Comment Re:What of restaurant workers? (Score 0) 631
If someone is given a company car then they are taxed on the additional useage (i.e. personal) that is not for the business.
If a company REQUIRES you to wear a uniform and they provide it, then you're not taxed; if you have to buy it then you can claim back the tax - a uniform is a valid business expense. However if the 'uniform' is simply a standardised set of regular clothes then this doesn't apply (e.g a suit isn't a 'uniform')
If you make personal printouts on a company computer, then you're stealing - but if they turn a blind eye to this and it's minimal then it would be under a threshold for being a 'benefit in kind'
If you are provided a company mobile then, just like the car, you should pay tax on any calls that aren't company business - if your company doesn't claim back the cost of the calls form you.
Any of the taxable examples are when you receive a 'benefit in kind' i.e. you are receiving something that you would normally pay for (gourmet food, transportation, clothes, and phone calls).
On a general note, and note a direct response to the parent poster, it strikes me how amazing it is that the generally intelligent Slashdot poster can't get their head round the concept. Comments like "How is the professor paying for the google employee's lunch? douchebag" show an inability to grasp what should be a fairly simple concept....
example 1. An employee receives a regular wage, the company and employee pay the relevant income taxes. The employee goes out and buys his food for the week (if he brings it into work) or buys lunch every day. He/She then also pays whatever the relevant sales tax is.
example 2. An employee receives slightly less than a regular wage. the company and employee pay less income taxes. *this* is where his comment comes into play - in theory, because of this there is less money being collected by the tax authorities so the rate for everyone rises to compensate. (As a general rule if everyone paid all the taxes they should, the rate should go down without getting into arguments about the fact that governments would conveniently ignore this)
Some commenters were saying that google *has* to provide these meals to keep the talent, and this just reinforces the point that the food is, in effect, income - and should be taxed as such.