Dealer: the Taycan was good for us; it's now a disaster
Discussion
Pepperpots said:
Clean air is great, maybe if they didn't subsidise all those diesels we'd have it?
Tax payers shouldn't subsidise private car sales is my point.
In your opinion, should taxpayers money to the tune of £1.6bn be used to enable to the expansion of charging infrastructure across the country for electric cars? Given that the overwhelming majority of people don't have an EV today, is that an appropriate use of taxpayer money, in your eyes?Tax payers shouldn't subsidise private car sales is my point.
"The UK government has committed 1.6 billion GBP of taxpayer money to improve the country’s electric vehicle (EV) charging network for drivers"
https://futuretransport-news.com/uk-government-com...
Sheepshanks said:
I don't have a problem with that, but the same incentives should be available to everyone.
And the leasing companies are absolutely creaming it with these deals - all they've got to do is make the deal for the user slighty better than is available on the open market.
Salary sacrifice is open to everyone if their employer chooses to offer this benefit, provided it doesn't take their cash earnings below National Minimum WageAnd the leasing companies are absolutely creaming it with these deals - all they've got to do is make the deal for the user slighty better than is available on the open market.
Or do you mean salary sacrifice benefits should be provided to people who don't have a job or don't run their own company? i.e. if you are retired or unemployed?
600 of them on Auto Trader now.... it's been going up steadily the last few months. All 2020-21 lease cars returning I assume.
Porsche are still hanging on to £5k I paid to reserve a build slot, it started off as 2 year wait for a Turbo and since the 4 month mark I have had regular approaches about finalising an order.
If the cars were absolutely flawless I would still be tempted knowing it would lose a fair sum but unfortunately owner experiences that I get to hear about are really not very good.
Porsche are still hanging on to £5k I paid to reserve a build slot, it started off as 2 year wait for a Turbo and since the 4 month mark I have had regular approaches about finalising an order.
If the cars were absolutely flawless I would still be tempted knowing it would lose a fair sum but unfortunately owner experiences that I get to hear about are really not very good.
raspy said:
Or do you mean salary sacrifice benefits should be provided to people who don't have a job or don't run their own company? i.e. if you are retired or unemployed?
Why not? Obviously it'll be pretty self-limiting for the unemployed, but plenty of retired people pay a load of tax.EVs went through a bit of a boom due to the fuel prices. Now things have calmed a bit and electricity prices have risen this cost benefit is less obvious. It’s still very strong in favour of the EV despite the high up front cost. The fact remains this is only going one way. Fuel prices will continue to trend upwards and we have lots of legislation coming into effect that means people will have to make the switch. It’s only going to support EV prices while ICE will be worthless.
raspy said:
In your opinion, should taxpayers money to the tune of £1.6bn be used to enable to the expansion of charging infrastructure across the country for electric cars? Given that the overwhelming majority of people don't have an EV today, is that an appropriate use of taxpayer money, in your eyes?
"The UK government has committed 1.6 billion GBP of taxpayer money to improve the country’s electric vehicle (EV) charging network for drivers"
https://futuretransport-news.com/uk-government-com...
In comparison to the £75-100 Billion bill for HS2 and the small difference it will make I have no issues with a £1.6 billion investment that will be of use to far more. "The UK government has committed 1.6 billion GBP of taxpayer money to improve the country’s electric vehicle (EV) charging network for drivers"
https://futuretransport-news.com/uk-government-com...
It’s not necessarily new money though is it?
It’s a tax break. The salary that has been diverted into this would presumably in some cases have been rejigged as deferred share or dividend benefits to reduce tax anyway so a this is doing is incentivising this particular form of tax reduction because it has a collateral environmental benefit.
If it increases spending it also has benefit in terms of GDP via the dealers’ and lease companies (though sadly not the manufacturers’) profits.
It seems regressive (it is) and unfair but isn’t it a win all round (especially for the lease companies.)
It’s a tax break. The salary that has been diverted into this would presumably in some cases have been rejigged as deferred share or dividend benefits to reduce tax anyway so a this is doing is incentivising this particular form of tax reduction because it has a collateral environmental benefit.
If it increases spending it also has benefit in terms of GDP via the dealers’ and lease companies (though sadly not the manufacturers’) profits.
It seems regressive (it is) and unfair but isn’t it a win all round (especially for the lease companies.)
Soupdragon65 said:
It’s not necessarily new money though is it?
It’s a tax break. The salary that has been diverted into this would presumably in some cases have been rejigged as deferred share or dividend benefits to reduce tax anyway so a this is doing is incentivising this particular form of tax reduction because it has a collateral environmental benefit.
If it increases spending it also has benefit in terms of GDP via the dealers’ and lease companies (though sadly not the manufacturers’) profits.
It seems regressive (it is) and unfair but isn’t it a win all round (especially for the lease companies.)
Right. I wonder if the responses about salary sacrifice schemes for cars on this thread would have been different had this been about getting some "unknown" chinese brand EV like a Nio or BYD for cheaper than than buying privately, rather than someone telling how good the salary sacrifice deal is on a "desirable" Porsche Taycan? It’s a tax break. The salary that has been diverted into this would presumably in some cases have been rejigged as deferred share or dividend benefits to reduce tax anyway so a this is doing is incentivising this particular form of tax reduction because it has a collateral environmental benefit.
If it increases spending it also has benefit in terms of GDP via the dealers’ and lease companies (though sadly not the manufacturers’) profits.
It seems regressive (it is) and unfair but isn’t it a win all round (especially for the lease companies.)
Is there envy here?
It's not envy at all - I pay gobfuls of tax every year and could take advantage of the tax subsidy to buy a 175k EQS AMG and get a massive benefit from it- but even I can see how in a progressive tax scheme only the highest earners really benefit from salary sacrifice as they have the spare income to be able to take advantage of it and the savings are much bigger than for people on lower salaries who probably need the subsidy more.
Take an example - essential care worker who needs a car to visit elderly people at home, gets a zero hours contract a couple of quid over minimum wage and a pence per mile car allowance. She has to drive a small diesel to make the sums work and has no spare salary to sacrifice to buy an EV, yet is the sort of user who would benefit most from an EV.
Capping BIK at 50k and applying usual taxes to high earners on the balance of a 130k taycan purchase would generate tax revenue that could provide at purchase subsidies on smaller EVs which would remove more polluting cars from the road than tax breaks for a handful of people who can afford the cars anyway and would still benefit from not paying fuel duty on their equivalent ICE car.
To the common man it just looks like EVs are toys for the wealthy, because a huge amount of the population dont work for the sort of firms who offer generous salary sacrifice schemes or generous salaries for that matter, and handing tax breaks to 6 figure Chelsea residents to buy porsches with tax breaks whilst clobbering minimum wage workers with ULEZ charges is hugely regressive and not going to lead to the needed outcome of removing the most polluting old cars given most of the taycan owners would have likely be driving Euro 6 cars not old soot boxes.
Far from envy i would say those defending the policy are doing so out of self interest because who wouldn't want a Porsche at 45 percent discount if they had the money for it?
I think a 50k cap is more than reasonable as that gets you a perfectly good Tesla M3 long range at minimal cost - you absolutely do not need taxpayer help to buy a 800 hp Porsche and it's not in any way justifiable regardless of environmental benefits because you can either choose to pay the full BIK tax on a ICE car which funds the subsidies for the less well off or you can get a 50k tax break towards an EV.
A handful of taycans will do nothing to solve the problem, all the subsidy should be directed at those that cannot afford it and those that can should act on social obligation and not because it's a blag, after all you all keep telling us how much more wonderful EVs are than ICE cars so you would be buyjng one over a diesel even without the subsidy...
Take an example - essential care worker who needs a car to visit elderly people at home, gets a zero hours contract a couple of quid over minimum wage and a pence per mile car allowance. She has to drive a small diesel to make the sums work and has no spare salary to sacrifice to buy an EV, yet is the sort of user who would benefit most from an EV.
Capping BIK at 50k and applying usual taxes to high earners on the balance of a 130k taycan purchase would generate tax revenue that could provide at purchase subsidies on smaller EVs which would remove more polluting cars from the road than tax breaks for a handful of people who can afford the cars anyway and would still benefit from not paying fuel duty on their equivalent ICE car.
To the common man it just looks like EVs are toys for the wealthy, because a huge amount of the population dont work for the sort of firms who offer generous salary sacrifice schemes or generous salaries for that matter, and handing tax breaks to 6 figure Chelsea residents to buy porsches with tax breaks whilst clobbering minimum wage workers with ULEZ charges is hugely regressive and not going to lead to the needed outcome of removing the most polluting old cars given most of the taycan owners would have likely be driving Euro 6 cars not old soot boxes.
Far from envy i would say those defending the policy are doing so out of self interest because who wouldn't want a Porsche at 45 percent discount if they had the money for it?
I think a 50k cap is more than reasonable as that gets you a perfectly good Tesla M3 long range at minimal cost - you absolutely do not need taxpayer help to buy a 800 hp Porsche and it's not in any way justifiable regardless of environmental benefits because you can either choose to pay the full BIK tax on a ICE car which funds the subsidies for the less well off or you can get a 50k tax break towards an EV.
A handful of taycans will do nothing to solve the problem, all the subsidy should be directed at those that cannot afford it and those that can should act on social obligation and not because it's a blag, after all you all keep telling us how much more wonderful EVs are than ICE cars so you would be buyjng one over a diesel even without the subsidy...
Pixelpeep Electric said:
ecs said:
Trying to get shot of mine at the moment. It's depreciated an astonishing amount in the last 6 months!
Good stuff - can't wait to pick up a second hand bargain ! - thanks for taking the hit 
MisterBigglesworth said:
It's not envy at all - I pay gobfuls of tax every year and could take advantage of the tax subsidy to buy a 175k EQS AMG and get a massive benefit from it- but even I can see how in a progressive tax scheme only the highest earners really benefit from salary sacrifice as they have the spare income to be able to take advantage of it and the savings are much bigger than for people on lower salaries who probably need the subsidy more.
Take an example - essential care worker who needs a car to visit elderly people at home, gets a zero hours contract a couple of quid over minimum wage and a pence per mile car allowance. She has to drive a small diesel to make the sums work and has no spare salary to sacrifice to buy an EV, yet is the sort of user who would benefit most from an EV.
Capping BIK at 50k and applying usual taxes to high earners on the balance of a 130k taycan purchase would generate tax revenue that could provide at purchase subsidies on smaller EVs which would remove more polluting cars from the road than tax breaks for a handful of people who can afford the cars anyway and would still benefit from not paying fuel duty on their equivalent ICE car.
To the common man it just looks like EVs are toys for the wealthy, because a huge amount of the population dont work for the sort of firms who offer generous salary sacrifice schemes or generous salaries for that matter, and handing tax breaks to 6 figure Chelsea residents to buy porsches with tax breaks whilst clobbering minimum wage workers with ULEZ charges is hugely regressive and not going to lead to the needed outcome of removing the most polluting old cars given most of the taycan owners would have likely be driving Euro 6 cars not old soot boxes.
Far from envy i would say those defending the policy are doing so out of self interest because who wouldn't want a Porsche at 45 percent discount if they had the money for it?
I think a 50k cap is more than reasonable as that gets you a perfectly good Tesla M3 long range at minimal cost - you absolutely do not need taxpayer help to buy a 800 hp Porsche and it's not in any way justifiable regardless of environmental benefits because you can either choose to pay the full BIK tax on a ICE car which funds the subsidies for the less well off or you can get a 50k tax break towards an EV.
A handful of taycans will do nothing to solve the problem, all the subsidy should be directed at those that cannot afford it and those that can should act on social obligation and not because it's a blag, after all you all keep telling us how much more wonderful EVs are than ICE cars so you would be buyjng one over a diesel even without the subsidy...
Great post, I couldn't agree more. This is PH though so don your fireproof clothes and prepare to be flamed....Take an example - essential care worker who needs a car to visit elderly people at home, gets a zero hours contract a couple of quid over minimum wage and a pence per mile car allowance. She has to drive a small diesel to make the sums work and has no spare salary to sacrifice to buy an EV, yet is the sort of user who would benefit most from an EV.
Capping BIK at 50k and applying usual taxes to high earners on the balance of a 130k taycan purchase would generate tax revenue that could provide at purchase subsidies on smaller EVs which would remove more polluting cars from the road than tax breaks for a handful of people who can afford the cars anyway and would still benefit from not paying fuel duty on their equivalent ICE car.
To the common man it just looks like EVs are toys for the wealthy, because a huge amount of the population dont work for the sort of firms who offer generous salary sacrifice schemes or generous salaries for that matter, and handing tax breaks to 6 figure Chelsea residents to buy porsches with tax breaks whilst clobbering minimum wage workers with ULEZ charges is hugely regressive and not going to lead to the needed outcome of removing the most polluting old cars given most of the taycan owners would have likely be driving Euro 6 cars not old soot boxes.
Far from envy i would say those defending the policy are doing so out of self interest because who wouldn't want a Porsche at 45 percent discount if they had the money for it?
I think a 50k cap is more than reasonable as that gets you a perfectly good Tesla M3 long range at minimal cost - you absolutely do not need taxpayer help to buy a 800 hp Porsche and it's not in any way justifiable regardless of environmental benefits because you can either choose to pay the full BIK tax on a ICE car which funds the subsidies for the less well off or you can get a 50k tax break towards an EV.
A handful of taycans will do nothing to solve the problem, all the subsidy should be directed at those that cannot afford it and those that can should act on social obligation and not because it's a blag, after all you all keep telling us how much more wonderful EVs are than ICE cars so you would be buyjng one over a diesel even without the subsidy...
What am I missing here? Don't most normal cars lose 40-50% depreciation in their first 3 years?
Brand new Taycan 4S is £87k.
3 year old versions on Autotrader start around £70k.
That's 20%. Owners should be very happy.
I bet if dealers offered £45k and then listed them at £50k they'd fly out the door.
Brand new Taycan 4S is £87k.
3 year old versions on Autotrader start around £70k.
That's 20%. Owners should be very happy.
I bet if dealers offered £45k and then listed them at £50k they'd fly out the door.
alock said:
What am I missing here? Don't most normal cars lose 40-50% depreciation in their first 3 years?
Brand new Taycan 4S is £87k.
3 year old versions on Autotrader start around £70k.
That's 20%. Owners should be very happy.
I bet if dealers offered £45k and then listed them at £50k they'd fly out the door.
The issue is they aren't selling at £70k+, and dealers can't afford to discount their stock further without taking a signficant bath on what they paid for them a few months ago.Brand new Taycan 4S is £87k.
3 year old versions on Autotrader start around £70k.
That's 20%. Owners should be very happy.
I bet if dealers offered £45k and then listed them at £50k they'd fly out the door.
It's all artificial, but will stay that way until dealers can't hold on any longer or private sellers get more realistic with their valuations and accept that depreciation does indeed exist.
raspy said:
Gosh. Who wants cities full of EVs and cleaner air? What a terrible use of funds to incentivise people and companies to switch from diesels to EVs.
A truly horrendous future awaits us as more people in cities ditch diesels.
I dread to think what it will be like in decades to come when people can walk down the street during rush hour without having to inhale all the toxic emissions from cars idling away.
As you say, completely wrong use of taxpayer funds.
Not to forget, less noise pollution.A truly horrendous future awaits us as more people in cities ditch diesels.
I dread to think what it will be like in decades to come when people can walk down the street during rush hour without having to inhale all the toxic emissions from cars idling away.
As you say, completely wrong use of taxpayer funds.
SWoll said:
survivalist said:
Had a look at this as my employer has recently introduced an EV salary sacrifice scheme.
Cheapest Taycan on Autotrader is £67,500 and 3 year old, 58k on the clock. Private sale so limited / no warranty.
Assuming 4.9% interest, 50% depreciation and £7.5 deposit, my monthly payments would be £943. Insurance, tyres, servicing and warranty (or repairs) would all be my problem.
Brand new Taycan is £985 net cost through the work scheme, all costs covered and slight higher annual mileage (PCP calc only offered 10 or 15k? Company deal is 12k).
So for £42 a month more ( £1512 over 3 years) I get insurance, servicing, tyres etc and a brand new car vs the cheapest one on the market.
On a deal that's being subsidized by the government via your tax bill, is only available to a small number of working people and varies in cost according to what tax band you are in.Cheapest Taycan on Autotrader is £67,500 and 3 year old, 58k on the clock. Private sale so limited / no warranty.
Assuming 4.9% interest, 50% depreciation and £7.5 deposit, my monthly payments would be £943. Insurance, tyres, servicing and warranty (or repairs) would all be my problem.
Brand new Taycan is £985 net cost through the work scheme, all costs covered and slight higher annual mileage (PCP calc only offered 10 or 15k? Company deal is 12k).
So for £42 a month more ( £1512 over 3 years) I get insurance, servicing, tyres etc and a brand new car vs the cheapest one on the market.
Of course it's cheaper, it's a benefit of your employment contract.
I do think that salary sacrifice and low BIK rates for company car users are the major force driving new EV purchases. I don’t know anyone who’s spent their own money on an EV, everyone is getting them ‘cheap’ using these schemes.
Gassing Station | EV and Alternative Fuels | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff