Dealer: the Taycan was good for us; it's now a disaster
Discussion
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.
Thing is with the Taycan being a Porsche many if not most will have thousands of pounds worth of extras. Some which are to add stuff that comes as standard on cars much cheaper. So the realistic price of a new 4S is imho touching 100k. 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.
Then used dealers in this sector also want more than £5k of margin. 10 or even 15k of margin is typical to cover the risk of the car sticking and needing to be discounted to move. Yes 40 to 45k of used buy back value would be more realistic but that’s not what the finance deals behind these assumed. Also little under a year ago you’d have to pay effective overs on a 6 to 12 month old used example. So there are used buyers that stand to take quite a hit when trying to move on two year old examples.
The market dynamics are completely distorted and unrealistic for new vs used.
Predicted residuals were IMHO based on much lower sales volumes of typical exec cars.
raspy said:
Pepperpots said:
None.
Remember, incentives gave us cities full of diesel
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. Remember, incentives gave us cities full of diesel
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.
TX.
survivalist said:
As I understand it, it’s a tax related benefit being offered by the government. It’s just especially beneficial because I’m a higher rate tax payer.
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.
I am not saying that low bik isn’t a very significant driving force, but I know quite a lot of EV drivers who have bought (or rented) the cars personally. Some new, some used. So it definitely isn’t “everyone” getting tax relief on their EV. Some personal friends, quite a lot of people I have encountered in various Ev forums / Facebook groups 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.
Pflanzgarten said:
I thought EVs needed to be new or demonstrators to be bought via the company car scheme? Or was that only for the 100% tax write down?
It certainly has to be when I bought one through my Ltd company.
If so, I understand the depression of second hand values a bit due to that.
For the 100% write down that's correct, but when you dispose of the vehicle, whether bought new or used, a balancing calculation is made that reduces the actual CT offset to be whatever value the vehicle actually depreciated by.It certainly has to be when I bought one through my Ltd company.
If so, I understand the depression of second hand values a bit due to that.
So buy a new £100k car, you can I think put it's full value down against CT. Sell it 3 years later for £60k, and a balancing adjustment is made and, unless you buy another new car, the CT on the £60k would become due. So it's essentially an exercise in kicking the can along the street - it's a tax delay, not saving.
If you buy the same car at 3 years old, instead of 100% you get, I think, 25% year one then 18% each year until you dispose of it, and again you then make a balancing calculation so that the CT offset represents the actual depreciation during the period of ownership.
BIK is the real tax saving and that applies however the car is bought/leased.
raspy said:
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?
Is there envy here?
The poorest in society should not be subsidising the company owner buying a £160k car, getting 100% write down and then not paying BIK. Is there envy here?
My view (and I appreciate there is no perfect solution) is that the EV tax breaks should exist to promote cleaner air but the value of the vehicles should be capped. If someone wants £160k car they do not need the tax payer to subsidise it. Someone buying an ID3 or whatever I am fine with - there just needs to be a limit as to how much money the tax payer should be spending on subsiding other people’s purchases.
How many low income workers have to pay tax for a full year so that one person can buy a Taycan Turbo S via their company?
If you want a £160k car then go and buy one, just don’t use public money that could be used for schooling, health etc to do so.
Can be bothered to do the maths but one company owner buying a Taycan Turbo S must cost the tax payer the equivalent of a fair few people using SS to buy a Cupra Born or model 3 etc. I believe the latter benefits society more for the same cost to the public.
Replace say 4 family cars with an EV that will be used daily or add a Taycan to a fleet of existing sports and GT cars? One of those will give us cleaner air than the other for the same money IMO.
TheDeuce said:
Pflanzgarten said:
I thought EVs needed to be new or demonstrators to be bought via the company car scheme? Or was that only for the 100% tax write down?
It certainly has to be when I bought one through my Ltd company.
If so, I understand the depression of second hand values a bit due to that.
For the 100% write down that's correct, but when you dispose of the vehicle, whether bought new or used, a balancing calculation is made that reduces the actual CT offset to be whatever value the vehicle actually depreciated by.It certainly has to be when I bought one through my Ltd company.
If so, I understand the depression of second hand values a bit due to that.
So buy a new £100k car, you can I think put it's full value down against CT. Sell it 3 years later for £60k, and a balancing adjustment is made and, unless you buy another new car, the CT on the £60k would become due. So it's essentially an exercise in kicking the can along the street - it's a tax delay, not saving.
If you buy the same car at 3 years old, instead of 100% you get, I think, 25% year one then 18% each year until you dispose of it, and again you then make a balancing calculation so that the CT offset represents the actual depreciation during the period of ownership.
BIK is the real tax saving and that applies however the car is bought/leased.
If it stays reliable, I can’t see us ever “selling” it. If the BIK rules change we’ll simply sell it to ourselves and run it privately as the other on going costs are so low.
We can luckily run a commercial pick up truck alongside it in our game so that’s two family vehicles run through the company for buttons.
Just a real shame we can’t get the Ineos Grenadier through the books as a commercial otherwise I’d have one of those too.
m12nathan said:
The poorest in society should not be subsidising the company owner buying a £160k car, getting 100% write down and then not paying BIK.
My view (and I appreciate there is no perfect solution) is that the EV tax breaks should exist to promote cleaner air but the value of the vehicles should be capped. If someone wants £160k car they do not need the tax payer to subsidise it. Someone buying an ID3 or whatever I am fine with - there just needs to be a limit as to how much money the tax payer should be spending on subsiding other people’s purchases.
How many low income workers have to pay tax for a full year so that one person can buy a Taycan Turbo S via their company?
If you want a £160k car then go and buy one, just don’t use public money that could be used for schooling, health etc to do so.
Can be bothered to do the maths but one company owner buying a Taycan Turbo S must cost the tax payer the equivalent of a fair few people using SS to buy a Cupra Born or model 3 etc. I believe the latter benefits society more for the same cost to the public.
Replace say 4 family cars with an EV that will be used daily or add a Taycan to a fleet of existing sports and GT cars? One of those will give us cleaner air than the other for the same money IMO.
My view (and I appreciate there is no perfect solution) is that the EV tax breaks should exist to promote cleaner air but the value of the vehicles should be capped. If someone wants £160k car they do not need the tax payer to subsidise it. Someone buying an ID3 or whatever I am fine with - there just needs to be a limit as to how much money the tax payer should be spending on subsiding other people’s purchases.
How many low income workers have to pay tax for a full year so that one person can buy a Taycan Turbo S via their company?
If you want a £160k car then go and buy one, just don’t use public money that could be used for schooling, health etc to do so.
Can be bothered to do the maths but one company owner buying a Taycan Turbo S must cost the tax payer the equivalent of a fair few people using SS to buy a Cupra Born or model 3 etc. I believe the latter benefits society more for the same cost to the public.
Replace say 4 family cars with an EV that will be used daily or add a Taycan to a fleet of existing sports and GT cars? One of those will give us cleaner air than the other for the same money IMO.
m12nathan said:
The poorest in society should not be subsidising the company owner buying a £160k car, getting 100% write down and then not paying BIK.
My view (and I appreciate there is no perfect solution) is that the EV tax breaks should exist to promote cleaner air but the value of the vehicles should be capped. If someone wants £160k car they do not need the tax payer to subsidise it. Someone buying an ID3 or whatever I am fine with - there just needs to be a limit as to how much money the tax payer should be spending on subsiding other people’s purchases.
How many low income workers have to pay tax for a full year so that one person can buy a Taycan Turbo S via their company?
If you want a £160k car then go and buy one, just don’t use public money that could be used for schooling, health etc to do so.
Can be bothered to do the maths but one company owner buying a Taycan Turbo S must cost the tax payer the equivalent of a fair few people using SS to buy a Cupra Born or model 3 etc. I believe the latter benefits society more for the same cost to the public.
Replace say 4 family cars with an EV that will be used daily or add a Taycan to a fleet of existing sports and GT cars? One of those will give us cleaner air than the other for the same money IMO.
Exactly, and Salary Sacrifice only works for the well paid. Wife used to work part time and her pension contribution was normally SS, in weeks she didn’t work enough hours it took her under the cutoff and was a standard deduction which meant she paid more NI and was worse off.My view (and I appreciate there is no perfect solution) is that the EV tax breaks should exist to promote cleaner air but the value of the vehicles should be capped. If someone wants £160k car they do not need the tax payer to subsidise it. Someone buying an ID3 or whatever I am fine with - there just needs to be a limit as to how much money the tax payer should be spending on subsiding other people’s purchases.
How many low income workers have to pay tax for a full year so that one person can buy a Taycan Turbo S via their company?
If you want a £160k car then go and buy one, just don’t use public money that could be used for schooling, health etc to do so.
Can be bothered to do the maths but one company owner buying a Taycan Turbo S must cost the tax payer the equivalent of a fair few people using SS to buy a Cupra Born or model 3 etc. I believe the latter benefits society more for the same cost to the public.
Replace say 4 family cars with an EV that will be used daily or add a Taycan to a fleet of existing sports and GT cars? One of those will give us cleaner air than the other for the same money IMO.
IJWS15 said:
m12nathan said:
The poorest in society should not be subsidising the company owner buying a £160k car, getting 100% write down and then not paying BIK.
My view (and I appreciate there is no perfect solution) is that the EV tax breaks should exist to promote cleaner air but the value of the vehicles should be capped. If someone wants £160k car they do not need the tax payer to subsidise it. Someone buying an ID3 or whatever I am fine with - there just needs to be a limit as to how much money the tax payer should be spending on subsiding other people’s purchases.
How many low income workers have to pay tax for a full year so that one person can buy a Taycan Turbo S via their company?
If you want a £160k car then go and buy one, just don’t use public money that could be used for schooling, health etc to do so.
Can be bothered to do the maths but one company owner buying a Taycan Turbo S must cost the tax payer the equivalent of a fair few people using SS to buy a Cupra Born or model 3 etc. I believe the latter benefits society more for the same cost to the public.
Replace say 4 family cars with an EV that will be used daily or add a Taycan to a fleet of existing sports and GT cars? One of those will give us cleaner air than the other for the same money IMO.
Exactly, and Salary Sacrifice only works for the well paid. Wife used to work part time and her pension contribution was normally SS, in weeks she didn’t work enough hours it took her under the cutoff and was a standard deduction which meant she paid more NI and was worse off.My view (and I appreciate there is no perfect solution) is that the EV tax breaks should exist to promote cleaner air but the value of the vehicles should be capped. If someone wants £160k car they do not need the tax payer to subsidise it. Someone buying an ID3 or whatever I am fine with - there just needs to be a limit as to how much money the tax payer should be spending on subsiding other people’s purchases.
How many low income workers have to pay tax for a full year so that one person can buy a Taycan Turbo S via their company?
If you want a £160k car then go and buy one, just don’t use public money that could be used for schooling, health etc to do so.
Can be bothered to do the maths but one company owner buying a Taycan Turbo S must cost the tax payer the equivalent of a fair few people using SS to buy a Cupra Born or model 3 etc. I believe the latter benefits society more for the same cost to the public.
Replace say 4 family cars with an EV that will be used daily or add a Taycan to a fleet of existing sports and GT cars? One of those will give us cleaner air than the other for the same money IMO.
As an example 4 x £30k earners will pay a combined £20k in tax over a year. 1 x £120k earner will pay £45k in tax over the same period.
SWoll said:
The counter argument would be that the poorest in society aren't subsiding anything, it's the high earners who are subsidising them with tax contributions that far outweigh what they take out of the system over the same period?
As an example 4 x £30k earners will pay a combined £20k in tax over a year. 1 x £120k earner will pay £45k in tax over the same period.
Maybe. As an example 4 x £30k earners will pay a combined £20k in tax over a year. 1 x £120k earner will pay £45k in tax over the same period.
Or perhaps that 120k earner might be stuffing a pension via salsac for other tax-efficient benefits, taking a R2W bike, etc
Pflanzgarten said:
God forbid there’s any reward for working hard and being successful.
If you work hard why would you want the reward to be that other people subsidise your car? That is surely a sign that you aren’t actually very successful at all if your neighbours have to chip in for your Taycan 
Surely the reward of hard work is being able to buy the car without the help of others?
The people I know with Taycan S are worth many millions and could easily afford to buy the car but get it though the company instead, it sits alongside their range rovers, GT3s, 911 turbos and race cars, do you genuinely believe that tax payers should be subsidising those purchases?
If we didn’t have a complete lack of decent public services and had loads of money left over then sure, but that isn’t the case.
It seems unfair but I’m not sure it’s a zero sum game.
The money used to lease an Taycan would otherwise probably not be taxed as income but diverted to other tax efficient ways of remuneration. At least this way brings some social good.
The unfairness if there is any is the different way that income from employment, investments, share options and dividends etc are treated by the tax system. That’s a far bigger issue than just a few pricy EVs
The money used to lease an Taycan would otherwise probably not be taxed as income but diverted to other tax efficient ways of remuneration. At least this way brings some social good.
The unfairness if there is any is the different way that income from employment, investments, share options and dividends etc are treated by the tax system. That’s a far bigger issue than just a few pricy EVs
m12nathan said:
The poorest in society should not be subsidising the company owner buying a £160k car, getting 100% write down and then not paying BIK.
My view (and I appreciate there is no perfect solution) is that the EV tax breaks should exist to promote cleaner air but the value of the vehicles should be capped. If someone wants £160k car they do not need the tax payer to subsidise it. Someone buying an ID3 or whatever I am fine with - there just needs to be a limit as to how much money the tax payer should be spending on subsiding other people’s purchases.
How many low income workers have to pay tax for a full year so that one person can buy a Taycan Turbo S via their company?
If you want a £160k car then go and buy one, just don’t use public money that could be used for schooling, health etc to do so.
Can be bothered to do the maths but one company owner buying a Taycan Turbo S must cost the tax payer the equivalent of a fair few people using SS to buy a Cupra Born or model 3 etc. I believe the latter benefits society more for the same cost to the public.
Replace say 4 family cars with an EV that will be used daily or add a Taycan to a fleet of existing sports and GT cars? One of those will give us cleaner air than the other for the same money IMO.
You seem to misundertand the tax benefits on EVs, as the government/ poor people aren't subsidising company cars. My view (and I appreciate there is no perfect solution) is that the EV tax breaks should exist to promote cleaner air but the value of the vehicles should be capped. If someone wants £160k car they do not need the tax payer to subsidise it. Someone buying an ID3 or whatever I am fine with - there just needs to be a limit as to how much money the tax payer should be spending on subsiding other people’s purchases.
How many low income workers have to pay tax for a full year so that one person can buy a Taycan Turbo S via their company?
If you want a £160k car then go and buy one, just don’t use public money that could be used for schooling, health etc to do so.
Can be bothered to do the maths but one company owner buying a Taycan Turbo S must cost the tax payer the equivalent of a fair few people using SS to buy a Cupra Born or model 3 etc. I believe the latter benefits society more for the same cost to the public.
Replace say 4 family cars with an EV that will be used daily or add a Taycan to a fleet of existing sports and GT cars? One of those will give us cleaner air than the other for the same money IMO.
The company buys/leases/PCPs the car at full price and then like a company ICE car purchase, can offset the depreciation against the company's profits and hence corporation tax. Nothing new here and no poor people are involved.
The driver of a company car then pays income tax on the benefit in kind. Because BiK tax on company cars had become so high in this country, there were virtually no company cars anymore, so I believe very little car BIK tax was being collected.
Then the government introduced the zero and now 2% BiK rate for EVs. Given the subsequent massive increase in company cars, the government I would imagine is getting at least as much if not far more BiK tax than previously. So again, no poor people subsidising £160k Taycans.
This enormous number of ex-company EVs are now starting to leave company fleets and appear on the second hand market. Given the sheer volume of them, they depreciate and become affordable to many others who don't have access to company car. The £160k Taycan will then be sold on for far less and the company will pay for the depreciation, in one form or another, not any poor people.
So, the poorest in society are not subsidising £160k Taycans or any other EV as companies are paying full price for them out of their profits, their employees are paying more tax and as has been well reported on here, EVs are becoming more and more affordable.
SWoll said:
The counter argument would be that the poorest in society aren't subsiding anything, it's the high earners who are subsidising them with tax contributions that far outweigh what they take out of the system over the same period?
As an example 4 x £30k earners will pay a combined £20k in tax over a year. 1 x £120k earner will pay £45k in tax over the same period.
Is society better off letting the £120k earner buy a Taycan, or reducing the tax burden on the 4 £30k earners? Which has a more positive impact overall? Make it easier for them to heat their homes and feed their kids or add another car to the stable?As an example 4 x £30k earners will pay a combined £20k in tax over a year. 1 x £120k earner will pay £45k in tax over the same period.
Gassing Station | EV and Alternative Fuels | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff