One of many reasons to have a personal LLC/S-Corp in my opinion.
Another comment in the thread really nailed this well. If employers didn't pay for commute costs separately, why does this become a line item?
The employer does pay for gas and commute costs, as well as cost of living expenses...in a paycheck.
I place a high value on my home office setup so I have things exactly as I want them. I also live in a low cost of living area thanks to my ability to work remote.
A law like this is essentially there just to further incentivize the return to office policies that we've all been reading about. Now there will be an additional cost associated with going remote.
A fundamental business dynamic is that transparently passing on expenses is a low margin behavior, while comping more things for "free" and charging for produced value leads to higher margins. Personally I'd rather workers have higher margins (ie higher pay) while personally choosing how to spend some of that income to fulfill the job requirements, than receiving lower pay while being able to nickle and dime employers for bureaucratically-approved expenses.
Of course it's not like the government really wants to encourage more small businesses that replace W-2 workers at large businesses, given how lopsided the tax code is against W-2 income.
One weird thing I learned about one of the Scandinavian countries is that part of the reporting taxes is reporting of labor for DIY home improvement.
The reasoning for this was that the economy could not be adequately measured if DIY work is not recorded.
This really demonstrated to me the American mindset of freedom. I have no idea about California. I think another motivation is that they are trying make sense of what will undoubtedly be a complex tax-reimbursement situation.
I have been a sole-proprietor since the 1990s. I think they are working towards normalizing that sole-proprietor lifestyle with longterm employment.
No, there is no such thing in "Scandinavian" countries about reporting labor when doing DIY home improvements. You can deduct the material, or bought labor, when selling the house. But no your own labor, unless you run a company and hire yourself. That might work, but then you have to spend taxes in your company for that income.
Clarification: This is in Sweden, a Scandinavian country.
Edit #2: If you have a specific country in mind, please mention that instead. Makes it easier to refute.
Sorry, it was I believe a comment on HN that told a story of having to track their own labor on a home improvements.
This tracking needed to be reported so that economic growth could be better measured.
I couldn't remember the specific country so I referred to it as a country in a region. I also couldn't remember the reporting process and assumed taxes.
I was reminded of the comment when I read the California story. I thought many of the comments were too cynical and narrowly focused. I wanted to broaden the conversation by pointing out that there are many reasons to collect data have new definitions of labor.
I consider HN as a place to throw out thoughts and see the reaction. I don't state anything I don't believe to be true. I'm happy to correct my worldview as needed through dialog.
I certainly do not claim that the notion is true, most likely any false hood is through my poor understanding and expression.
I certainly mean no disrespect to any social effort to create an equitable base line for human existence. I have great admiration for the region of Scandinavia and the Baltic Region as well.
I'm currently from the New England region of the United States.
I wasn't trying to make a statement regarding superiority of one type of social organization over another.
The point I thought was critical is that labor data is used by governments for central planning.
> A law like this is essentially there just to further incentivize the return to office policies that we've all been reading about. Now there will be an additional cost associated with going remote.
Not an additional cost, just fewer savings for companies. I'm guessing that even having to reimburse employees for internet/power they're still saving a ton of money on those things (my last office was lit up everywhere 24/7), plus not needing to rent the office space, keep food and coffee available for employees, keep bathrooms stocked up, etc.
I agree, honestly I feel a much better solution to this problem would be to extend the same tax advantages that you allude to when talking about a personal company to W2 employees.
Provision a home office? All of those expenses should be tax deductible.
BYOD? You should be able to expense a portion of the costs.
Pay for internet and power? You should be able to deduct a percentage of costs.
Have a work related meal? Tax deductible.
Drive your car to work? You should be able to deduct your mileage or depreciate your vehicle.
Pay for public transit passes to get to work? Tax deductible.
Another comment in the thread really nailed this well. If employers didn't pay for commute costs separately, why does this become a line item?
The employer does pay for gas and commute costs, as well as cost of living expenses...in a paycheck.
I place a high value on my home office setup so I have things exactly as I want them. I also live in a low cost of living area thanks to my ability to work remote.
A law like this is essentially there just to further incentivize the return to office policies that we've all been reading about. Now there will be an additional cost associated with going remote.