per year. Of course you might say that there is a small disincentive to using a car, and that there is a small incentive to using a bike for 20ppm. But that's a good thing isn't it? Although I doubt the ppm has altered anyone's behaviour in itself, the price of petrol surely has more impact.

Typical rag reporting, makes the DM look sane.
What boils my piss is the reporter knows the truth, but just writes it with a slant to make the councillor look bad, in the expectation that most readers will tut-tut about it in their ignorance of the real cost of running a bicycle. These slimy, dishonest, untrustworthy writers of crap should be taken down a back alley and run over again and again with a cheap BSO.
Can you tell I don't like local rag reporters?

This piece also tells you everything you need to know about the way that local press covers council related stories. Everything spun and distorted to reflect as badly as possible.

What a complete load of nonsense! One would have thought they would praise him for saving money (by only charging the bike mileage rate instead of the car mileage rate)and criticise the others for not doing the same (not to mention the environmental and health benefits)!

The HMRC rules are also crazy - to pay an employee more than 40p per mile involves complicating their tax returns and either the employee being taxed on this as a perk or the employer paying the tax incurred. Whilst I sympathise (because 40p/mile does not cover the cost of running the car) with employees who have to use the car for work, unless HMRC put the allowable rate up (VERY unlikely), it may be best to see this as an added incentive to use the bike/public transport whenever this is feasible.

Many people think cycling is "free" i.e. it costs nothing to run a bike.
They assume bcause there is no petrol and vehicle excise duty to pay, there are no other costs. No doubt that's behind the story.

We, and the expenses committee who agreed the allowance, know it costs to run a bike.

It seems to be a standard rate for companies to pay 40p mile on expenses however the actual cost per mile (taking into account wear and tear) has to be much greater than that.

20p a mile would be good value with a cheap bike, however I imagine most people on this site have spent more money on their bike than their car!

It must have been a slow news day if 20p a mile bothered them that much...

Wow! £1.06/mile!!!

Here you go, a report from my local paper on Council Mileage expenses

http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/news/163-1-9M-FUEL-CLAIM-FACES-CUT/...

Wonder what the people/reporters of Edinburgh would think of this?

I'm not sure how they get away with it but my Council, Stoke-on-Trent, pays some of it's councillors over a £1/mile. Now when I was working we were told that £0.40/mile was the maximum that the company could allow for mileage without attracting large Tax expenses, so not sure how the council get away with it. Or maybe they just pay massive tax too, it's not like the council were in financial difficulties even before the ConDem alliance got their mitts on to the budget.

Whoever wrote this article, his/her editor and the paper only should be publicly flogged, preferably with a bike chain. Totally unbelievable reporting, even more Daily Mail than the Mail.

Uckers!

He didn't cost them 20p a mile, he SAVED them 20p a mile by not driving.

I once cycled 40 miles over two days to a course for work (10 miles each way), so claimed the mileage back. The mileage expense form didn't actually allow for this, so I had to write all over it, but the finance department were perfectly happy to process it, and I eventually received my £8.

It's important to bear in mind here that the Evening News is a piece of toilet paper even when compared with other Scottish rags (Yes, Daily Record! I'm looking at you.)

Giving them any more attention than making sure you tear off a big enough piece to wipe the sh*t off your shoe is being overly-generous.

You can imagine the roasting he'd have got if he'd have said that he actually enjoyed the cycle.. Sad.