Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Swiss companies must pay share of rent for employees working from home

swissinfo.ch

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 264 posts

Re: Swiss companies must pay share of rent for employees working from home

#141

Post by codegeek »

sailingparrot wrote: post #72
codegeek wrote: post #26

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…

> I would gladly pay the same amount of money directly to the employee instead of dealing with insurance companies and their bullshit. Well in this case the swiss companies must pay the amount directly to the employee, so you should be happy?

In this case, it makes no sense for employer to pay. Everyone lives differently, have different homes, different cost of utilities etc. It makes more sense to provide a tax deduction or credit to employee directly. If using this theory that just because someone is working from home, we should pay a portion of rent etc, then where do we stop. Why not pay for their coffee/tea while they are working at home. How do we draw the line ?

Re: Swiss companies must pay share of rent for employees working from home

#142

Post by samizdis »

CaptainZapp wrote: post #130
antr wrote: post #20

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…

> I'm sure that there are other unintended consequences, such as higher rents, but who knows. That's not that easy. While Switzerland doesn't do rent control per se and there can be regional differences depending on scarcity of real estate for rent a landlord is rather restricted in raising rent once a contract is signed. The only reasons why a rent can be raised are: - Additional investments into an apartment, but t…

> My ethical compass would feel it's wrong to squeeze additional benefits from an arrangement, which potentially saves my life and from which I feel that my management puts a lot of trust in me and my colleagues.

Much respect to your principles. I agree entirely with your viewpoint.

Re: Swiss companies must pay share of rent for employees working from home

#143

Post by sanguy »

RHSeeger wrote: post #69
rbreve wrote: post #12

In Finland people who work from home and bought anything needed to work, for example a desk, chair, display or headphones, they get a tax refund.

That used to be the case in the US, too. And the same was true of rent/mortgage/heat/etc costs IF the room you used for an office was only used for that purpose. Sadly, the tax laws changed recently and you no longer get to claim them (unless self employed).

Are you sure?

I know the standard deduction was raised significantly to cover such items, and only a couple other deductions allowed in the simplified tax filing.

But if you want to go the complex route these things can still be deducted. Just may not be worth hiring a CPA to file your returns to get a couple hundred back as only the CPA wins in such a case....

Re: Swiss companies must pay share of rent for employees working from home

#145

Post by GordonS »

rwmj wrote: post #104

When I ran a company in the UK and worked from home I claimed various expenses: 100% of the cost of computers, desk, chair, printer and that sort of thing. And a proportion of the cost of electricity, rent etc which was calculated based on the size of the room I used as an office compared to the rest of the house (I don't remember the exact number but it might have been 10-15%). As far as I'm aware this is all comple…

> 100% of the cost of computers, desk, chair, printer and that sort of thing

I'm in the UK and looked into this a while back. My understanding is that the amount claimed is meant to be proportionite to the amount these are used for business purposes, just the same as for your electricity. So totally fine if you only use these things for business, otherwise not.

Re: Swiss companies must pay share of rent for employees working from home

#146

Post by RHSeeger »

mehrdadn wrote: post #89
RHSeeger wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would think of it more like reimbursing the employee for the cost of the space they need to pay for to work from home. So if I work from home and need to get a bigger place, and an apartment with 1 more room costs 20% more, then that 20% is directly attributable as a "work cost".

What happens when the employee is a homeowner then? Or not the one actually paying rent (maybe their parent/child is)?

For the case of a homeowner that is still paying off their home, I would consider their mortgage payment as the monthly amount.

For a homeowner that has finished paying off their house, it might be reasonable to use a value equal to what the payment would be if they took out a 30yr mortgage to pay an amount equal to 80% of the cost of the house (ie, if they had a "standard" mortgage).

For the case of someone not paying for the place they live (living with a relative, etc), I don't have a good answer. I would guess try to determine what the rent _would_ be if they were? Presumably the amount they make helps contribute to the total household expenses, so the fact that it's not specifically billed to "rent" doesn't make a big difference.

Honestly, I think looking for a perfect answer in every case isn't a realistic goal. Instead, aim for as good as possible in as many cases as possible, and good enough in the rest.

Re: Swiss companies must pay share of rent for employees working from home

#147

Post by RHSeeger »

sanguy wrote: post #143
RHSeeger wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That used to be the case in the US, too. And the same was true of rent/mortgage/heat/etc costs IF the room you used for an office was only used for that purpose. Sadly, the tax laws changed recently and you no longer get to claim them (unless self employed).

Are you sure? I know the standard deduction was raised significantly to cover such items, and only a couple other deductions allowed in the simplified tax filing. But if you want to go the complex route these things can still be deducted. Just may not be worth hiring a CPA to file your returns to get a couple hundred back as only the CPA wins in such a case....

I'm not 100% positive, but I do use a tax accountant to do my taxes and, for the last two years, he's been confident that home office expenses can no longer be deducted (unless self employed). I have no reason not to trust him.

Re: Swiss companies must pay share of rent for employees working from home

#148

Post by rwmj »

GordonS wrote: post #145
rwmj wrote: post #104

When I ran a company in the UK and worked from home I claimed various expenses: 100% of the cost of computers, desk, chair, printer and that sort of thing. And a proportion of the cost of electricity, rent etc which was calculated based on the size of the room I used as an office compared to the rest of the house (I don't remember the exact number but it might have been 10-15%). As far as I'm aware this is all comple…

> 100% of the cost of computers, desk, chair, printer and that sort of thing I'm in the UK and looked into this a while back. My understanding is that the amount claimed is meant to be proportionite to the amount these are used for business purposes, just the same as for your electricity. So totally fine if you only use these things for business, otherwise not.

So as it was explained to me (IANAL and it may even have changed since I ran this company in the mid 2000s), if something was used > 50% of the time for work then you could claim the whole thing, and in proportion if below. In any case those computers were used only for work.

Re: Swiss companies must pay share of rent for employees working from home

#149

Post by mehrdadn »

RHSeeger wrote: post #146
mehrdadn wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What happens when the employee is a homeowner then? Or not the one actually paying rent (maybe their parent/child is)?

For the case of a homeowner that is still paying off their home, I would consider their mortgage payment as the monthly amount. For a homeowner that has finished paying off their house, it might be reasonable to use a value equal to what the payment would be if they took out a 30yr mortgage to pay an amount equal to 80% of the cost of the house (ie, if they had a "standard" mortgage). For the case of someone not payi…

But then why not just treat it as the company renting (say) a room in the employee's apartment (like a normal rent or sublet)? It seems to be what's actually going on fundamentally anyway, and it bypasses the need to think about any third parties that may be involved in the employee's living arrangement.

Re: Swiss companies must pay share of rent for employees working from home

#150

Post by sailingparrot »

codegeek wrote: post #141
sailingparrot wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would gladly pay the same amount of money directly to the employee instead of dealing with insurance companies and their bullshit. Well in this case the swiss companies must pay the amount directly to the employee, so you should be happy?

In this case, it makes no sense for employer to pay. Everyone lives differently, have different homes, different cost of utilities etc. It makes more sense to provide a tax deduction or credit to employee directly. If using this theory that just because someone is working from home, we should pay a portion of rent etc, then where do we stop. Why not pay for their coffee/tea while they are working at home. How do we d…

> It makes more sense to provide a tax deduction or credit to employee directly.

I, as a taxpayer, don't quite fancy having to pay for Amazon's 300k remote employees home-office while the company they work for doesn't pay any tax.

> How do we draw the line?

The line is already drawn, as an employer you are legally required to pay for the tools your employees need to do their work. So if the employee is a developer, that would be a laptop for example. Coffee and tea is not deemed necessary, so you don't have to pay for it.

In my opinion, a proper space to work is definitly a requirement and should be added to that list for remote workers. As well as a microphone and probably webcam at a minimum.

Asking taxpayers to pay for this instead of businesses makes 0 sense (although it's already like that in some juridictions).

Edit: I forgot to add that employers that will be switching to remote-first for the long term are the one that will save money on rent, while their employees will have a higher rent on average. So it does make quite a lot of sense for employer to pay and keep the balance in that scenario.

Post reply on HN