131–140 of 462 posts
My biggest expense being remote is that I need an extra room for my office. Besides that, that would probably be heating in winter and electricity, but these are small compared to the cost of an extra room.
Unless you have special equipment that requires the space you don't need an extra room, you want an extra room.
That room is more than wanted...
Many young people or those cheering for employee/consumer rights do not seem to understand that this does more net harm than good. For small businesses and startups, this can amount to millions of dollars of additional expenses. Like any economically rational entity, your employer is going to respond by reducing headcount, not hiring in CA anymore, cutting costs in your annual raises, or some combination of the above…
Now, if a company has always been fully remote, then, yes, this sort of thing is ultimately going to hurt the employee because the company needs to recuperate those unplanned costs.
Personally, as a fully remote employee, I don't how to feel about this. Sure, I'd love my employer to offset some of my utility costs, but I also don't want them to assume that means they can control their use (which is their right in the context of an office space).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There’s these things called home offices and many have converted a room to be one when working from home all the time.
Its not unheard of to carve out the home office already for tax purposes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A desk in the bedroom works well enough. You don't "need" an extra room, I've never had an extra room and I've been working from home in all my jobs
You're missing the parent's point. Your setup works for you but what if you and your partner both need to work? Do you both work at your desks in your bedroom? How does that impact your partner's sleep? What if you need to work late but they need to get up early? What happens when they have a meeting when you have a meeting? What if their work involves being on the phone all day? I think you're looking at this from a…
But see, this isn't my problem. The money the company gives you might be a lower pay raise for me and others who don't care
> but that's not everyone's job and living situation.
That's 99.9% of the cases
Many young people or those cheering for employee/consumer rights do not seem to understand that this does more net harm than good. For small businesses and startups, this can amount to millions of dollars of additional expenses. Like any economically rational entity, your employer is going to respond by reducing headcount, not hiring in CA anymore, cutting costs in your annual raises, or some combination of the above…
If you are using your own equipment and resources, how are you an employee and not a contractor? Businesses should compensate because the agreement is the business uses their capital and your labor to make money. But if they also use your capital in addition to your labor, then the employee needs ownership of the business because they are devoting their capital to the business.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Add frequent flier miles, "kickbacks" of a couple percent on credit card expenses that are reimbursed, clothing (such as suits) and commuting expenses that are not reimbursed, but uniforms (and related) that are deductible, etc. As you say it's a mishmash that doesn't have a real basis in some overarching principles.
> but uniforms (and related) that are deductible Not after 2017, I think?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It becomes equivalent if the company buys the newspaper subscription for the company and you have access to it. This whole area is a gray mishmash of arguments (does buying pizza for the office count as an expense or a salary item? Depends on frequency, the tax courts, etc).
Add frequent flier miles, "kickbacks" of a couple percent on credit card expenses that are reimbursed, clothing (such as suits) and commuting expenses that are not reimbursed, but uniforms (and related) that are deductible, etc. As you say it's a mishmash that doesn't have a real basis in some overarching principles.
[1] https://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tips/jobs-and-career/employe...
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 belo…
Your heart is in a good place, but... No more tax complexity, PLEASE. Let's stop using the tax system for encouraging/discouraging behaviors.
That said, I think it should be more on the business than on individuals. Individual taxes should probably be handled nearly entirely automatically for most people, with nothing more than an approval step required.
Many young people or those cheering for employee/consumer rights do not seem to understand that this does more net harm than good. For small businesses and startups, this can amount to millions of dollars of additional expenses. Like any economically rational entity, your employer is going to respond by reducing headcount, not hiring in CA anymore, cutting costs in your annual raises, or some combination of the above…
It's a small expense for employers, and can be a real difference in costs for the employee. I don't think you're correct. If I spend 100% more on heating everyday because I work from home so need to heat 24/7, that's nothing to an employer (100-200$/m) but could be a significant deduction from a family's budget. Meanwhile the employer would have otherwise heated up an office space and paid all bills there. I've been…