3 ms·
Is it true that they are 1/5th into the pain? What about every new hire? That's the part I don't understand. It seems to discourage companies from increasing th
by tinyhouse 3y ago
Is it true that they are 1/5th into the pain? What about every new hire? That's the part I don't understand. It seems to discourage companies from increasing their headcount. Also, what happens when an employee leaves after 2 years? The company paid 2 years of salary but expensed only 35% of year 1 and 15% of year 2.
Update: Now thinking about it, it doesn't matter if an employee leaves, since the company will expense their salary portions that they haven't expensed yet in their future tax bills.
- the_mitsuhiko 3y agoYou already have such amortizations for a lot of things. In some cases this even gives you possibilities to improve your tax burden. It just means that you cannot deduct it all in one year. If you downsize a company to zero employees you still get to subtract salaries for a few more years against your profits. It will set different incentives wiring wise and I’m not convinced they are good ones, but from this rule some people will benefit so they might fight the rollback.
- wait_a_minute 3y agoWould this cause more intentional hiring? In other words, since everyone's already 1/5th into it this means that anyone who was hired in the last year since all those layoffs was hired intentionally with more of an expectation of betting on them for the longer term.