31–40 of 264 posts
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 i…
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.
Wouldn't this just decrease average work-from-home salary by exactly CHF150/month?
Wouldn't this just decrease average work-from-home salary by exactly CHF150/month?
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-fro…
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!
That won't be hard - cut 5-10% or local workforce, outsource their jobs to abroad and you won't feel it
I don't get it. Why should someone working from home make more money than someone who does not?
That's not what this is. This is: Your employer should provide the means for you to do the work they ask of you.
Anyway, it would make more sense to pay for a percentage of the transportation/time spent travelling of the workers rather than for housing costs - not only it would incentivise companies to enforce work from home but it would also be more fair to the employees. After all the employees would have a home regardless but have to pay for transportation only if they have to attend the company.
I don't get it. Why should someone working from home make more money than someone who does not?
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 i…
As if they had any other source of money. _All_ their money comes from consumers. If we don't want regressive taxation, then take this money as welfare by raising income tax.
https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/12/08/a-something-sort-of-li...
"If we send people a check, the costs are passed on to the taxpaying public, which includes rich people who pay extra taxes and does not include poor people who get out of a lot of taxes because of their low income. If we pressure fast food places to pay more, the costs are passed on to fast food consumers, who are less likely to be wealthy and more likely to be black than the general population."