14 ms·

Swiss companies must pay share of rent for employees working from home

393 points by malthaus 6y ago

dannykwells 6y ago
In the US of course, we deduct our home office from our taxes, meaning that our fellow citizens, or debt, support working from home. Thos seems like a saner solution.
- madsbuch 6y ago
  I am sure this is also possible to do in Switzerland. At least in Denmark it is. However, a tax refund it less than a reimbursement.
  - fnsa 6y ago
    yup, it is allowed in Switzerland as well
  - fastball 6y ago
    Depends entirely on the situation which one is less.
- dependenttypes 6y ago
  > meaning that our fellow citizens, or debt, support working from home This is the case only if you think that paying taxes is some form of duty.
- caughtyourimp 6y ago
  You make it sound like European countries don’t have deductibles and similar laws for the those equally savvy to put it on the tax payers? I see this pattern amongst Americans these days thinking these sorta of shenanigans and morally questionable laws is unique to them? Is it a form of self flagellation? Certain European countries let tax payers pay for 80% of their foreign/migrant workforce without getting their growing revenue or equity to the state.
- Pfhreak 6y ago
  Not anymore, this administration did away with that deduction in 2017 if you are an employee. Unless you are a contractor, business owner, or otherwise self employed you cannot deduct a home office. https://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2020/03/23/working-from-home-your-home-offices-expenses-are-probably-not-tax-deductible/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2020/03/23/wor...
  - beezle 6y ago
    Employers can reimburse employees for home office costs provided they meet the existing definitions of home office and proper, regular accounting is done. That money is not considered taxable income to the employee. However, an upfront flat "reimbursement" would probably be considered a taxable fringe benefit.
- raverbashing 6y ago
  Yes, if you're self-employed. Being allowed to deduct it from the taxes is a recognition that it is a 'work expense' rather than a profit (because you're charging it from you customer). It's the same idea w.r.t the reinbursement.
- crazygringo 6y ago
  That's really twisting things beyond recognition. In the US, we deduct business costs period, but pay taxes on profits. So as long as your business or your employer's is making profits, the taxes on profits are replacing it, not your fellow citizens. And if profits aren't being made, well obviously the situation isn't going to last too long. The idea that the taxes of people who don't work from home are somehow subsidizing those who do is... just not how it works.
- maxerickson 6y ago
  If https://www.lendingtree.com/home/mortgage/national-average-monthly-mortgage-payment/ https://www.lendingtree.com/home/mortgage/national-average-m... is reasonably accurate, most people aren't going to be itemizing deductions, they will take the standard deduction.
- nojito 6y ago
  Not if you are an employee of a business. The tax code just changed this year.
m463 6y ago
> The judges estimated a monthly compensation of CHF150 ($154) for the employee’s rent to be justified. I thought it was a token amount, but then I don't know what rent in switzerland is like. Is that like 3% or 30% ?
- batiste 6y ago
  I would say, between 5% and 10%. I am paying CHF 2200 in Zurich for a 2 rooms and we share the rent.
- ramblerman 6y ago
  Somewhere in between. In Zurich 1500 would be a low rent, and 3000 would get you a 2 bedroom with view and quite spacious +80m^2
  - cactus2093 6y ago
    Wow I had thought the cost of living was high in Switzerland but I guess when you’re used to the Bay Area everything else seems cheap. In SF you’d pay like $5000 for that 2bd unless you go out pretty to the more remote, harder to commute from neighborhoods. In any case, $154 is still not that significant, definitely not enough on its own to let you afford an extra bedroom to turn into an office, for instance.
    - ramblerman 6y ago
      Compared to SF, Zurich is 50% cheaper in rent, but pretty much more expensive across the board for everything else. From Numbeo: https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?country1=United+States&country2=Switzerland&city1=San+Francisco%2C+CA&city2=Zurich&tracking=getDispatchComparison https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?cou...
      - hocuspocus 6y ago
        After taxes and rent, "everything else" is fairly insignificant in practice, even though both cities are very expensive. Also I would be careful about numbers from Numbeo, I certainly don't pay $50/kg for beef.
dependenttypes 6y ago
I don't get it. Why should someone working from home make more money than someone who does not?
- buro9 6y ago
  That's not what this is. This is: Your employer should provide the means for you to do the work they ask of you.
  - phkahler 6y ago
    That's not what it is either. As a person in the US where "health insurance" is so tangled up with employers I can tell you, the last thing anyone should want is more financial entanglements between employees and employers.
    - Pfhreak 6y ago
      Health insurance is a benefit, paying for equipment necessary to do the job isn't. I agree that health care shouldn't be tied to employment, but saying a company shouldn't buy you e.g. a laptop, desk, chair, and space to work seems wild to me.
      - phkahler 6y ago
        Equipment ok, but part of your living expenses/rent?
  - ramblerman 6y ago
    You didn't negate OP's point though. Just stated it was a different motivation. The net result is still that you - disincentivize companies to let people work from home - give people who can work from home, (and already are at an advantage to cashiers/tellers/etc...) more benefits.
    - NeutronStar 6y ago
      So because cashiers can't benefit from the benefit, no one should?
mehrdadn 6y ago
I'm confused, what is the additional expense that employees are incurring by being home? Don't they pay the same rent either way?
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  Equipping and maintaining a home office? Space that can no longer be used for other stuff, and costs of things like chairs and office supplies a company would normally cover?
  - mehrdadn 6y ago
    Oh wait, is this "rent" in the sense of the company essentially renting part of the worker's home? I read it as as paying the worker's share of the rent to the landlord! If that's the case then that would make a lot more sense.
    - gbear605 6y ago
      What’s the financial difference between those two?
      - mehrdadn 6y ago
        The intent and justification is what's different.
    - jeroenhd 6y ago
      This is rent as in paying a share of the worker's rent. But, as many working from home will concur, most can't work from home well without dedicating part of your living space to office work. That extra room or that part of the living room that was previously free space is now practically reserved for the company you work for. I don't know if I agree with the policy, but I can see some sense in it. By paying for the living space sacrificed for WFH, companies are disincentivised to push for WFH after all lockdowns are over to save on office cost. Paying the same wage with less cost on office maintenance would be a dream come true for employers, of course, but that would shift the cost of the work space to the employer which I would find unfair. As the article states: > Geiser points out that the decision applies to employees who work from home upon the employer’s request. However, employees that work from home on their own behest may not receive rental compensation. > ... Luca Cirigliano, General Secretary of the Swiss Confederation of Trade Unions, told the paper that companies often use flexible workstations in order to save money on office rent. > It is extremely unfair as well as illegal for employers to pass costs on to employees in this way, Cirigliano told the paper. So, if the company forces you to work from home so they can save on rent, they have to pay you for "renting" office space from your house.
rbreve 6y ago
In Finland people who work from home and bought anything needed to work, for example a desk, chair, display or headphones, they get a tax refund.
- RHSeeger 6y ago
  That used to be the case in the US, too. And the same was true of rent/mortgage/heat/etc costs IF the room you used for an office was only used for that purpose. Sadly, the tax laws changed recently and you no longer get to claim them (unless self employed).
  - sanguy 6y ago
    Are you sure? I know the standard deduction was raised significantly to cover such items, and only a couple other deductions allowed in the simplified tax filing. But if you want to go the complex route these things can still be deducted. Just may not be worth hiring a CPA to file your returns to get a couple hundred back as only the CPA wins in such a case....
    - RHSeeger 6y ago
      I'm not 100% positive, but I do use a tax accountant to do my taxes and, for the last two years, he's been confident that home office expenses can no longer be deducted (unless self employed). I have no reason not to trust him.
- tnli 6y ago
  You don’t get a tax refund, but your taxable income is reduced by the expense amount, so you you’re still paying for the 100% - (your marginal tax rate)% of the items, and hence paying yourself for items that your employer would have provided for your work use for free if you would work in an office instead. I do feel too that the employer should provide the equipment and working environment.
vortico 6y ago
Wouldn't this just decrease average work-from-home salary by exactly CHF150/month?
- sooheon 6y ago
  That depends on the supply/demand curves. Almost certainly, there will be some amount of deadweight loss: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/deadweight-loss-of-taxation.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/deadweight-loss-of-taxa...
- Pfhreak 6y ago
  It's unlikely in bigger companies that have pay bands per job level. It's probably cheaper to pay the additional token amount than figure out how to adjust those pay bands down to cover only the people impacted.
  - vortico 6y ago
    It would be common for large companies to simply adjust pay bands down by `150CHF * proportion of work-at-home employees` in order to keep the average cost of an employee constant. Therefore, this court decision will make a (small but nonzero) push for employees to choose to work at home.
antr 6y ago
Thought: - Companies that now realised that remote schemes works for them, will push for that scheme to remain, with the aim of reducing their fixed costs (office rent, utilities, insurance, etc). - This eliminates a big chunk of fixed costs... as most are shifted to the employees. - If authorities/employees start demanding that part of those costs are covered by the company, companies will push to get avoid work-from-home schemes, as they will want more control over those expenses... I'm sure that there are other unintended consequences, such as higher rents, but who knows.
- DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
  > I'm sure that there are other unintended consequences, such as higher rents, but who knows. For Amazon's reputation for internal cost-cutting (such as displaying the pricing on computer peripherals in vending-machines in their SLU offices), Amazon makes me scratch my head for building-up their HQ in one of the most expensive cities to buy land in the world - ditto Facebook in Menlo Park. Why didn't Amazon choose Kent or Auburn instead - or Facebook building in the north-east of the Bay rather than the hyper-expensive south-west? Given Facebook's propensity to attract and hire young twentysomethings then surely their exact location in the Bay Area is immaterial (similarly, Amazon attracts a lot of ex-MSFT folk from the Seattle Eastside). It is a mystery. But that explains the higher-rents!
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - marcinzm 6y ago
    >Given Facebook's propensity to attract and hire young twentysomethings then surely their exact location in the Bay Area is immaterial Twenty somethings are the exact group of people who don't want to live in a socially dead place. And except for recent college grads even twenty somethings will have significant others who won't want to suddenly move to somewhere else. It's why startups keep being created in SF which has the worst costs out there.
    - DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
pochamago 6y ago
This seems likely to have unpredictable downstream effects on the Swiss workforce as compared to other countries
codegeek 6y ago
Everytime I see "must pay", it scares me. Yes I know that employees get exploited etc but instead of making employers pay, why not let employees get a tax deduction or even a credit ? As an employer, I can tell you that the burden of employer paying for everything is not necessarily a good idea. It is not about the money only but also about the added overhead/red tape. In US, I am already sick of for example health insurance crap. I would gladly pay the same amount of money directly to the employee instead of dealing with insurance companies and their bullshit.
- ryneandal 6y ago
  Yes on the healthcare thing. Decouple insurance from employers completely.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - djmobley 6y ago
    Employers should get the benefit of healthy employees, but not incur the cost?
    - Broken_Hippo 6y ago
      Health insurance shouldn't depend on work or the size of your employer, period. Not only should employers have healthy employees, but the applicants should be too.
      - ryneandal 6y ago
        Separation of healthcare and employers also removes a huge barrier to entrepreneurship. The entire notion of employer-provided healthcare is one of the reasons the US scores so low on economic freedom studies.
    - cyphar 6y ago
      Employers are presumably paying taxes, so funding it through taxes is not letting them off the hook. Additionally, what about people who are unemployed (which is now >20% by U6 in the US) or work in jobs that don't offer healthcare? And what if you get fired? Or you want to change jobs but have a health condition which means you'll be in trouble without health insurance? Or your employer changes health insurance providers without consulting you and now your coverage or doctor has changed? These aren't hypotheticals, they're the daily reality of millions of people in the US. I don't understand this weirdly business-centric view that folks from the US have on the topic of healthcare. Surely a more productive view is that it is the best interests of society that we keep our fellow citizens as healthy as possible? Even ignoring the ethical arguments (which should be more than enough), healthy citizens make healthy workers and reduce long-term healthcare costs caused by preventable illnesses.
andrewljohnson 6y ago
It’s advantageous for companies to pay for anything that can be construed as a business expense for employees, since that means they can transfer money to the employee tax free. Businesses in the US do this for health insurance, and remote companies can do it for a few more expenses. It makes sense to pay for whatever expenses the company can, as long as the administrative costs don’t outweigh the tax advantage.
- paulryanrogers 6y ago
  Some employers though won't even reimburse for improved internet service during a pandemic lockdown. My guess is those who prefer butts in chairs would rather expand offices to comply with distancing guidelines, even in high CoL areas. Could be their are also more sufficient tax write-offs for office buildings.
Proven 6y ago
Great. That won't be hard - cut 5-10% or local workforce, outsource their jobs to abroad and you won't feel it
aussieguy1234 6y ago
wont this just push rents up?
- gspr 6y ago
  > wont this just push rents up? Perhaps, but that hardly seems to be something that should concern the courts?
petercooper 6y ago
I'd be quite happy to do that actually. At least there's a quid pro quo then and it's a nice way to give employees money tax free for the long term. Instead I gave all employees a £500 lockdown bonus to cover their extra electricity, gas, etc. (the UK tax system only lets employees claim £6/week as an expense for WFH which I think is a serious piss-take).
ykevinator 6y ago
Seems fair, I just wish they had some lead time to adjust
lr4444lr 6y ago
This makes no sense to me. Why not just give the employee a commensurate tax deduction? Now the companies will be disincentivized from keeping to quarantine when it isn't mandated, and from hiring back when it is. They're going to deduct it from their profit anyway if it's an employee cost, so it's going to come out of state tax revenues as it is.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
MrGilbert 6y ago
Someone needs to take a closer look into this. It feels sketchy. This is an article (from yesterday) based on a pay-walled article (from yesterday, and in a different language), which itself is based on a court decision (from April 2019). This is not related to the current pandemic (which the article vaguely states, but not explicitly). Also, to give you a time-frame: The linked court decision is from April 2019, the legal fight started in 2016 and went over several instances.
- xenonite 6y ago
  Well, what do you find sketchy about it? a) Of course, a decision from 2019 is not related to the coronavirus lockdown b) the "different language" is German, which is one of the official languages in Switzerland. If you want more sources, albeit also in German: https://www.nzz.ch/schweiz/arbeitgeber-muessen-einen-teil-der-wohnungsmiete-uebernehmen-wenn-sie-ihre-mitarbeiter-ins-home-office-schicken-ld.1557921 https://www.nzz.ch/schweiz/arbeitgeber-muessen-einen-teil-de... c) the public court decision has also been linked: http://relevancy.bger.ch/php/aza/http/index.php?highlight_docid=aza%3A%2F%2F23-04-2019-4A_533-2018&lang=de&type=show_document http://relevancy.bger.ch/php/aza/http/index.php?highlight_do...
  - MrGilbert 6y ago
    a) The linked article never states that it is based on an article which is based from a court decision from 2019 - it reads and presents itself as if it applies to the current pandemic "every-body-works-from-home"-situation, where I could imagine a judge would rule different. b) Not my point. Translating from one language to another is prone to loose some information. Whoever did the translation, might have lost some information. However, this cannot be cross checked, as the source article is behind a paywall. c) That's where I got my facts from - not from the article itself.
    - occamrazor 6y ago
      a) It refers to a court decision, and everybody knows that it cannot be related to the current situation because court cases take (much) more than two months. b) Swissinfo is a well-regarded, state-founded website that provides news in several languages. Their translation is probably very good. Tages Anzeiger has a free trial if you want to read the German original.
JackPoach 6y ago
One of many coronovirus unintended consequences. I wonder what else we'll be rethinking.
- mosselman 6y ago
  As MrGilbert pointed out, this case has got nothing to do with Corona.
hokumguru 6y ago
Isn’t that just the point of a salary anyway?
- vidanay 6y ago
  Eventually, your salary will be itemized like a long distance phone bill from 20 years ago.
- HenryBemis 6y ago
  My "salary" is for "for 8h per day (or 40h per week) I will be doing such and such". The cost of my clothes (jeans/shirts/ties/etc.) as well as my daily coffee/tea/juice/lunch is for me to pay. "Extra" stuff that I need to buy is for them to cover. E.g. a headset for calls, e.g. my professional certifications maintenance. My home's wifi, I pay it for my use. Since I use it for work 8h per day (40h/week), one could argue that the employer should pay 40/168 of the cost (5x8/7x24). Tbh, if there is the chance that I will be asked to go back to the office for $25 per month, I will gladly continue paying for my own wifi 100% and stay home :)
Ericson2314 6y ago
This is silly, thing that matters unionization / workplace democracy. These types of measures show a weak understanding of economics and power, and are just moronic palliatives.
swissguy 6y ago
gd
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
tobyhinloopen 6y ago
So tax-free salary? I’m in
p4bl0 6y ago
In France when you pay your income taxes, a part of your income is deducted as work related spending. By default it's something like 10% I think (do not take my word on this figure, I would check but I'm on a smartphone right now). But you can opt-in for real-cost and if you do so, you have to declare and give receipts for all of your work-related expanses to the tax administration, all of which would be deducted from your taxable income. Those expanses can include a part of your rent if you work from home.
- Hamuko 6y ago
  A bit similar in Finland. Here every taxpayer gets a 750 euro tax deduction for "wage earning expenses". So if you want to declare expenses related to your job, you basically need to have over 750 euro of them in order to get anything. If you work remote for less than 50% of workdays in a year, that counts as a 450 euro deduction. But if you work for more than 50% of workdays from home, you get a 900 euro deduction. So people working mostly from home will exceed the automatic 750 euro deduction and should declare their expenses properly instead of relying on the automatic deduction. You can also deduct equipment and Internet connections (50% of the cost if you use it partly for work). Although in the IT industry, it's pretty commonplace for the employer to pay for 100% of your home Internet connection, since it's a tax-free benefit to the employee.
atemerev 6y ago
Here in Switzerland, we don’t have the precedent law. So, if this particular decision was made in this particular case, it doesn’t mean that it is automatically applied for everybody else. So, the title is misleading.
archsurface 6y ago
This sounds like the sort of property inflation scam I'd expect from the UK. Hopefully the Swiss have thought it through carefully - they do usually seem to.
buboard 6y ago
what does this change? companies can still adjust the rest of the wage accordingly
rwmj 6y ago
When I ran a company in the UK and worked from home I claimed various expenses: 100% of the cost of computers, desk, chair, printer and that sort of thing. And a proportion of the cost of electricity, rent etc which was calculated based on the size of the room I used as an office compared to the rest of the house (I don't remember the exact number but it might have been 10-15%). As far as I'm aware this is all completely legal and normal. Now, as an employee and still working from home, my company buys me a laptop and a development desktop machine, and I guess they'd probably help with the cost of a chair if I didn't already have one. Compared to the cost of enlarging the London office if everyone who currently works from home had to work from the office (not to mention the lost productivity), these expenses are trivial.
- Finnucane 6y ago
  In the US it is similar. If you have a home office you can deduct it as an expense, but it is a bit of a pain. To get the full benefit it has to be a dedicated work space. When I was doing freelance editorial work I didn’t bother because my only dedicated expenses were my red pencils and my copy of CMS.
- GordonS 6y ago
  > 100% of the cost of computers, desk, chair, printer and that sort of thing I'm in the UK and looked into this a while back. My understanding is that the amount claimed is meant to be proportionite to the amount these are used for business purposes, just the same as for your electricity. So totally fine if you only use these things for business, otherwise not.
  - rwmj 6y ago
    So as it was explained to me (IANAL and it may even have changed since I ran this company in the mid 2000s), if something was used > 50% of the time for work then you could claim the whole thing, and in proportion if below. In any case those computers were used only for work.
apexalpha 6y ago
Our company pays everyone €75 after taxes extra if they make less than €50k annually. It's for general expenses such as more coffee, electricity etc at home.
forgingahead 6y ago
This seems very distortionary to the market. So if you're a blue-collar worker, your ability to pay for housing is "less" compared with a similarly-aged white-collar worker just because the latter has his company subsidise his rent.
- rrtthu 6y ago
  It's Switzerland, salaries are already distorded there. They might as well push it a little more.
- lm28469 6y ago
  Well, one is using his home electricity, furnitures, appliances while working, in the long term it adds up I guess. Some companies will pay your gas or car insurance if owning a car is an inherent part of the job, it's kind of the same thing here.
- em-bee 6y ago
  if you work from home you need extra space which you don't need otherwise. the winners are those that are able to make use of that extra space outside of work. i have an office at home that is not used outdide work. if i didn't work at home i could save money with a smaller apartment. seems only fair that my company pays that difference
dleslie 6y ago
Canada has a tax break for those that work from home: https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/tax/individuals/topics/about-your-tax-return/tax-return/completing-a-tax-return/deductions-credits-expenses/line-229-other-employment-expenses/commission-employees/work-space-home-expenses.html https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/tax/individ...
- mindvirus 6y ago
  The USA does too, but the trouble is it has to be exclusively used for working from home- so you can't have a guest room you use as an office most of the time, which is particularly tricky in cities. I wonder if that'll change in the future with more WFH.
  - kube-system 6y ago
    > you can't have a guest room you use as an office most of the time You can if you are smart about it, because you can deduct part of a room. Deduct the area for your desk, office chair, but don't deduct the guest bed, etc.
  - hugey010 6y ago
    I'm no tax lawyer or guru, but let's say usage is 25% bedroom and 75% principal office; you can take 75% of the square footage of the room against your total home square footage as the number for doing the deduction. Easiest is to have a dedicated space, but I imagine this is going to be a new normal now for tax filings.
  - DangitBobby 6y ago
    The deduction in the US is no longer available to most people working from home since Trump's tax breaks [1]. And even if it were, many people would not get it because it wouldn't be worth losing the standard deduction over. 1. https://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2020/03/23/working-from-home-your-home-offices-expenses-are-probably-not-tax-deductible/#2ab257fd45f3 https://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2020/03/23/wor...
- cbmuser 6y ago
chadlavi 6y ago
Good. Let's see this in the US, too. An entire room in my small NYC apartment is now just dedicated to my employer's economic activity. I'm basically loaning it to them for free right now.
jaimex2 6y ago
Not sure how things work elsewhere but in Australia any expense used to generate income is tax deductible. That includes energy bills, furniture and room "wear" if you work from home. Working from home not only saves businesses money it also increases your salary take-home here.
- golemiprague 6y ago
  I think it is because in countries like Australia or the US you have to fill in tax return every year so people are used to claim stuff. In many countries regular wage slaves don't have to fill in those tax return, it is all deducted from your salary every month and that's it, only business owners fill those tax returns.
ashtonkem 6y ago
Makes some sense during the pandemic. Many workers pay a high cost per foot in order to live within reasonable commute time to the office. In a suddenly remote world these same workers are expected to set aside a large chunk of their home specifically for working, at a pretty high per foot cost due to geography. As a permanent thing, I’m not so sure. If I can live anywhere and know that I’m going to have to have an at home office, why does my employer have to pay for that? And what are the unintended side effects?
tilolebo 6y ago
Interesting ruling, it kind of makes sense but I'm not sure that's the best solution. In Germany you can save up to 1250 EUR / year in your tax declaration if you have a dedicated work room, but the conditions are quite strict. I don't know if all remote workers can benefit from it, but if that's not the case I hope Germany will adapt the law. Considering the benefits from an ecological point of view, I think it makes sense that the state also contributes to it. Not sure if the automotive industry would agree, though...
- cheez 6y ago
  Yeah, this is the simplest solution....
- ChuckNorris89 6y ago
  Yeah, the automotive industry is gonna get a nice bailout from our tax euros this time as they'll justify it wilth all the potential unemployed people that result from everyone not buying cars any more.
PHGamer 6y ago
sounds like communism.
wiradikusuma 6y ago
Unless there's no physical office at all, and the employees are told to work from home (the article mentioned this), I think it's a hard sell for employers to pay their employee's share of rent. If I were an employer and have rented an office space, whether the space is full or empty or half empty, I'm still paying more or less the same. Yes, there are coworking spaces where I can pay per headcount, but it's much more expensive (because the problem is now passed to the operator).
- dheera 6y ago
  Paying their entire rent is a hard sell, but I would think it reasonable to pay for an employee to have a setup at home that would be as good as they would get at a modern office. That includes things like: * office-quality furniture -- sit/stand desks, chairs, videoconference equipment * computers, monitors, whatever you would provide for them at work * subsidies for lunch and snacks if it's the norm in your locale (it is for lots of companies in Silicon Valley) * adequate lighting * decent bandwidth internet connection * housing market rate cash for the employee to rent a space with 1 additional bedroom than what they previously had, that can be converted into a dedicated workspace * some reasonable budget for art/decorations/plants/whatever in your dedicated workspace. basically stuff that you would normally have in a modern office All of this would probably still add up to much, much less than they spend on employees at a real office. It's for the company's own good as well -- do you really want your employees working out of a noisy cramped bedroom with 4 other housemates and strapped for cash to buy only used IKEA furniture with missing screws and sit cramped between a bed and a tiny desk, or do you want your employee to be focused in a comfortable workspace and get work done?
  - sneak 6y ago
    The alternative is that they could just pay their devs 5x what devs would get paid in Europe, which is where this article is about, which is already being done. Then the staff member can outfit their workspace as they see fit.
    - TheGallopedHigh 6y ago
kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
Seems like a ploy to disincentivise work from home. There's little need to maintain operations in Switzerland if a business becomes comfortable with off site employees.
mindvirus 6y ago
That's an interesting idea. I'd estimate the value of my home office space in NYC is about $600/month post tax (120 sqft room, $5/sqft/month is average rent here). I wonder how that compares to class A or B office space.
jspaetzel 6y ago
This is silly. It's just another contributing factor of total compensation and cost of living.
dheera 6y ago
Although the US isn't this great that they give you an outright subsidy on rent, I believe if you're in independent consultant you can tax writeoff part of your rent if you have a part of your residence that is used exclusively for business purposes. (Disclaimer: IANAL, IANACPA)
7leafer 6y ago
Pffft, 'companies' (as in plural) are so un-post-truth! The One Company it must be. And it well may be, because less and less companies will be able to cope with the firehose of New Normals.
buttholesurfer 6y ago
Just one step away from employee housing on site at xyz company. NO THANKS
shultays 6y ago
I am not renting, can I ask for my company to pay my mortgage? Of if my mortgage was over, could I "rent" my home to company for the hours I work? The entitlement from these guys, just gross.
- falcor84 6y ago
  This sounds perfectly reasonable to me. If they expect you to work from a particular location, then it would make sense that they'd need to reimburse you for your expenses regarding that place of work. It's actually something that's been bothering for a while in regards to how some remote employers would reimburse the expenses of a co-working space - it makes much more sense to me that they would equally reimburse the costs of working from home.

393 points by malthaus 6y ago

In the US of course, we deduct our home office from our taxes, meaning that our fellow citizens, or debt, support working from home. Thos seems like a saner solution.

madsbuch 6y ago
I am sure this is also possible to do in Switzerland. At least in Denmark it is. However, a tax refund it less than a reimbursement.
- fnsa 6y ago
  yup, it is allowed in Switzerland as well
- fastball 6y ago
  Depends entirely on the situation which one is less.
dependenttypes 6y ago
> meaning that our fellow citizens, or debt, support working from home This is the case only if you think that paying taxes is some form of duty.
caughtyourimp 6y ago
You make it sound like European countries don’t have deductibles and similar laws for the those equally savvy to put it on the tax payers? I see this pattern amongst Americans these days thinking these sorta of shenanigans and morally questionable laws is unique to them? Is it a form of self flagellation? Certain European countries let tax payers pay for 80% of their foreign/migrant workforce without getting their growing revenue or equity to the state.
Pfhreak 6y ago
Not anymore, this administration did away with that deduction in 2017 if you are an employee. Unless you are a contractor, business owner, or otherwise self employed you cannot deduct a home office. https://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2020/03/23/working-from-home-your-home-offices-expenses-are-probably-not-tax-deductible/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2020/03/23/wor...
- beezle 6y ago
  Employers can reimburse employees for home office costs provided they meet the existing definitions of home office and proper, regular accounting is done. That money is not considered taxable income to the employee. However, an upfront flat "reimbursement" would probably be considered a taxable fringe benefit.
raverbashing 6y ago
Yes, if you're self-employed. Being allowed to deduct it from the taxes is a recognition that it is a 'work expense' rather than a profit (because you're charging it from you customer). It's the same idea w.r.t the reinbursement.
crazygringo 6y ago
That's really twisting things beyond recognition. In the US, we deduct business costs period, but pay taxes on profits. So as long as your business or your employer's is making profits, the taxes on profits are replacing it, not your fellow citizens. And if profits aren't being made, well obviously the situation isn't going to last too long. The idea that the taxes of people who don't work from home are somehow subsidizing those who do is... just not how it works.
maxerickson 6y ago
If https://www.lendingtree.com/home/mortgage/national-average-monthly-mortgage-payment/ https://www.lendingtree.com/home/mortgage/national-average-m... is reasonably accurate, most people aren't going to be itemizing deductions, they will take the standard deduction.
nojito 6y ago
Not if you are an employee of a business. The tax code just changed this year.

m463 6y ago

> The judges estimated a monthly compensation of CHF150 ($154) for the employee’s rent to be justified. I thought it was a token amount, but then I don't know what rent in switzerland is like. Is that like 3% or 30% ?

batiste 6y ago
I would say, between 5% and 10%. I am paying CHF 2200 in Zurich for a 2 rooms and we share the rent.
ramblerman 6y ago
Somewhere in between. In Zurich 1500 would be a low rent, and 3000 would get you a 2 bedroom with view and quite spacious +80m^2
- cactus2093 6y ago
  Wow I had thought the cost of living was high in Switzerland but I guess when you’re used to the Bay Area everything else seems cheap. In SF you’d pay like $5000 for that 2bd unless you go out pretty to the more remote, harder to commute from neighborhoods. In any case, $154 is still not that significant, definitely not enough on its own to let you afford an extra bedroom to turn into an office, for instance.
  - ramblerman 6y ago
    Compared to SF, Zurich is 50% cheaper in rent, but pretty much more expensive across the board for everything else. From Numbeo: https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?country1=United+States&country2=Switzerland&city1=San+Francisco%2C+CA&city2=Zurich&tracking=getDispatchComparison https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?cou...
    - hocuspocus 6y ago
      After taxes and rent, "everything else" is fairly insignificant in practice, even though both cities are very expensive. Also I would be careful about numbers from Numbeo, I certainly don't pay $50/kg for beef.

dependenttypes 6y ago

I don't get it. Why should someone working from home make more money than someone who does not?

buro9 6y ago
That's not what this is. This is: Your employer should provide the means for you to do the work they ask of you.
- phkahler 6y ago
  That's not what it is either. As a person in the US where "health insurance" is so tangled up with employers I can tell you, the last thing anyone should want is more financial entanglements between employees and employers.
  - Pfhreak 6y ago
    Health insurance is a benefit, paying for equipment necessary to do the job isn't. I agree that health care shouldn't be tied to employment, but saying a company shouldn't buy you e.g. a laptop, desk, chair, and space to work seems wild to me.
    - phkahler 6y ago
      Equipment ok, but part of your living expenses/rent?
- ramblerman 6y ago
  You didn't negate OP's point though. Just stated it was a different motivation. The net result is still that you - disincentivize companies to let people work from home - give people who can work from home, (and already are at an advantage to cashiers/tellers/etc...) more benefits.
  - NeutronStar 6y ago
    So because cashiers can't benefit from the benefit, no one should?

mehrdadn 6y ago

I'm confused, what is the additional expense that employees are incurring by being home? Don't they pay the same rent either way?

ceejayoz 6y ago
Equipping and maintaining a home office? Space that can no longer be used for other stuff, and costs of things like chairs and office supplies a company would normally cover?
- mehrdadn 6y ago
  Oh wait, is this "rent" in the sense of the company essentially renting part of the worker's home? I read it as as paying the worker's share of the rent to the landlord! If that's the case then that would make a lot more sense.
  - gbear605 6y ago
    What’s the financial difference between those two?
    - mehrdadn 6y ago
      The intent and justification is what's different.
  - jeroenhd 6y ago
    This is rent as in paying a share of the worker's rent. But, as many working from home will concur, most can't work from home well without dedicating part of your living space to office work. That extra room or that part of the living room that was previously free space is now practically reserved for the company you work for. I don't know if I agree with the policy, but I can see some sense in it. By paying for the living space sacrificed for WFH, companies are disincentivised to push for WFH after all lockdowns are over to save on office cost. Paying the same wage with less cost on office maintenance would be a dream come true for employers, of course, but that would shift the cost of the work space to the employer which I would find unfair. As the article states: > Geiser points out that the decision applies to employees who work from home upon the employer’s request. However, employees that work from home on their own behest may not receive rental compensation. > ... Luca Cirigliano, General Secretary of the Swiss Confederation of Trade Unions, told the paper that companies often use flexible workstations in order to save money on office rent. > It is extremely unfair as well as illegal for employers to pass costs on to employees in this way, Cirigliano told the paper. So, if the company forces you to work from home so they can save on rent, they have to pay you for "renting" office space from your house.

rbreve 6y ago

In Finland people who work from home and bought anything needed to work, for example a desk, chair, display or headphones, they get a tax refund.

RHSeeger 6y ago
That used to be the case in the US, too. And the same was true of rent/mortgage/heat/etc costs IF the room you used for an office was only used for that purpose. Sadly, the tax laws changed recently and you no longer get to claim them (unless self employed).
- sanguy 6y ago
  Are you sure? I know the standard deduction was raised significantly to cover such items, and only a couple other deductions allowed in the simplified tax filing. But if you want to go the complex route these things can still be deducted. Just may not be worth hiring a CPA to file your returns to get a couple hundred back as only the CPA wins in such a case....
  - RHSeeger 6y ago
    I'm not 100% positive, but I do use a tax accountant to do my taxes and, for the last two years, he's been confident that home office expenses can no longer be deducted (unless self employed). I have no reason not to trust him.
tnli 6y ago
You don’t get a tax refund, but your taxable income is reduced by the expense amount, so you you’re still paying for the 100% - (your marginal tax rate)% of the items, and hence paying yourself for items that your employer would have provided for your work use for free if you would work in an office instead. I do feel too that the employer should provide the equipment and working environment.

vortico 6y ago

Wouldn't this just decrease average work-from-home salary by exactly CHF150/month?

sooheon 6y ago
That depends on the supply/demand curves. Almost certainly, there will be some amount of deadweight loss: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/deadweight-loss-of-taxation.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/deadweight-loss-of-taxa...
Pfhreak 6y ago
It's unlikely in bigger companies that have pay bands per job level. It's probably cheaper to pay the additional token amount than figure out how to adjust those pay bands down to cover only the people impacted.
- vortico 6y ago
  It would be common for large companies to simply adjust pay bands down by `150CHF * proportion of work-at-home employees` in order to keep the average cost of an employee constant. Therefore, this court decision will make a (small but nonzero) push for employees to choose to work at home.

antr 6y ago

Thought: - Companies that now realised that remote schemes works for them, will push for that scheme to remain, with the aim of reducing their fixed costs (office rent, utilities, insurance, etc). - This eliminates a big chunk of fixed costs... as most are shifted to the employees. - If authorities/employees start demanding that part of those costs are covered by the company, companies will push to get avoid work-from-home schemes, as they will want more control over those expenses... I'm sure that there are other unintended consequences, such as higher rents, but who knows.

DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
> I'm sure that there are other unintended consequences, such as higher rents, but who knows. For Amazon's reputation for internal cost-cutting (such as displaying the pricing on computer peripherals in vending-machines in their SLU offices), Amazon makes me scratch my head for building-up their HQ in one of the most expensive cities to buy land in the world - ditto Facebook in Menlo Park. Why didn't Amazon choose Kent or Auburn instead - or Facebook building in the north-east of the Bay rather than the hyper-expensive south-west? Given Facebook's propensity to attract and hire young twentysomethings then surely their exact location in the Bay Area is immaterial (similarly, Amazon attracts a lot of ex-MSFT folk from the Seattle Eastside). It is a mystery. But that explains the higher-rents!
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- marcinzm 6y ago
  >Given Facebook's propensity to attract and hire young twentysomethings then surely their exact location in the Bay Area is immaterial Twenty somethings are the exact group of people who don't want to live in a socially dead place. And except for recent college grads even twenty somethings will have significant others who won't want to suddenly move to somewhere else. It's why startups keep being created in SF which has the worst costs out there.
  - DaiPlusPlus 6y ago

pochamago 6y ago

This seems likely to have unpredictable downstream effects on the Swiss workforce as compared to other countries

codegeek 6y ago

Everytime I see "must pay", it scares me. Yes I know that employees get exploited etc but instead of making employers pay, why not let employees get a tax deduction or even a credit ? As an employer, I can tell you that the burden of employer paying for everything is not necessarily a good idea. It is not about the money only but also about the added overhead/red tape. In US, I am already sick of for example health insurance crap. I would gladly pay the same amount of money directly to the employee instead of dealing with insurance companies and their bullshit.

ryneandal 6y ago
Yes on the healthcare thing. Decouple insurance from employers completely.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- djmobley 6y ago
  Employers should get the benefit of healthy employees, but not incur the cost?
  - Broken_Hippo 6y ago
    Health insurance shouldn't depend on work or the size of your employer, period. Not only should employers have healthy employees, but the applicants should be too.
    - ryneandal 6y ago
      Separation of healthcare and employers also removes a huge barrier to entrepreneurship. The entire notion of employer-provided healthcare is one of the reasons the US scores so low on economic freedom studies.
  - cyphar 6y ago
    Employers are presumably paying taxes, so funding it through taxes is not letting them off the hook. Additionally, what about people who are unemployed (which is now >20% by U6 in the US) or work in jobs that don't offer healthcare? And what if you get fired? Or you want to change jobs but have a health condition which means you'll be in trouble without health insurance? Or your employer changes health insurance providers without consulting you and now your coverage or doctor has changed? These aren't hypotheticals, they're the daily reality of millions of people in the US. I don't understand this weirdly business-centric view that folks from the US have on the topic of healthcare. Surely a more productive view is that it is the best interests of society that we keep our fellow citizens as healthy as possible? Even ignoring the ethical arguments (which should be more than enough), healthy citizens make healthy workers and reduce long-term healthcare costs caused by preventable illnesses.

andrewljohnson 6y ago

It’s advantageous for companies to pay for anything that can be construed as a business expense for employees, since that means they can transfer money to the employee tax free. Businesses in the US do this for health insurance, and remote companies can do it for a few more expenses. It makes sense to pay for whatever expenses the company can, as long as the administrative costs don’t outweigh the tax advantage.

paulryanrogers 6y ago
Some employers though won't even reimburse for improved internet service during a pandemic lockdown. My guess is those who prefer butts in chairs would rather expand offices to comply with distancing guidelines, even in high CoL areas. Could be their are also more sufficient tax write-offs for office buildings.

Proven 6y ago

Great. That won't be hard - cut 5-10% or local workforce, outsource their jobs to abroad and you won't feel it

aussieguy1234 6y ago

wont this just push rents up?

gspr 6y ago
> wont this just push rents up? Perhaps, but that hardly seems to be something that should concern the courts?

petercooper 6y ago

I'd be quite happy to do that actually. At least there's a quid pro quo then and it's a nice way to give employees money tax free for the long term. Instead I gave all employees a £500 lockdown bonus to cover their extra electricity, gas, etc. (the UK tax system only lets employees claim £6/week as an expense for WFH which I think is a serious piss-take).

ykevinator 6y ago

Seems fair, I just wish they had some lead time to adjust

lr4444lr 6y ago

This makes no sense to me. Why not just give the employee a commensurate tax deduction? Now the companies will be disincentivized from keeping to quarantine when it isn't mandated, and from hiring back when it is. They're going to deduct it from their profit anyway if it's an employee cost, so it's going to come out of state tax revenues as it is.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

MrGilbert 6y ago

Someone needs to take a closer look into this. It feels sketchy. This is an article (from yesterday) based on a pay-walled article (from yesterday, and in a different language), which itself is based on a court decision (from April 2019). This is not related to the current pandemic (which the article vaguely states, but not explicitly). Also, to give you a time-frame: The linked court decision is from April 2019, the legal fight started in 2016 and went over several instances.

xenonite 6y ago
Well, what do you find sketchy about it? a) Of course, a decision from 2019 is not related to the coronavirus lockdown b) the "different language" is German, which is one of the official languages in Switzerland. If you want more sources, albeit also in German: https://www.nzz.ch/schweiz/arbeitgeber-muessen-einen-teil-der-wohnungsmiete-uebernehmen-wenn-sie-ihre-mitarbeiter-ins-home-office-schicken-ld.1557921 https://www.nzz.ch/schweiz/arbeitgeber-muessen-einen-teil-de... c) the public court decision has also been linked: http://relevancy.bger.ch/php/aza/http/index.php?highlight_docid=aza%3A%2F%2F23-04-2019-4A_533-2018&lang=de&type=show_document http://relevancy.bger.ch/php/aza/http/index.php?highlight_do...
- MrGilbert 6y ago
  a) The linked article never states that it is based on an article which is based from a court decision from 2019 - it reads and presents itself as if it applies to the current pandemic "every-body-works-from-home"-situation, where I could imagine a judge would rule different. b) Not my point. Translating from one language to another is prone to loose some information. Whoever did the translation, might have lost some information. However, this cannot be cross checked, as the source article is behind a paywall. c) That's where I got my facts from - not from the article itself.
  - occamrazor 6y ago
    a) It refers to a court decision, and everybody knows that it cannot be related to the current situation because court cases take (much) more than two months. b) Swissinfo is a well-regarded, state-founded website that provides news in several languages. Their translation is probably very good. Tages Anzeiger has a free trial if you want to read the German original.

JackPoach 6y ago

One of many coronovirus unintended consequences. I wonder what else we'll be rethinking.

mosselman 6y ago
As MrGilbert pointed out, this case has got nothing to do with Corona.

hokumguru 6y ago

Isn’t that just the point of a salary anyway?

vidanay 6y ago
Eventually, your salary will be itemized like a long distance phone bill from 20 years ago.
HenryBemis 6y ago
My "salary" is for "for 8h per day (or 40h per week) I will be doing such and such". The cost of my clothes (jeans/shirts/ties/etc.) as well as my daily coffee/tea/juice/lunch is for me to pay. "Extra" stuff that I need to buy is for them to cover. E.g. a headset for calls, e.g. my professional certifications maintenance. My home's wifi, I pay it for my use. Since I use it for work 8h per day (40h/week), one could argue that the employer should pay 40/168 of the cost (5x8/7x24). Tbh, if there is the chance that I will be asked to go back to the office for $25 per month, I will gladly continue paying for my own wifi 100% and stay home :)

Ericson2314 6y ago

This is silly, thing that matters unionization / workplace democracy. These types of measures show a weak understanding of economics and power, and are just moronic palliatives.

swissguy 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

tobyhinloopen 6y ago

So tax-free salary? I’m in

p4bl0 6y ago

In France when you pay your income taxes, a part of your income is deducted as work related spending. By default it's something like 10% I think (do not take my word on this figure, I would check but I'm on a smartphone right now). But you can opt-in for real-cost and if you do so, you have to declare and give receipts for all of your work-related expanses to the tax administration, all of which would be deducted from your taxable income. Those expanses can include a part of your rent if you work from home.

Hamuko 6y ago
A bit similar in Finland. Here every taxpayer gets a 750 euro tax deduction for "wage earning expenses". So if you want to declare expenses related to your job, you basically need to have over 750 euro of them in order to get anything. If you work remote for less than 50% of workdays in a year, that counts as a 450 euro deduction. But if you work for more than 50% of workdays from home, you get a 900 euro deduction. So people working mostly from home will exceed the automatic 750 euro deduction and should declare their expenses properly instead of relying on the automatic deduction. You can also deduct equipment and Internet connections (50% of the cost if you use it partly for work). Although in the IT industry, it's pretty commonplace for the employer to pay for 100% of your home Internet connection, since it's a tax-free benefit to the employee.

atemerev 6y ago

Here in Switzerland, we don’t have the precedent law. So, if this particular decision was made in this particular case, it doesn’t mean that it is automatically applied for everybody else. So, the title is misleading.

archsurface 6y ago

This sounds like the sort of property inflation scam I'd expect from the UK. Hopefully the Swiss have thought it through carefully - they do usually seem to.

buboard 6y ago

what does this change? companies can still adjust the rest of the wage accordingly

rwmj 6y ago

When I ran a company in the UK and worked from home I claimed various expenses: 100% of the cost of computers, desk, chair, printer and that sort of thing. And a proportion of the cost of electricity, rent etc which was calculated based on the size of the room I used as an office compared to the rest of the house (I don't remember the exact number but it might have been 10-15%). As far as I'm aware this is all completely legal and normal. Now, as an employee and still working from home, my company buys me a laptop and a development desktop machine, and I guess they'd probably help with the cost of a chair if I didn't already have one. Compared to the cost of enlarging the London office if everyone who currently works from home had to work from the office (not to mention the lost productivity), these expenses are trivial.

Finnucane 6y ago
In the US it is similar. If you have a home office you can deduct it as an expense, but it is a bit of a pain. To get the full benefit it has to be a dedicated work space. When I was doing freelance editorial work I didn’t bother because my only dedicated expenses were my red pencils and my copy of CMS.
GordonS 6y ago
> 100% of the cost of computers, desk, chair, printer and that sort of thing I'm in the UK and looked into this a while back. My understanding is that the amount claimed is meant to be proportionite to the amount these are used for business purposes, just the same as for your electricity. So totally fine if you only use these things for business, otherwise not.
- rwmj 6y ago
  So as it was explained to me (IANAL and it may even have changed since I ran this company in the mid 2000s), if something was used > 50% of the time for work then you could claim the whole thing, and in proportion if below. In any case those computers were used only for work.

apexalpha 6y ago

Our company pays everyone €75 after taxes extra if they make less than €50k annually. It's for general expenses such as more coffee, electricity etc at home.

forgingahead 6y ago

This seems very distortionary to the market. So if you're a blue-collar worker, your ability to pay for housing is "less" compared with a similarly-aged white-collar worker just because the latter has his company subsidise his rent.

rrtthu 6y ago
It's Switzerland, salaries are already distorded there. They might as well push it a little more.
lm28469 6y ago
Well, one is using his home electricity, furnitures, appliances while working, in the long term it adds up I guess. Some companies will pay your gas or car insurance if owning a car is an inherent part of the job, it's kind of the same thing here.
em-bee 6y ago
if you work from home you need extra space which you don't need otherwise. the winners are those that are able to make use of that extra space outside of work. i have an office at home that is not used outdide work. if i didn't work at home i could save money with a smaller apartment. seems only fair that my company pays that difference

dleslie 6y ago

Canada has a tax break for those that work from home: https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/tax/individuals/topics/about-your-tax-return/tax-return/completing-a-tax-return/deductions-credits-expenses/line-229-other-employment-expenses/commission-employees/work-space-home-expenses.html https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/tax/individ...

mindvirus 6y ago
The USA does too, but the trouble is it has to be exclusively used for working from home- so you can't have a guest room you use as an office most of the time, which is particularly tricky in cities. I wonder if that'll change in the future with more WFH.
- kube-system 6y ago
  > you can't have a guest room you use as an office most of the time You can if you are smart about it, because you can deduct part of a room. Deduct the area for your desk, office chair, but don't deduct the guest bed, etc.
- hugey010 6y ago
  I'm no tax lawyer or guru, but let's say usage is 25% bedroom and 75% principal office; you can take 75% of the square footage of the room against your total home square footage as the number for doing the deduction. Easiest is to have a dedicated space, but I imagine this is going to be a new normal now for tax filings.
- DangitBobby 6y ago
  The deduction in the US is no longer available to most people working from home since Trump's tax breaks [1]. And even if it were, many people would not get it because it wouldn't be worth losing the standard deduction over. 1. https://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2020/03/23/working-from-home-your-home-offices-expenses-are-probably-not-tax-deductible/#2ab257fd45f3 https://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2020/03/23/wor...
cbmuser 6y ago

chadlavi 6y ago

Good. Let's see this in the US, too. An entire room in my small NYC apartment is now just dedicated to my employer's economic activity. I'm basically loaning it to them for free right now.

jaimex2 6y ago

Not sure how things work elsewhere but in Australia any expense used to generate income is tax deductible. That includes energy bills, furniture and room "wear" if you work from home. Working from home not only saves businesses money it also increases your salary take-home here.

golemiprague 6y ago
I think it is because in countries like Australia or the US you have to fill in tax return every year so people are used to claim stuff. In many countries regular wage slaves don't have to fill in those tax return, it is all deducted from your salary every month and that's it, only business owners fill those tax returns.

ashtonkem 6y ago

Makes some sense during the pandemic. Many workers pay a high cost per foot in order to live within reasonable commute time to the office. In a suddenly remote world these same workers are expected to set aside a large chunk of their home specifically for working, at a pretty high per foot cost due to geography. As a permanent thing, I’m not so sure. If I can live anywhere and know that I’m going to have to have an at home office, why does my employer have to pay for that? And what are the unintended side effects?

tilolebo 6y ago

Interesting ruling, it kind of makes sense but I'm not sure that's the best solution. In Germany you can save up to 1250 EUR / year in your tax declaration if you have a dedicated work room, but the conditions are quite strict. I don't know if all remote workers can benefit from it, but if that's not the case I hope Germany will adapt the law. Considering the benefits from an ecological point of view, I think it makes sense that the state also contributes to it. Not sure if the automotive industry would agree, though...

cheez 6y ago
Yeah, this is the simplest solution....
ChuckNorris89 6y ago
Yeah, the automotive industry is gonna get a nice bailout from our tax euros this time as they'll justify it wilth all the potential unemployed people that result from everyone not buying cars any more.

PHGamer 6y ago

sounds like communism.

wiradikusuma 6y ago

Unless there's no physical office at all, and the employees are told to work from home (the article mentioned this), I think it's a hard sell for employers to pay their employee's share of rent. If I were an employer and have rented an office space, whether the space is full or empty or half empty, I'm still paying more or less the same. Yes, there are coworking spaces where I can pay per headcount, but it's much more expensive (because the problem is now passed to the operator).

dheera 6y ago
Paying their entire rent is a hard sell, but I would think it reasonable to pay for an employee to have a setup at home that would be as good as they would get at a modern office. That includes things like: * office-quality furniture -- sit/stand desks, chairs, videoconference equipment * computers, monitors, whatever you would provide for them at work * subsidies for lunch and snacks if it's the norm in your locale (it is for lots of companies in Silicon Valley) * adequate lighting * decent bandwidth internet connection * housing market rate cash for the employee to rent a space with 1 additional bedroom than what they previously had, that can be converted into a dedicated workspace * some reasonable budget for art/decorations/plants/whatever in your dedicated workspace. basically stuff that you would normally have in a modern office All of this would probably still add up to much, much less than they spend on employees at a real office. It's for the company's own good as well -- do you really want your employees working out of a noisy cramped bedroom with 4 other housemates and strapped for cash to buy only used IKEA furniture with missing screws and sit cramped between a bed and a tiny desk, or do you want your employee to be focused in a comfortable workspace and get work done?
- sneak 6y ago
  The alternative is that they could just pay their devs 5x what devs would get paid in Europe, which is where this article is about, which is already being done. Then the staff member can outfit their workspace as they see fit.
  - TheGallopedHigh 6y ago

kevin_thibedeau 6y ago

Seems like a ploy to disincentivise work from home. There's little need to maintain operations in Switzerland if a business becomes comfortable with off site employees.

mindvirus 6y ago

That's an interesting idea. I'd estimate the value of my home office space in NYC is about $600/month post tax (120 sqft room, $5/sqft/month is average rent here). I wonder how that compares to class A or B office space.

jspaetzel 6y ago

This is silly. It's just another contributing factor of total compensation and cost of living.

dheera 6y ago

Although the US isn't this great that they give you an outright subsidy on rent, I believe if you're in independent consultant you can tax writeoff part of your rent if you have a part of your residence that is used exclusively for business purposes. (Disclaimer: IANAL, IANACPA)

7leafer 6y ago

Pffft, 'companies' (as in plural) are so un-post-truth! The One Company it must be. And it well may be, because less and less companies will be able to cope with the firehose of New Normals.

buttholesurfer 6y ago

Just one step away from employee housing on site at xyz company. NO THANKS

shultays 6y ago

I am not renting, can I ask for my company to pay my mortgage? Of if my mortgage was over, could I "rent" my home to company for the hours I work? The entitlement from these guys, just gross.

falcor84 6y ago
This sounds perfectly reasonable to me. If they expect you to work from a particular location, then it would make sense that they'd need to reimburse you for your expenses regarding that place of work. It's actually something that's been bothering for a while in regards to how some remote employers would reimburse the expenses of a co-working space - it makes much more sense to me that they would equally reimburse the costs of working from home.