4 ms·

I don't understand this. How are tax breaks better than not having the cost at all?

• jedberg 3y ago
  Because they are already in long term leases or own the buildings, so they are already committed. But now they lose their "butts in seats" tax breaks.
  • Kiro 3y ago
    So they only get tax breaks if people are actually in the building? How is this even regulated and controlled?
    • jedberg 3y ago
      Self reporting, much like all tax breaks. They tell the city "we have this percent of our employee base required to be in the office". But they can't just lie because they might get audited.
    • bamfly 3y ago
      Lots of incentives offered to businesses, especially at the city level, are contingent on providing some number of jobs in a specific place. They want you to have to give locals jobs if you need to hire, and they want those locals spending money in some particular place. They don't want to spend money helping companies with suburban/exurban workers that never come to the city, and that are seeing local headcount erode as replacements can live anywhere. > How is this even regulated and controlled? Same as... most things? There's all kinds of stuff you can lie about and be fine as long as you don't get caught. Claiming you have a full office while openly having a 100% WFH policy is probably not a great way to get away with that kind of fraud, however.
  • Spivak 3y ago
    This does seem like introducing a "office available" tax break for companies that offer wfh but have a physical office would be the best of both worlds.
    • i_am_jl 3y ago
      The municipality giving the tax breaks doesn't want people to work from home. They want people to go to the office so they buy gas and eat at restaurants and drive up office rent. But the real issue is what happens when the lease runs out. A company that's using its office as "office available" is really "remote, but with an office that we're staffing for tax breaks to offset the cost of the lease we're stuck in". The tax breaks aren't bigger than the lease, so once they're out from under the lease obligation they switch to 100% remote.
  • pavon 3y ago
    The tax breaks I have seen that are similar to this only care about where the employee is working, not whether they are in a home or office. So if that was really the motivation it would be a reason to require employees be located in a given area, not require them to come into the office a certain number of days per week. Without you citing the specific tax breaks you claim are the issue I'm very skeptical that they are the cause.
    • jedberg 3y ago
      Here is an article about it: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-02-21/another-threat-to-work-from-home-tax-breaks https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-02-21/another-t... Google [Do companies get tax breaks for in person employees] or something like it.
  • refurb 3y ago
    If they own the real estate they get the tax break whether employees show up or not.
    • jedberg 3y ago
      No that's the point. The tax breaks are payroll tax breaks for having the employee actually come to the office. Otherwise they lose the tax break and it costs more to have the same employee.
• iLoveOncall 3y ago
  The state gives them tax breaks if they force people to go to the office because they contribute to local businesses in downtown. This is an incredibly short term decision of course, what would be a lot more beneficial would be to push for remote work and let local businesses develop all around the city in residential neighbourhoods, which would after a while lower CoL everywhere, while still having the same amount of money spent, just spent more equitably geographically speaking. But of course when your political term lasts 4 years, you don't give a single fuck about all that, you care about your next election.