3 ms·
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.
by 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 agoOkay? I still don't understand how that means the costs for a private company should shift to the public purse. Please explain.
- frumper 3y agoWork 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 agoTax deductible (which for most people in the US means nothing today) is different from being reimbursed.
- sokoloff 3y agoThe 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 agoTax 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 agoBecause 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 agoEncourage 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 agoThat'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.