5 ms·

I like the idea, but not the implementation. I think it should be done as a tax credit for the employee or the company instead. Doing so creates positive ince

I like the idea, but not the implementation. I think it should be done as a tax credit for the employee or the company instead. Doing so creates positive incentives for companies to hire remote workers in California. Requiring the company to pay up by force of law disincentivizes companies from hiring remote workers in California. I also think that it would be more equitable since an employee’s home office setup belongs to them and not their employer.

fckgw 3y ago
The company requiring the worker to do the work should foot the bill, not the taxpayer.
- tensor 3y ago
  The consequence is that the company will want to improve efficiency by paying for all the utilities for all employees in a single building. E.g. less WFH.
  - Loughla 3y ago
    Okay? I still don't understand how that means the costs for a private company should shift to the public purse. Please explain.
    - frumper 3y ago
      Work expenses paid for by an employee are typically tax deductible. This wouldn't be anything new. The expenses paid for by an employer are also tax deductible. This would also not be anything new. The idea isn't that the "cost" is borne by the taxpayer, it is that the employee/employer shouldn't pay a tax on the money they used to produce the income.
      - ghaff 3y ago
        Tax deductible (which for most people in the US means nothing today) is different from being reimbursed.
      - sokoloff 3y ago
        The upthread proposal was "I think it should be done as a tax credit for the employee or the company instead." That's a proposal to have the cost be borne directly by the taxpayers (a tax credit), not a mere reduction of profit via a valid business expense (a tax deduction).
      - phpisthebest 3y ago
        Tax Deductions, and Tax Credits are very different things and should not be conflated as you have here
      - PM_me_your_math 3y ago
        [dead]
      - pcthrowaway 3y ago
        > The expenses paid for by an employer are also tax deductible This is no longer true, at least with regards to employee salaries, but maybe other expenses related to their employment are still deductible. Since the headline calls this a "reimbursement" I would imagine it would be
    - unshavedyak 3y ago
      Because i want a job and not an incentive to not hire me because i don't work locally to their office. I get frustrated at arguments like this that effectively result in "hey, you need to move to a big city because it's 'better' for you". I don't live in a big city right now, i work remote, and i'm thankful that employers aren't punished and incentivized _not_ to hire me. I get what you're saying, but we need to look at the ramifications of purity arguments like this. Killing WFH "for my own good" doesn't feel as good as you may think it is.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - fckgw 3y ago
    Encourage WFH and then the company doesn't need to pay for an office building at all! It's almost like businesses have to pay for infrastructure for the employees to be able to do their jobs, whether it's in an office park downtown or the home office in the suburbs.
    - munk-a 3y ago
      That'd be totally logical if there wasn't a large amount of investment money tied up in commercial real estate - we've seen a deluge of articles about how detrimental WFH is and many of these are coming from investment firms tied to commercial real estate. We're currently losing the battle of advocating for WFH even though logic is on our side - we don't need to give investors more ammunition for the propaganda mill.
- pfisherman 3y ago
  Why the company and not the employee? I think that the taxpaying public receives benefits from the remote work arrangement; such as less traffic, noise, pollution, and consumption of public resources such as roads.
  - fckgw 3y ago
    Because the company is the one directly receiving the most benefits?
  - tedivm 3y ago
    Lots of cities disagree with you- they want people to return to office because they're worried their down towns are going to collapse due to lack of office workers.
    - toomuchtodo 3y ago
      They'll still fail because they won't be able to twist employees enough to reach the minimum footfall floor required for the economic activity needed to sustain before times downtowns, but it will be annoying while they try. Mayor of NYC complains about remote work, but then expands it to non union NYC employees because they can't retain talent [1]. Mayor of Minneapolis complains Target and the local county won't fully RTO, but leadership at those orgs goes "meh" and continues because they want to retain talent [2] [3]. [1] https://www.nyc.gov/office-of-the-mayor/news/805-23/mayor-adams-expands-remote-work-pilot-new-york-city-employees https://www.nyc.gov/office-of-the-mayor/news/805-23/mayor-ad... [2] https://kfgo.com/2023/08/26/downtown-businesses-ask-target-to-bring-employees-back-to-minneapolis/ https://kfgo.com/2023/08/26/downtown-businesses-ask-target-t... [3] https://www.minnpost.com/twin-cities-business/2023/10/why-are-so-many-hennepin-county-office-workers-still-working-remotely/ https://www.minnpost.com/twin-cities-business/2023/10/why-ar...
    - ahallock 3y ago
      Then so be it. The money will be spent elsewhere.
- anarticle 3y ago
  The purpose of it being a tax deduction is because it is a productivity cost. By spending that money, you are producing (hopefully!) something useful for others. Of course, there are loopholes, this model breaks down when you're talking about deducting a random boat you take clients out for fun. In this case we're talking about remote work.
talal7860 3y ago
We've something similar (tax credits) in Alberta, and I love it.
orochimaaru 3y ago
With all this push to RTO, it may be the idea - disincentivize remote work.
samtho 3y ago
This does not work differently in other states as far as I’m aware, California just might be more willing to enforce the laws already in place. Additionally, this not a tax credit which is money owed to you by the tax authority, rather a deduction which is a very standard vehicle in calculating net income (revenue minus costs). Who takes deduction doesn’t matter as far as the IRS is concerned, for example, as long as it’s not claimed twice. As an employee, I would rather be reimbursed for company expenses than have to manage those deductions throughout the year because part of the benefit of being W-2 is that you don’t have to worry about anything except collecting that paycheck. If I we’re on a contract, I would be managing my own expenses.
- dmoy 3y ago
  > Who takes deduction doesn’t matter as far as the IRS is concerned Strictly speaking, if we're talking federal taxes, then post TCJA the IRS does care who takes the deduction. W-2 employees can't deduct expenses like that anymore. Not that big a deal for Internet costs, but it hits some professions pretty hard (e.g. professional musicians where the instrument is quite expensive relative to their income).
francisofascii 3y ago
Right, this will also disincentivize companies going folly remote, since this is eating into their savings for not having an office. Companies only have to pay this expense if there is no option other than remote.
bmitc 3y ago
> Requiring the company to pay up by force of law disincentivizes companies from hiring remote workers in California. This was my thought as well. By increasing the burden, companies will just stop remote positions, something they are inclined to do already.
- hfuyf65 3y ago
  [dead]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
glimshe 3y ago
Your heart is in a good place, but... No more tax complexity, PLEASE. Let's stop using the tax system for encouraging/discouraging behaviors.
- mempko 3y ago
  That's literally one of the purposes of the tax system. It's to encourage and discourage behavior.
  - dataflow 3y ago
    The purpose of the tax system is to generate revenue, I thought.
    - mempko 3y ago
      Depends on the level of government. For cities and states, taxes generate revenue, but for the federal government, taxes serve a different purpose because the US federal government is sovereign and controls it's currency. This following is an excellent short video from the late David Graeber explaining why money is debt and what taxes do. While it's context is the UK, it applies to US or any sovereign government. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxJW7hl8oqM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxJW7hl8oqM For California it's absolutely about revenue. But a dual purpose is to provide incentives/disincentives for certain behaviors. Even states that require taxes for revenue give tax breaks for incentivizing certain things to companies and other groups. At the federal level taxes serve to mainly provide a demand for the currency, control the levels of money in the broader economy, and incentivize/disincentivize behavior. Unlike cities and states, the federal government must necessarily be in a perpetual state of deficit for the private sector to have a surplus. To further back up Gaeber's claims, here is a reference from the Bank of England explaining how money is created. https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/quarterly-bulletin/2014/q1/money-creation-in-the-modern-economy https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/quarterly-bulletin/2014/q1/m...
  - Thrymr 3y ago
    It sure does encourage hiring accountants and lawyers.

fckgw 3y ago

The company requiring the worker to do the work should foot the bill, not the taxpayer.

tensor 3y ago
The consequence is that the company will want to improve efficiency by paying for all the utilities for all employees in a single building. E.g. less WFH.
- Loughla 3y ago
  Okay? I still don't understand how that means the costs for a private company should shift to the public purse. Please explain.
  - frumper 3y ago
    Work expenses paid for by an employee are typically tax deductible. This wouldn't be anything new. The expenses paid for by an employer are also tax deductible. This would also not be anything new. The idea isn't that the "cost" is borne by the taxpayer, it is that the employee/employer shouldn't pay a tax on the money they used to produce the income.
    - ghaff 3y ago
      Tax deductible (which for most people in the US means nothing today) is different from being reimbursed.
    - sokoloff 3y ago
      The upthread proposal was "I think it should be done as a tax credit for the employee or the company instead." That's a proposal to have the cost be borne directly by the taxpayers (a tax credit), not a mere reduction of profit via a valid business expense (a tax deduction).
    - phpisthebest 3y ago
      Tax Deductions, and Tax Credits are very different things and should not be conflated as you have here
    - PM_me_your_math 3y ago
      [dead]
    - pcthrowaway 3y ago
      > The expenses paid for by an employer are also tax deductible This is no longer true, at least with regards to employee salaries, but maybe other expenses related to their employment are still deductible. Since the headline calls this a "reimbursement" I would imagine it would be
  - unshavedyak 3y ago
    Because i want a job and not an incentive to not hire me because i don't work locally to their office. I get frustrated at arguments like this that effectively result in "hey, you need to move to a big city because it's 'better' for you". I don't live in a big city right now, i work remote, and i'm thankful that employers aren't punished and incentivized _not_ to hire me. I get what you're saying, but we need to look at the ramifications of purity arguments like this. Killing WFH "for my own good" doesn't feel as good as you may think it is.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- fckgw 3y ago
  Encourage WFH and then the company doesn't need to pay for an office building at all! It's almost like businesses have to pay for infrastructure for the employees to be able to do their jobs, whether it's in an office park downtown or the home office in the suburbs.
  - munk-a 3y ago
    That'd be totally logical if there wasn't a large amount of investment money tied up in commercial real estate - we've seen a deluge of articles about how detrimental WFH is and many of these are coming from investment firms tied to commercial real estate. We're currently losing the battle of advocating for WFH even though logic is on our side - we don't need to give investors more ammunition for the propaganda mill.
pfisherman 3y ago
Why the company and not the employee? I think that the taxpaying public receives benefits from the remote work arrangement; such as less traffic, noise, pollution, and consumption of public resources such as roads.
- fckgw 3y ago
  Because the company is the one directly receiving the most benefits?
- tedivm 3y ago
  Lots of cities disagree with you- they want people to return to office because they're worried their down towns are going to collapse due to lack of office workers.
  - toomuchtodo 3y ago
    They'll still fail because they won't be able to twist employees enough to reach the minimum footfall floor required for the economic activity needed to sustain before times downtowns, but it will be annoying while they try. Mayor of NYC complains about remote work, but then expands it to non union NYC employees because they can't retain talent [1]. Mayor of Minneapolis complains Target and the local county won't fully RTO, but leadership at those orgs goes "meh" and continues because they want to retain talent [2] [3]. [1] https://www.nyc.gov/office-of-the-mayor/news/805-23/mayor-adams-expands-remote-work-pilot-new-york-city-employees https://www.nyc.gov/office-of-the-mayor/news/805-23/mayor-ad... [2] https://kfgo.com/2023/08/26/downtown-businesses-ask-target-to-bring-employees-back-to-minneapolis/ https://kfgo.com/2023/08/26/downtown-businesses-ask-target-t... [3] https://www.minnpost.com/twin-cities-business/2023/10/why-are-so-many-hennepin-county-office-workers-still-working-remotely/ https://www.minnpost.com/twin-cities-business/2023/10/why-ar...
  - ahallock 3y ago
    Then so be it. The money will be spent elsewhere.
anarticle 3y ago
The purpose of it being a tax deduction is because it is a productivity cost. By spending that money, you are producing (hopefully!) something useful for others. Of course, there are loopholes, this model breaks down when you're talking about deducting a random boat you take clients out for fun. In this case we're talking about remote work.

talal7860 3y ago

We've something similar (tax credits) in Alberta, and I love it.

orochimaaru 3y ago

With all this push to RTO, it may be the idea - disincentivize remote work.

samtho 3y ago

This does not work differently in other states as far as I’m aware, California just might be more willing to enforce the laws already in place. Additionally, this not a tax credit which is money owed to you by the tax authority, rather a deduction which is a very standard vehicle in calculating net income (revenue minus costs). Who takes deduction doesn’t matter as far as the IRS is concerned, for example, as long as it’s not claimed twice. As an employee, I would rather be reimbursed for company expenses than have to manage those deductions throughout the year because part of the benefit of being W-2 is that you don’t have to worry about anything except collecting that paycheck. If I we’re on a contract, I would be managing my own expenses.

dmoy 3y ago
> Who takes deduction doesn’t matter as far as the IRS is concerned Strictly speaking, if we're talking federal taxes, then post TCJA the IRS does care who takes the deduction. W-2 employees can't deduct expenses like that anymore. Not that big a deal for Internet costs, but it hits some professions pretty hard (e.g. professional musicians where the instrument is quite expensive relative to their income).

francisofascii 3y ago

Right, this will also disincentivize companies going folly remote, since this is eating into their savings for not having an office. Companies only have to pay this expense if there is no option other than remote.

bmitc 3y ago

> Requiring the company to pay up by force of law disincentivizes companies from hiring remote workers in California. This was my thought as well. By increasing the burden, companies will just stop remote positions, something they are inclined to do already.

hfuyf65 3y ago
[dead]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

glimshe 3y ago

Your heart is in a good place, but... No more tax complexity, PLEASE. Let's stop using the tax system for encouraging/discouraging behaviors.

mempko 3y ago
That's literally one of the purposes of the tax system. It's to encourage and discourage behavior.
- dataflow 3y ago
  The purpose of the tax system is to generate revenue, I thought.
  - mempko 3y ago
    Depends on the level of government. For cities and states, taxes generate revenue, but for the federal government, taxes serve a different purpose because the US federal government is sovereign and controls it's currency. This following is an excellent short video from the late David Graeber explaining why money is debt and what taxes do. While it's context is the UK, it applies to US or any sovereign government. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxJW7hl8oqM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxJW7hl8oqM For California it's absolutely about revenue. But a dual purpose is to provide incentives/disincentives for certain behaviors. Even states that require taxes for revenue give tax breaks for incentivizing certain things to companies and other groups. At the federal level taxes serve to mainly provide a demand for the currency, control the levels of money in the broader economy, and incentivize/disincentivize behavior. Unlike cities and states, the federal government must necessarily be in a perpetual state of deficit for the private sector to have a surplus. To further back up Gaeber's claims, here is a reference from the Bank of England explaining how money is created. https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/quarterly-bulletin/2014/q1/money-creation-in-the-modern-economy https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/quarterly-bulletin/2014/q1/m...
- Thrymr 3y ago
  It sure does encourage hiring accountants and lawyers.