Luxury cars removed from the motability scheme

[AutumnLeavesandKnittedJumpers]

https://news.sky.com/story/luxury-cars-removed-from-motability-scheme-ahead-of-budget-13475029

too little too late. As a full time worker I can’t afford to run a car, let alone a luxury car. Motability should be a standard car - available in automatic and manual, an option for wheelchair users, and that’s it.

This lady?

If my understanding is correct, the Motability scheme is much cheaper than buying a car outside the scheme because of the tax reliefs. The “cost” to taxpayer is the tax that they would have got had the car not been bought through the scheme. There is no VAT on the car, no insurance premium tax (the higher the value of car, the higher the insurance cost), and no VED. With cars costing over £40k, there is usually an additional £425 additional charge added to the VED. This doesn’t apply to cars on the Motability scheme.

The mobility scheme is certainly subsidised by the tax payer… the mobility company does not pay VAT on the vehicles therefore saving 20%

As has been said, you literally do get to top up your NHS glasses voucher. Sorry we’re not making everyone wear those pink and blue NHS glasses from the 1970s though.

Secondly, did you get to choose to buy your Volvo XC40? Or did someone else tell you that was what you had to have, whether it suited your requirements or not?

And finally, the Motability scheme allows for people to use the cars for all sorts of journeys that benefit the disabled person even if they are not in the car. So a disabled persons carer could use it or go and get their shopping, or prescription, etc. You think getting shopping for the person you care for should be a taxable benefit? Jesus. It is literally already in the scheme rules that the use of the car is for the benefit of the disabled person at all times. And if, for example, you’re unlucky enough to be so disabled that you require a team of carers, your car might be fitted with a tracker to ensure that they are using it within the rules.

If Mumsnet actually started deleting posts with misinformation in them I guess it’d be Swiss cheese round these parts.

ooh look, more people who don't understand the concept of 'for the benefit of the disabled person' <sighs>

(not you btw, the person you're replying to)

But it’s not a means tested benefit!!

I wish people would stop ignoring the VAT exemption motability has. That might not be a subsidy but it represents lost tax income to the government - for every person going through motability for a luxury car the 20% vat usually payable is LOST, that's less tax revenue for govt and less available to be spent on public services.
Motability is NOT 'costing the taxpayer nothing' the cost is in that massive chunk of lost VAT. Which is considerably higher on a luxury car than a basic model.

Yeah that’s not fair then. I’m all for people being able to pay extra for a nice car but they should also have to pay the extra tax that goes alongside that.

I’m shocked to see that even the cheapest WAV under the scheme requires an advance payment of thousands. That’s terrible, there should be at least one that doesn’t require that!

I never said it was!

I think the cheapest for a WAV is about £4,000, a friend had to pay a lot more than that, then on top he had to pay for additional adapatations, then when the lease ends you have to pay for those adaptations to be removed.

So disabled people only deserve basic cars. Disabled people don’t deserve a luxury car really?

I think disabled people should be entitled to a tax break. Far more deserving than most people who get them.

Everybody gets the same amount of the mobility component of pip depending on their assessment. Its up to them how they use it. This is just the politics of envy and won't save the government a penny. I kind of get the "british built cars" thing but not the luxury cars thing. BUT non british built cars can include british made components (and vice versa) so its not the big win it looks like

I think that the OP is really missguided about what this means.
I have a friend who lost an arm is road accident years ago, she does drive but obviously she has to a an adapted car. Her and her husband and have a good life and for example sent their kids to private school.
I think the point a lot of people are making is that you can't just walk in to any dealership and buy an adapted car and even if you can it's very expensive and are acting as a barrier to work and just life in general.
By claiming the pip it allows disabled people to enter the mobility scheme and they have far greater access to the cars that are needed and to be able to choose one within their budgets without being ripped off for the adaptations needed. I don't have a problem with this or that sometimes the most appropriate car might be higher end one.

How many of the anti-motability arses on this thread, know tradesmen who are ripping off the taxpayer, by working cash in hand, are they reporting them and starting threads, of course not because they benefit from others dishonesty.. The small amount of money that would be saved by ruining the lives of the disabled more than their disability does, is dwarfed by income tax evasion. Also see every other thread about my ex won't pay me anything, because he hides his income.

And I wish governments would stop ignoring billionaires avoiding tax - both schemes legal but which deprives the poor downtrodden payer more? Why aren’t you screeching about billionaires here too?

fwiw disabled people have higher living costs (I read on average £1000 a month more) meaning they probably pay more in vat than you do because they’re having to spend more.

If Mumsnet actually started deleting posts with misinformation in them I guess it’d be Swiss cheese round these parts.

this. Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.

That’s terrible! People should be more annoyed about this than people paying extra for a “luxury” cars under.

Does anybody want to swop my painful, debilitating, life limiting MS for a Mercedes?

How very dare disabled people have nice cars.

in that case the taxpayer shouldn’t be paying for this person given that they have huge amounts to pay for luxury cars.

Why? They are already entitled to PIP / mobility and various other benefits? Why is a tax break also needed?

The money has to come from somewhere, tax breaks arent free? They cost the government (and all of us, effectively) that lost tax revenue?

The Volvo point is that it is still available on the scheme. I am saying that a Volvo XC40 top range is really, really aspirational so no, no one is saying you must drive a Reliant Robin. There are about 15 mainstream brands still on the scheme all driven by people who enjoy those cars and have chosen them because they wanted them.
Regarding the other journeys, its the same as having a car you use for work and leisure. You can claim tax for some journeys for work, but not others. Some journeys are not for the benefit of the recipient and family members are getting the benefit, not the disabled person. That seems tax they would pay, not the disabled person. I accept the point that the recipient must be in the car at all times is too much, as collecting appliances or meds or shopping would be for their benefit and they need not come. I think trimming the scheme a little is the best way to save it, and to say that is not the same as saying disabled people must be denied a worthwhile choice. Motability made a £500m loss last year on a record uptake. So it is in a bit of trouble..

On one hand motability cars are a vital lifeline for poor disabled people on benefits - who clearly have such severe needs that they qualify for these benefits and generally claim limited ability to work. On the other hand motability cars are going to people who clearly have large sums of cash available for deposits on luxury cars.

How much do you think it costs to be paraplegic? I’m sure my mate would love to know what these various other benefits are!