"Chris Street" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 22:57:10 -0000, "Oliver Keating"
wrote:


"Andrew P Smith" wrote in message
news
In article , Mikael
Armstrong writes

Which would mean that companies would just give employees they
currently
provide with company cars, allowances to buy private cars with, on a
contract hire arrangement! I'm surprised more don't do it as the
company
car
tax regime removes most financial advantages anyway.

Mikael

I've had a company car for a number of years (currently got a Saab 9-5
which goes in 6 weeks). The company has reduced the amount of money we
get to spend on our cars to 16K in these austere times and we now have
to make the cars last 3.5 years as opposed to 3.

This really p****s me off about company cars, its such a wasteful policy
to
throw away cars that are 3 years old.

Thrown away? FFS ever heard of the economic principle called selling
something

Considering most of them are worth about a third of their original value, it
may as well be throwing away.


I reckon company cars should have a minimum life cycle of 10 years, maybe
20.

By which time mine would have nearly a million miles on the clock and be
into it's eight gearbox or whatever. Not reliable.

Trucks seem to do ok. Why is it that as soon as the odometer rolls past 100k
the car is deemed "unreliable" "uneconomic"

Don't you think the car manufacturers have something to do with this?



Despite the tax, the allowance to buy my own car from my employer
provides no incentive whatsoever to dump the company car as it's not
enough to run a moped on, let alone a family saloon like a Vectra.
--
Andrew
Electronic communications can be altered and therefore the integrity of
this
communication can not be guaranteed.
Views expressed in this communication are those of the author and not
associations or companies I am involved with.

--
79.84% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
The other 42% are made up later on.
In Warwick - looking at flat fields and that includes the castle.