Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be
-
@dyasny said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@scottalanmiller car resellers made their money, but they also hire people, and there's fleet management, repairs, towing etc etc etc. There was no law in place, in fact it was a law that eventually ended up killing that industry, but while it lasted, it kept thousands of families employed.
Any money that is sent into circulation is better than being put in a pocket. Taxes are quite often yet another pocket (or they get spent on bs like funding foreign interests which doesn't promote anything locally). Money spent in the local market on whatever, generates jobs, because money spent means demand, and demand has to be met by supply. Government encouraging companies to do that by lowering taxes is doing itself a favour, as well as the economy in general.
Sure, but it was fake demand, or if not fake, at least manufactured demand created by a tax law.
-
@dyasny said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@JaredBusch said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
That is totally creating fake jobs. Jobs that exist for no reason. Why should a company pay to lease cars it doesn't need? It could simply pay out mileage or some other small compensation that costs a ton less than leasing vehicles.
The company would make more profit, hopefully invest that back into growing the company more and creating a good cycle of growth.
No, the company would simply pay more taxes and instead of letting employees have better conditions, only the government benefits.
@JaredBusch missed the whole point of why cars were added - it was for salary position, i.e. the company having to pay less payroll taxes while 'paying' the employees more through the benefit of the lease being one of their benefits.
As mentioned above by me - some employees might want and be OK with this, while others would likely want the cash.
Here's another way to look at this.
In the US, larger companies provide healthcare coverage for their employees, this coverage is part of the employee salary package. There are tax benefits for the companies paying this.
But let's say an employee had their own health coverage - so they didn't want/need the company's supplied one - will the company give them the cash they would otherwise pay the insurance company? Some companies will, some won't.
-
@dyasny said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@IRJ said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
Spending money for the sake of spending money and creating fake jobs because of it, is just smoke and mirrors. No real world problem is solved. It's ok though because we can just print more money. Economic Stimulus is nice and all, but it is really just a temp solution. You cant keep throwing out money to solve issues that dont exists. This is the kind of stuff that builds up over time and creates issues. You need to find a real solution of the long term that provides value.
Nothing fake about creating jobs there. I have friends who worked for those fleet management companies, and the food they put on the table was real enough.
Well, there is a decent book about BS jobs on Amazon.
-
@Dashrender said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
But the reason for giving the car was to save the company money - not because the employee wanted a car more than they wanted cash.
There were more reasons than that. Even when the companies stopped making more money than they knew what to do with, company cars were a group benefit. An employee would pay something for the lease, but much less than he would be paying if he bought or leased a car on his own. A large IT company with a park of several thousand leased cars could get really good terms from the leasing company, and paying the initial downpayment, covering the gas, and paying a portion of the lease are all tax deductibles. Everyone wins
Cash would normally be the more desirable perk versus a car or other benefit - unless the benefit provided via the company was considerable less than what the employee could get it directly for.
When you get health benefits from a company, are they usually better than if you got the same conditions on your own? Why should companies provide health and dental if it's not a good business model for them? Same principle, only with car leases (in the latter stage). Imagine those health benefits costing you nothing, company covers 100% (that's how the cars were in the earlier stages), would you prefer not to take them?
Not saying it's bad - just saying each employee might want something different.
It was absolutely optional
-
@Dashrender said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@dyasny said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@JaredBusch said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
That is totally creating fake jobs. Jobs that exist for no reason. Why should a company pay to lease cars it doesn't need? It could simply pay out mileage or some other small compensation that costs a ton less than leasing vehicles.
The company would make more profit, hopefully invest that back into growing the company more and creating a good cycle of growth.
No, the company would simply pay more taxes and instead of letting employees have better conditions, only the government benefits.
@JaredBusch missed the whole point of why cars were added - it was for salary position, i.e. the company having to pay less payroll taxes while 'paying' the employees more through the benefit of the lease being one of their benefits.
As mentioned above by me - some employees might want and be OK with this, while others would likely want the cash.
Here's another way to look at this.
In the US, larger companies provide healthcare coverage for their employees, this coverage is part of the employee salary package. There are tax benefits for the companies paying this.
But let's say an employee had their own health coverage - so they didn't want/need the company's supplied one - will the company give them the cash they would otherwise pay the insurance company? Some companies will, some won't.
I have a car. I'd want the cash thanks...
-
@Dashrender reducing taxes is never an option there, unfortunately. I was paying 56% before I left.
-
@Jimmy9008 said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
I have a car. I'd want the cash thanks...
Another data point - cars in the UK are dirt cheap. In Israel there is 100% import tax on a car, so anything that costs $50k will be $100k there, and that's before VAT, fees, markups etc
-
@Jimmy9008 said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@scottalanmiller said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@Jimmy9008 said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@scottalanmiller said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@Dashrender said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@Jimmy9008 said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@scottalanmiller said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@Jimmy9008 said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@dyasny said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@scottalanmiller said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
Why would you get a car working in IT? When do you need to drive anywhere? I don't even need a car to drive to work, let alone anywhere else.
In Israel, it was a standard benefit for all IT related employees. The idea was that anything in IT is considered a creative job, so if you suddenly have a great idea in the middle of the night, you just drive to the office and get to work on it (no remote jobs back in the 90s). The perk stuck around until it got taxed out of existence in 2007-2010-ish.
I've worked a few MSP jobs in the UK and they usually say you have to use your own car. They do pay for petrol though, so if you have a good efficient car you can make some cash on it.
Why would a car come up? Is it because they were doing bench work? In the US, often you get a company car if you are a bench tech.
No. You had to do regular site visits to see the clients and look at what they wanted you to look at, or do regular face to face 'im doing stuff' type work. All things that could be done remote, but just their business model.
There are many companies that work this way - and those same companies have an incredible amount of waste. There is likely very little actual value in those visits other than glad-handing. Now, if you're charging those clients full rate for all the drive time and glad-handing, more power to ya.
Low cost account managers do this, high cost IT pros would need to be doing IT work. If IT is acting as account managers you likely have major problems. One in that you can't hire effectively, two in that you have to pay really high rates for no work being done, three that you have a skill mismatch as IT people are rarely good account people or vice versa.
This was not account manager work. Don't know why that was their business was model, but it was. For example, you could be sent to a client's office to reconfigure a server, or bring down exchange for maintenance, or to test backups... All things that could be done remote.
Account managers actually worked remotely and never visited the clients. They would have a call about what needs doing g over the next year, their goals etc then the IT projects would be assigned and we would go and visit.
Not my decision. Just was what they wanted.
If "face time matters" that makes it account management, no matter what other tasks are being done there. It's the account management aspects of the MSP that were putting people on site. Don't confuse titles for roles.
I'll have to disagree with you on that. Just because the work is being done on site, rather than in a remote office, that's IT work. It doesn't matter where it's done. The business decision is to do the IT work on site, it doesn't make it not IT.
You said, I thought, that it was required to have face time. And the fact time drove the need to be on site. That face time is the account management piece. The account management is important enough that they made you not do IT efficiently but go onsite and waste all kinds of time. Why? Because the account management portion of the job is what was driving the decisions.
-
@JaredBusch said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@scottalanmiller said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@Dashrender said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@Jimmy9008 said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@scottalanmiller said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@Jimmy9008 said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@dyasny said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@scottalanmiller said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
Why would you get a car working in IT? When do you need to drive anywhere? I don't even need a car to drive to work, let alone anywhere else.
In Israel, it was a standard benefit for all IT related employees. The idea was that anything in IT is considered a creative job, so if you suddenly have a great idea in the middle of the night, you just drive to the office and get to work on it (no remote jobs back in the 90s). The perk stuck around until it got taxed out of existence in 2007-2010-ish.
I've worked a few MSP jobs in the UK and they usually say you have to use your own car. They do pay for petrol though, so if you have a good efficient car you can make some cash on it.
Why would a car come up? Is it because they were doing bench work? In the US, often you get a company car if you are a bench tech.
No. You had to do regular site visits to see the clients and look at what they wanted you to look at, or do regular face to face 'im doing stuff' type work. All things that could be done remote, but just their business model.
There are many companies that work this way - and those same companies have an incredible amount of waste. There is likely very little actual value in those visits other than glad-handing. Now, if you're charging those clients full rate for all the drive time and glad-handing, more power to ya.
Low cost account managers do this, high cost IT pros would need to be doing IT work. If IT is acting as account managers you likely have major problems. One in that you can't hire effectively, two in that you have to pay really high rates for no work being done, three that you have a skill mismatch as IT people are rarely good account people or vice versa.
Except I do this all of the time.
Granted the account manager hat is rarely worn for more than minutes, but it is one of my hats.
Small ITSP with small solid client based.
Right, but it's the hat making you go on site. I do it too, but I know that going onsite is either because I'm the bench tech for the day (not IT, just filling in) or because I'm being the account manager.
-
@dyasny said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@Dashrender there's also a value in providing a benefit, employee retention is an important metric which translates to dollars. And a car is so much more than a coffee machine.
Higher pay retains people too, and better I'd argue. I'll take pay over a car any day, in fact, I'd rather not have a car at all.
-
@dyasny said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@IRJ said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
Spending money for the sake of spending money and creating fake jobs because of it, is just smoke and mirrors. No real world problem is solved. It's ok though because we can just print more money. Economic Stimulus is nice and all, but it is really just a temp solution. You cant keep throwing out money to solve issues that dont exists. This is the kind of stuff that builds up over time and creates issues. You need to find a real solution of the long term that provides value.
Nothing fake about creating jobs there. I have friends who worked for those fleet management companies, and the food they put on the table was real enough.
There is no way for it not to be fake. That's corruption money at the end of the day. Money being funneled away from those that would earn it on merit to those making it by getting the government to encourage it to be handed over to specific firms, those not being taxed.
That same money would put MORE food on the tables of MORE people who earned it, rather than who had the right connections or paid off the right official, than in that way.
-
@dyasny said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@Dashrender said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
But the reason for giving the car was to save the company money - not because the employee wanted a car more than they wanted cash.
There were more reasons than that. Even when the companies stopped making more money than they knew what to do with, company cars were a group benefit. An employee would pay something for the lease, but much less than he would be paying if he bought or leased a car on his own. A large IT company with a park of several thousand leased cars could get really good terms from the leasing company, and paying the initial downpayment, covering the gas, and paying a portion of the lease are all tax deductibles. Everyone wins
Of course - I thought I mentioned something to that effect? I did, in the next quoted part.
Cash would normally be the more desirable perk versus a car or other benefit - unless the benefit provided via the company was considerable less than what the employee could get it directly for.
When you get health benefits from a company, are they usually better than if you got the same conditions on your own? Why should companies provide health and dental if it's not a good business model for them? Same principle, only with car leases (in the latter stage). Imagine those health benefits costing you nothing, company covers 100% (that's how the cars were in the earlier stages), would you prefer not to take them?
It used to be covered 100%, but just like your car example, the costs of said insurance went up, tax benefit went down, so the companies started splitting the costs with employees (I pay 20%, company pays 80%).
Can I get as good of coverage as my company provides? Yes, will it cost me even more? yep... there is savings in collective purchasing, so it's more cost effective for the company to buy it, and me split it with them, again, just like your car example.Not saying it's bad - just saying each employee might want something different.
It was absolutely optional
You had the option to refuse the car, and get some cash value instead? Clearly you did the math and found that keeping the car was more financially sound, right?
-
@dyasny said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@scottalanmiller car resellers made their money, but they also hire people, and there's fleet management, repairs, towing etc etc etc. There was no law in place, in fact it was a law that eventually ended up killing that industry, but while it lasted, it kept thousands of families employed.
Any money that is sent into circulation is better than being put in a pocket. Taxes are quite often yet another pocket (or they get spent on bs like funding foreign interests which doesn't promote anything locally). Money spent in the local market on whatever, generates jobs, because money spent means demand, and demand has to be met by supply. Government encouraging companies to do that by lowering taxes is doing itself a favour, as well as the economy in general.
None of that applies. No one is saying the money is fake, it's that corruption is directing it into the hands of the wrong people. It doesn't help the economy in general. That's the fake part, it hurts the overall economy by taking money from those that would earn it and rewarding corruption instead of labour.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
Higher pay retains people too, and better I'd argue. I'll take pay over a car any day, in fact, I'd rather not have a car at all.
Look at it as if these were health benefits. As a group, you get better individual terms from an insurance company. The same happened with car leases. Of course, if you prefer to go without, you can, but the cash difference is laughable compared to the cost of leasing the same car privately. In Israel, public transport is total crap, so pretty much everyone needs to have a car to get around. And cars are double the US price for the same model (100% import tax). So it was really worth it, while it lasted.
-
@Jimmy9008 said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@Dashrender said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@dyasny said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@JaredBusch said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
That is totally creating fake jobs. Jobs that exist for no reason. Why should a company pay to lease cars it doesn't need? It could simply pay out mileage or some other small compensation that costs a ton less than leasing vehicles.
The company would make more profit, hopefully invest that back into growing the company more and creating a good cycle of growth.
No, the company would simply pay more taxes and instead of letting employees have better conditions, only the government benefits.
@JaredBusch missed the whole point of why cars were added - it was for salary position, i.e. the company having to pay less payroll taxes while 'paying' the employees more through the benefit of the lease being one of their benefits.
As mentioned above by me - some employees might want and be OK with this, while others would likely want the cash.
Here's another way to look at this.
In the US, larger companies provide healthcare coverage for their employees, this coverage is part of the employee salary package. There are tax benefits for the companies paying this.
But let's say an employee had their own health coverage - so they didn't want/need the company's supplied one - will the company give them the cash they would otherwise pay the insurance company? Some companies will, some won't.
I have a car. I'd want the cash thanks...
See @dyasny situation was different - every company he worked at for 20 years offered the car as part of his compensation, so likely he didn't own one himself. So that changes things.
-
@JaredBusch said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@dyasny said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@IRJ said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
Spending money for the sake of spending money and creating fake jobs because of it, is just smoke and mirrors. No real world problem is solved. It's ok though because we can just print more money. Economic Stimulus is nice and all, but it is really just a temp solution. You cant keep throwing out money to solve issues that dont exists. This is the kind of stuff that builds up over time and creates issues. You need to find a real solution of the long term that provides value.
Nothing fake about creating jobs there. I have friends who worked for those fleet management companies, and the food they put on the table was real enough.
That is totally creating fake jobs. Jobs that exist for no reason. Why should a company pay to lease cars it doesn't need? It could simply pay out mileage or some other small compensation that costs a ton less than leasing vehicles.
The company would make more profit, hopefully invest that back into growing the company more and creating a good cycle of growth.
Right, that's people getting paid for something that wouldn't be needed except for a corrupt tax dodge.
-
@Dashrender said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
You had the option to refuse the car, and get some cash value instead? Clearly you did the math and found that keeping the car was more financially sound, right?
absolutely. Nobody is stupid
-
@dyasny said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@JaredBusch said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
That is totally creating fake jobs. Jobs that exist for no reason. Why should a company pay to lease cars it doesn't need? It could simply pay out mileage or some other small compensation that costs a ton less than leasing vehicles.
The company would make more profit, hopefully invest that back into growing the company more and creating a good cycle of growth.
No, the company would simply pay more taxes and instead of letting employees have better conditions, only the government benefits.
That's a false comparison to make the corruption sound reasonable. The alternatives are not the taxes staying higher, but lowering evenly across the board.
If you feel that the government keeping money never goes back to the economy, then you believe that the corruption is even worse that we were saying.
-
@Dashrender said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
See @dyasny situation was different - every company he worked at for 20 years offered the car as part of his compensation, so likely he didn't own one himself. So that changes things.
LOL 16, not 20
I left that particular country after that -
@Dashrender said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@dyasny said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@Dashrender there's also a value in providing a benefit, employee retention is an important metric which translates to dollars. And a car is so much more than a coffee machine.
But the reason for giving the car was to save the company money - not because the employee wanted a car more than they wanted cash.
Cash would normally be the more desirable perk versus a car or other benefit - unless the benefit provided via the company was considerable less than what the employee could get it directly for.
Company A: offers me $100K,
company B offers me $97K + $3k car (lease)I might want the cash more than the car because I can get a cheaper car. the cash can go into savings for my retirement, etc.
Not saying it's bad - just saying each employee might want something different.
But in the old days - it was in the companies benefit to give the car as part because of less taxes paid.
And Scott is talking about doing the same for his non US resident employees.
Yup, everyone loses except for the "friends of the government." It's a horrible way to run a government, but the businesses are just responding in a logical way to being stuck in a corrupt system.
