Is it really an abuse? Oh no, he used meal credits to buy toothpaste and tea instead of food, so... what? It really irks me that this level of pettiness comes from the corporation that itself uses every single tax "optimization" scheme on earth (and also probably invented a couple). Apparently, quod licet Metae non licet famulo. This really is just a small monetary enhancement to one's wage, not a "we ration out your approved caloric intake separately; do not mess with its accounting — or else" system (although it seems Meta really would like to treat it like that).
> This really is just a small monetary enhancement to one's wage
The IRS doesn’t view it that way — if people were just given an extra $70 a day for expenses not related to their job, it would typically to be taxed as compensation.
If they allowed this to happen unchecked and lots of people started doing it, the headline would be “Meta facilitates tax avoidance scheme for employees making $400k”
This is my feeling as well. I've gone through a lot of grief on expense reports at my company for things like not reporting the tax on a hotel room or tip on a meal receipt separately from everything else. It's not as simple as $25, at least from an accounting perspective.
The expense report minefield is real. It's why I developed the habit decades ago of not expensing anything unless it's actually expensive. It's too much hassle and risk.
So then it must be a better outcome if you buy the maximum allowed amount of food, 70 dollars, and then throw it away? Better yet, buy that food, attempt to pawn it off, and then buy toothpaste.
To me, that feels like a much worse outcome, not a better one. I think this demonstrates you need some leniency in these things. Because pettiness breeds pettiness.
I'm not speaking to the point - I'm speaking to right and wrong.
If it's wrong to use it on a tube of toothpaste because that's stealing, then it must surely be right to instead buy the maximum food and throw it away. Therefore, people should do that.
If that sounds wrong to you, then the initial assumption might not be correct. Maybe it's not so bad to buy the tube of toothpaste.
Constraining yourself to extremely hard and fast rules seems like a good idea on the surface. But it's all about incentives. I can easily make the company bleed much more money while being within their rules. So why even bother?
A touch of leniency and common sense goes a long way.
>If it's wrong to use it on a tube of toothpaste because that's stealing, then it must surely be right to instead buy the maximum food and throw it away.
That makes no sense, One does not imply the other
I have a business card with a limit of $5k for buying work materials.
I might get forgiveness if the materials ended up being wasted.
That doesn't mean it acceptable to use my business card to go to Disneyland, or that it is "Right" to use it for wasteful purchases.
In what way the mega corp X is defrauded here, exactly? The sibling comment explains that arguably the IRS can be considered defrauded in this case, but the mega corp itself?