Apart from anything else, why should teachers have to buy the tools to do their job?
Because for decades teaching has been marketed as ‘a calling’ not a job. People say things like, ‘teachers do what they have to’ or ‘no one goes into teaching for the money’ or ‘you might be the only person in some of these kids lives that care for them.’ These kind of phrases allow higher ups to continually slash teaching budgets while convincing teachers that they must fill the shortfall because of they don’t, who will? It’s bullshit.
People are in for a rude awakening after republicans get rid of public schools. You think buying your own supplies is expensive — wait until you get the bill for going to private school.
“Oh, you can’t afford to send your child to school? Well the coal mines are always hiring if you need to get them out of the house.”
Soon, an editorial headline:
Americans’ bills are piling up; could chattel children be the answer?
See also: Republicans have repealed child labor laws, but is that really a bad thing?
The children, they yearn for the mines.
It’s because Republicans really like the unwashed masses they’re easier to manipulate.
Don’t worry, we’ll all be too busy reacting to actually take the time to reflect and learn something.
Much like nurses in the U.K., and their current pay battles. There are even former nurses saying “they should do it for the love of the job”.
They shouldn’t. Education is critically and routinely underfunded because dumb people vote conservative.
There will be a point where people will wish that education standards hadn’t been allowed to fall so low…but as long as the rich keep getting richer, I suppose no one will care.
rich neighborhoods often pay $200+ per student per year for supplies.
poor neighborhoods just get by without supplies
I read that should as shouldn’t and damn near had a ragefart.
That is because the jets and yachts are company provided and the company writes it off as an operational expense. You know, as schools should be doing with school supplies teachers need to do their job.
Companies also don’t require their employees to bring their own desk and chair… I know… do t give them any ideas… and probably some scumbag employers did this anyway.
This is separate from the fact if companies should be allowed to expense luxury items… Like yachts and jets…
In Canada, a company-provided vehicle is a taxable benefit when used for personal purposes. This can include if you park the vehicle at home and drive to/from work if you have a fixed office location.
Of course, the rich work around this by making that yacht trip etc a “business expense” and entertaining similarly rich guests.
Still fraud, just not investigated
So many people think “tax deductible” literally means you subtract it from your taxes.
It’s still a hefty discount
deleted by creator
Might as well be, if they use it for work it counts. My boss bought a luxury RV for our company, he’s the only one whose ever used it but technically there is a contract if a customer wants to rent it. Not that anyone was ever instructed to actually shill it.
That means it’s a business expense, not that you can literally deduct 100% of it from your taxes.
That’s fraud, you can report it to the IRS
Companies also don’t require their employees to bring their own desk and chair
Unless you work from home, then you are expected to have the space, supplies, desk, chair, electricity, internet connection…
Not really. The company should pay for everything you need to do your job.
Yeah they should but that’s not how it works now.
It is in a sane state like California.
Plenty of employers provide at least some of that and reimburse for the rest. That should be the norm… and it is still way cheaper than a desk space in an office.
And for employees, the cost saving on the commute makes up for more than the costs of electricity and stuff.
They’re not “allowed to” expense those things. At least, not in the way you mean. Whether or not regulators have an appetite to investigate is another matter.
In my opinion, companies shouldn’t be allowed to expense anything. The entire concept is pointlessly complicated and only serves to favor businesses that can afford to hire teams of accountants. The law doesn’t encourage any kind of value adding on the slightest, it’s just a game to save money.
There are complicated parts of accounting, but basic expense tracking is simple and businesses would do it even if it didn’t affect their tax treatment.
If businesses couldn’t write off expenses, it would be nearly equivalent to treating the corporate income tax as a universal sales tax. This would be incredibly damaging to small businesses and benefit behemoth vertically integrated companies, which is probably the exact opposite of what you want.
If you get rid of expenses, you need to get rid of corporate income tax and either replace it with VAT or combine it with increases to personal income tax like taxing capital gains as ordinary income.
Mmmm that’s a great point about vertical integration, I forgot about that.
That would basically guarantee that no new business ever survives.
Companies shouldn’t be paying taxes at all. Just tax the people who own the companies directly based on the value of their shares.
This is just plain incorrect.
The law doesn’t allow CEOs to write off yachts.
Whether or not regulators investigate them is another matter.
Can’t they just buy in the name of a company, which would be a ‘business expense’, which is kind of a write off?
They would have to justify how it is a part of the companies operations. In theory at least.
So a private jet to fly your execs to business meets? Ok.
A yacht? Maybe for entertaining customers? I don’t know about the US, but here in Australia entertainment expenses are written off at a lower rate than other business expenses.
A yacht can have meeting rooms, you can receive clients in these meeting rooms for business purposes, making it therefore a business expense.
here in Australia entertainment expenses are written off at a lower rate than other business expenses.
Sorry mate. Not really correct.
If an Australian company pays for entertainment expenses for staff, it’s considered a fringe benefit and fringe benefits tax is payable. It equates to almost the cost of the actual expense. So if a company pays $10k for an employee to take a holiday, they’ll have to pay almost $10k in fringe benefits tax, but they do get a deduction for the whole $20k, which will save them $5k in income tax.
Yeah, so to simplify, written off at a different rate.
Not really, at all.
It’s written off at the same rate, while being subject to a whole other type of tax, which means the company pays more tax, rather than less.
Ok, so the point I was originally trying to make was that claiming a yacht as an entertainment expense was less attractive. Would you agree?
If sticking a fork in your eye is “less attractive” than eating icecream then sure.
… but let’s be honest, that’s not what you were trying to say. You were just plain wrong. Get over it. No one cares.
It doesn’t work like that. Expenses need to be “necessarily incurred in the course of producing income”. Just be cause a company pays for something doesn’t make it tax deductible.
I can’t have a yacht business meeting without a yacht now can I?
That’s why they don’t own the yachts, but they own the charter companies that run the yachts.
The system working as intended
Yup, not a bug, a feature.
The productive class vs the parasite class.
Teachers shouldn’t have to buy their own supplies out of pocket to begin with.
Teachers shouldn’t be paying for teaching supplies in the first place.
I had a boss once who avoided paying taxes on his 49’ sailing yacht by “donating” it to his church. It was then technically owned by the church (so no taxes, either transfer or property) but he still used it exclusively.
You can probably report that to the IRS right now.
Religious country
Well, have a party or three with businesses clients on the yacht and you can write that off. However, I think the vast majority of people have their yachts registered under shell corporations, and that opens up a lot of opportunities for writeoffs.
If I were a teacher, I would not buy school supplies with my own money.
The unfortunate part is that then kids in your class would be missing out on school supplies. It’s not right for teachers to use their own money for school supplies though.
That would be the schools and the parents problem. It would present a challenge to my job to find a way to teach without supplies, but I’d rather do that then spend my own money on my job.
Edit: whoever is downvoting, I hope you spend your paycheck on your job
We need to normalize burning them.
The uh…the rich or the yachts?
Both. Both are perfectly fine.
The schoolchildren
That wouldn’t be good for the environment.
Compost them instead.
Or eat them, you know, many people are suffering from starvation
That makes sense. Cause further damage to the ecosystem in the waters and give the enemy ammunition towards painting real change makers as dangerous or destructive
👌🏻
That makes sense. Cause further damage to the ecosystem in the waters and give the enemy ammunition towards painting real change makers as dangerous or destructive
It would still be a net positive for the environment tbh
If we’re burning yachts consistently? May I introduce you to forever chemicals?
And you skipped the important part about bastardizing the movement.
deleted by creator
super yachts need a hole drilled
Scuba gear and a drill
Scuba diver and sailor here. Above a certain size, boats have watertight bulkheads and pumps to remove water, like fire hose levels of water. May I suggest a thermal lance? Works great underwater, cuts through metal better than a drill, and can cut a slice long enough to cut past multiple bulkheads.
