Work expenses no credit card

TimeToShine

In the UK at least a lot of people prefer to pay themselves using their personal credit cards and then get reimbursed by the company. A lot of credit card rewards to be earned if you travel regularly whereas with a company card you miss out on all of that.

meeeeh

meeeeh wrote: »

You can be on a high horse about it all you want but the fact is if your cash flow is so tight 1000 Euros affects your ability to live despite working full time then that means you have more serious issues.

FFS.

meeeeh

AulWan wrote: »

:rolleyes:

You don't pay subsistence I do. It's easy to be generous with someone else money.

AulWan

meeeeh wrote: »

You don't pay subsistence I do. It's easy to be generous with someone else money.

I am taxpayer so its as much "my" money, as it is yours.

What about the extra hours spent away from home?

Take Athlone as the example you gave. If I had to travel from my home to Athlone for a work meeting, I'd have to leave home at least 90 minutes / 2 hours earlier then my normal time and I can reasonably expect my return home to be delayed by the same amount.

That's up to four extra hours on my work day. I don't know about you, but my time isn't donated for free, and given my current hourly rate of pay, mileage wouldn't compensate for that.

Lackadaisical

I'd this problem myself when I was in my 20s and in my first serious job in large Irish company. A line manager was expecting me to buy all sorts of things (including items of furniture costing hundreds of Euro at one stage) on my personal cards and then claim it back at the end of the month.

I was sent to an event and had no money in my current account and couldn't pay for some items and she screamed blue murder at me over the phone and in a meeting calling me 'incompetent' amongst other things. I ended up reluctantly going to HR (I was a bit of a moron and was going to just take it on the chin). She wasn't our manager a few days later.

biZrb

krissovo wrote: »

No matter how well you budget there are months where the payment back from your expenses are delayed or an exceptional month where expenses are higher than normal.

I think people aren't grasping this point. Not all expenses are paid on time for numerous reasons. Some companies require you to get them physically signed off and to submit paper receipts, if you aren't in the office to hand in those receipts and get whoever it is to sign off on them to do so, you can miss the expenses deadline. When traveling frequently it can be hard to manage your money and knowing exactly how much you can spend as your monthly income is different each month as expenses are different each month.
Travelling for work in general is awful, like others have said you end up working more and traveling to/from places at the weekends and you don't get that time in lieu.

meeeeh

AulWan wrote: »

I am taxpayer so its as much "my" money, as it is yours.

What about the extra hours spent away from home?

Take Athlone as the example you gave. If I had to travel from my home to Athlone for a work meeting, I'd have to leave home at least 90 minutes / 2 hours earlier then my normal time and I can reasonably expect my return home to be delayed by the same amount.

That's up to four extra hours on my work day. I don't know about you, but my time isn't donated for free, and given my current hourly rate of pay, mileage wouldn't compensate for that.

Mileage isn't there to compensate for that. If your employer doesn't want to pay you extra hours you spend on road working it's completely different issue but you are not entitled to tax free extras just because you are traveling.

AndrewJRenko

meeeeh wrote: »

It's not up to 24. If you stay overnight you will get overnight allowance. If you work extra hours next day you will get day allowance too. Subsistence is not income, it's to cover the cost of travel and it's fairly easy to do it at these rates. I can tell you it's almost always cheaper if we cover actual cost of hotel and meals than if we pay flat rate.

It literally is the subsistence allowance for up to 24 hours. Though that's rarely the case. My real point is that if you do a 16 or 18 hour day, not unusual if you do a return trip say to Sligo or Donegal, then you're still on your €33. A couple of coffees or maybe even the extravagance of a glass of wine on the return journey with a colleague (something that for me I wouldn't be drinking at home on a weeknight), and you're even more out of pocket.


You might pay out less then paying flat rate, but you're also paying for the time for people to collate, submit, review and approve each individual receipt for each individual meal - which is why the flat rate payment makes perfect financial sense. Almost any organisation that has people on the road full time, like sales reps, will pay flat rate.

meeeeh

I'm well aware that flat rate makes sense my point is it's not miserable but it's there to pay for cost that's why it's not taxed. Not to give you some extra spending money. And frankly a glass of wine on the way back especially if you are driving is not what subsistence is for.

AndrewJRenko

meeeeh wrote: »

I'm well aware that flat rate makes sense my point is it's not miserable but it's there to pay for cost that's why it's not taxed. Not to give you some extra spending money. And frankly a glass of wine on the way back especially if you are driving is not what subsistence is for.

I never said it was 'miserable'. I said it was 'not generous'. And it's not.

Stheno

I've worked in places that did flat rate, places that had specific rates and now have a company card which all expenses get put on in advance, the company pay it in full each month and I reconcile my expenses against what's on the card.

Means never having to worry about travelling for work.

We also get time in lieu if we travel out of hours

AulWan

meeeeh wrote: »

Mileage isn't there to compensate for that. If your employer doesn't want to pay you extra hours you spend on road working it's completely different issue but you are not entitled to tax free extras just because you are traveling.

I'm very glad I don't work for you. Not only do you begrudge mileage, you obviously don't think there should be any monetary compensation for extra long days either. Jeez.

I wouldn't be long about handing in my notice and seeking alternative employment with an employer like that.

glomar

my company sorta issues credit cards . . they get you an american express ( who the hell takes this ! )
problem is while they do pay card off each month assuming every transaction is itemized , if for whatever reason they dont agree .. as the card is in your name and not the companies you stuck it it .. pretty stingy in my opinion

killbillvol2

AulWan wrote: »

I'm very glad I don't work for you. Not only do you begrudge mileage, you obviously don't think there should be any monetary compensation for extra long days either. Jeez.

I wouldn't be long about handing in my notice and seeking alternative employment with an employer like that.

I find it highly unlikely that he/she is an employer.

meeeeh

AulWan wrote: »

I'm very glad I don't work for you. Not only do you begrudge mileage, you obviously don't think there should be any monetary compensation for extra long days either. Jeez.

I wouldn't be long about handing in my notice and seeking alternative employment with an employer like that.

We pay travel as any other work and overtime rates for anything over 8 hours. That has nothing to do with travel subsistence. Considering we do require our employees to be able to understand basic concepts you are in no danger of ever working for us.

Just to be clear at what we do we charge for travel and we pay for travel. Commission type jobs or jobs where salary is agreed might have different arrangements that's why I don't like generalising. Wages are something completely separate from expenses.

AulWan

So if this is true you actually pay more then PS rates (which you earlier claimed you pay) yet you're moaning that PS rates are too much? >_>

I don't get what your problem is really, other then someone who just likes to moan about anything and everything to do with the public service just because its public service. I know that concept all too well.

OP, this thread has gone miles off topic, I hope your husband gets something sorted out.

Mellor

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Interesting to see how you avoid answering the question about your own expenses, and whether anything is deducted for the cost of the food you would have eaten anyway. And yes, you might be able to eat it a different day. Or it might be gone off, or in the bin by then - another little extra hidden cost that needs to be covered by the 'generous €33 per day.

Avoided answering the question??
It's right there in my last post.

Mellor wrote: »

AndrewJRenko wrote:

Is that how your expenses work - you deduct an amount for what you would have eaten anyway?

I didn't deduct anything from the expense. I used the numbers you gave, claiming the full 33 euro allowance.
You said going over the allowance on the road leaves you out of pocket. I was point out that's not actually true as the alternative isn't nil-cost. And on the numbers you gave, it was the cheaper option.
If you want to maximise your pseudo-profit, you could easily stick to the 33 allowance. The maths involved isn't complicated tbh.

You might want to work on the reading comprehension along with the arithmetic.

Mellor

AulWan wrote: »

I'm very glad I don't work for you. Not only do you begrudge mileage, you obviously don't think there should be any monetary compensation for extra long days either.

I wouldn't be long about handing in my notice and seeking alternative employment with an employer like that.

They should be compensated with overtime or time in lieu for long days including travel, and overnight pay for overnight work. Not by accepting expenses and mileages as compensation.
For example, PS workers get an €147 overnight rate (€180/day inc the €33 meal allowance)

I'm aware that some people treat expenses and allowances as bonus pay because they lack other compensation. The issue there is the lack of other compensation.

wench

Mellor wrote: »

For example, PS workers get an €147 overnight rate (€180/day inc the €33 meal allowance)

The 147 replaces the 33, you don't get both.
To get 180 would require you to be gone for two days (ie over 34 hours).

Mellor

wench wrote: »

The 147 replaces the 33, you don't get both.
To get 180 would require you to be gone for two days (ie over 34 hours).

Thanks for clarifying (I’m not PS). It did seem relatively high compared to the day rate. Would you get the half day rate from 29 hours?

wench

Mellor wrote: »

Thanks for clarifying (I’m not PS). It did seem relatively high compared to the day rate. Would you get the half day rate from 29 hours?

Yes, you would.

AndrewJRenko

Mellor wrote: »

Avoided answering the question??
It's right there in my last post.



You might want to work on the reading comprehension along with the arithmetic.

You didn't say anything about how your own expenses claims work unfortunately.

Mellor

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You didn't say anything about how your own expenses claims work unfortunately.

You asked if I deduct from my expenses like the example.
There was no deduction in the example. That's the only logically answer to that question.

What would you like to know about my expenses?

Lackadaisical

Expenses should be expenses and not a perk or a burden. I find it a bit much that some employers do seem to expect employees to effectively augment their cash flow by using their personal finances as a buffer.

It seems reasonable to me that a company that’s expecting people to regularly run up expensive a should provide a charge card or credit card with a 30 day claim time. It’s a different issue where it’s a once in a blue moon thing where you’ve some exceptional item you’ve paid for but it’s bad form, in my opinion, to be expecting people to just operate as an extension of the company’s current account. Where someone’s got regular expenses they should have an easy system to account for them and ensure they’re promptly paid.

I never understood the logic of mixing up people’s personal finances in work finances. It’s a huge admin headache and it’s also very prone to abuse in both directions.

We’ve also got tech like payment cards at our disposal in a way we didn’t decades ago. So it’s fairly inexcusable. It’s not that hard to reconcile an expense claim with payments if you have the right infrastructure in place. All you should need is a quick flip through an online statement and compare that to the receipts and expense account sent in each month. Yet, so many companies still seem to operate in total chaos with this kind of thing.

AndrewJRenko

Mellor wrote: »

You asked if I deduct from my expenses like the example.
There was no deduction in the example. That's the only logically answer to that question.

What would you like to know about my expenses?

Nope, I didn't say "like the example". That seems to have been an assumption on your part.

I asked if a deduction is made from your expenses claim to cover the cost of food that you would have eaten anyway?

Mellor

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Nope, I didn't say "like the example". That seems to have been an assumption on your part.

You said “Is that how...”
The “that” refers to the example I gave. Just basic English.

If your sentence was poorly constructed and you meant something else, by all means clarify.

I asked if a deduction is made from your expenses claim to cover the cost of food that you would have eaten anyway?

No of course not. Why would anyone make deductions prior to expenses.
What a strange and irrelevant question.

ted1

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It literally is the subsistence allowance for up to 24 hours. Though that's rarely the case. My real point is that if you do a 16 or 18 hour day, not unusual if you do a return trip say to Sligo or Donegal, then you're still on your €33. A couple of coffees or maybe even the extravagance of a glass of wine on the return journey with a colleague (something that for me I wouldn't be drinking at home on a weeknight), and you're even more out of pocket.


You might pay out less then paying flat rate, but you're also paying for the time for people to collate, submit, review and approve each individual receipt for each individual meal - which is why the flat rate payment makes perfect financial sense. Almost any organisation that has people on the road full time, like sales reps, will pay flat rate.

That 33 euro is your lunch and dinner allowances and is payable big you are out of the office , Milage is different

ted1

Dial Hard wrote: »

It was 12c per km in one private sector company I worked in, regardless of engine size. 40c is generous, slice it any way you want. And let us not forget that the top rate is actually 59c.

It’s 69.9c top rate. But you seen to think it covers just fuel. There’s wear and tear , tax, and higher class insurance. For me if I didn’t do sporadic company mileage I wouldn’t bother having a car.

AndrewJRenko

Mellor wrote: »

You said “Is that how...”
The “that” refers to the example I gave. Just basic English.

If your sentence was poorly constructed and you meant something else, by all means clarify.

Did you try reading the full sentence which included the clause that the THAT refers to?

Mellor wrote: »

No of course not. Why would anyone make deductions prior to expenses.
What a strange and irrelevant question.

Good to know. Quite a few people have raised the matter in relation to my 'generous' €33 allowance for 24 hours, strangely enough, so it's great to get confirmation that it is not relevant.

Mellor

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Did you try reading the full sentence which included the clause that the THAT refers to?

That always refers to what was said previously.
Again this is really basic English.

Good to know. Quite a few people have raised the matter in relation to my 'generous' €33 allowance for 24 hours, strangely enough, so it's great to get confirmation that it is not relevant.

You changed from saying I said it to saying other “people”. But they didn’t, it was some nonsense you made up to deflect from your struggle with simple addition.
Dig up man, dig up.

AndrewJRenko

Mellor wrote: »

That always refers to what was said previously.
Again this is really basic English.

Source please.

Mellor wrote: »

You changed from saying I said it

Where exactly did I say that you said it?

Mellor

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Source please.

It's a basic English word that kids learn on primary school.
Are honestly disputing it's meaning.

Where exactly did I say that you said it?

I posted the difference in the two amounts you posted. You quoted me and replied with the below.

Is that how your expenses work - you deduct an amount for what you would have eaten anyway?

Are you serious trying to say that it was directed at somebody else.
Just. Keep. Digging.

AndrewJRenko

Mellor wrote: »

It's a basic English word that kids learn on primary school.
Are honestly disputing it's meaning.

Perhaps I missed that day in low babies, but I don't remember any teachers insisting that 'that' referred to that which came before, rather than that which came after. The dictionary definition seems to be open to various different structures.


https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/that

Mellor wrote: »

I posted the difference in the two amounts you posted. You quoted me and replied with the below.

Are you serious trying to say that it was directed at somebody else.
Just. Keep. Digging.

IIRC, you weren't the only one to bring up this point about the food you would buy/eat anyway. To be honest, I'm not 100% certain that you weren't the only one. I haven't gone back to pick through posts one by one, and tbh, I'm not that bothered either way.


In my experience, that's how these discussions often work. We can all see responses directed at one person, and we can all react and respond to those.


But to get back to the important issue, it's good to hear that other people don't get anything deducted off their expenses to cover the food that they would have bought anyway. That's really the important issue, isn't it?

Mellor wrote: »

It's a basic English word that kids learn on primary school.
Are honestly disputing it's meaning.



I posted the difference in the two amounts you posted. You quoted me and replied with the below.


Are you serious trying to say that it was directed at somebody else.
Just. Keep. Digging.

Mellor wrote: »

It's a basic English word that kids learn on primary school.
Are honestly disputing it's meaning.



I posted the difference in the two amounts you posted. You quoted me and replied with the below.


Are you serious trying to say that it was directed at somebody else.
Just. Keep. Digging.

Mellor

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Perhaps I missed that day in low babies, but I don't remember any teachers insisting that 'that' referred to that which came before, rather than that which came after. The dictionary definition seems to be open to various different structures.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/that

Yes, there are different uses. The contect of your post was the definition labeled 2. The Former one.

You do realise that "which came after" is still past tense right?

Here's another definition

that
[ðat]

PRONOUN
used to identify a specific person or thing observed or heard by the speaker.
"that's his wife over there" · [more]
referring to a specific thing previously mentioned, known, or understood.
"that's a good idea" · [more]

Here's more.
As I said, this is basic stuff. Baby infants as you said

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/that

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/that?s=t

IIRC, you weren't the only one to bring up this point about the food you would buy/eat anyway. To be honest, I'm not 100% certain that you weren't the only one. I haven't gone back to pick through posts one by one, and tbh, I'm not that bothered either way.

But to get back to the important issue, it's good to hear that other people don't get anything deducted off their expenses to cover the food that they would have bought anyway. That's really the important issue, isn't it?

The only person who brought up deducting the food they would have eaten was you.

AndrewJRenko

Mellor wrote: »

Yes, there are different uses. The contect of your post was the definition labeled 2. The Former one.

You do realise that "which came after" is still past tense right?

Here's another definition



Here's more.
As I said, this is basic stuff. Baby infants as you said

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/that

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/that?s=t

Really? The context of my post was the definition that doesn't actually match it at all, as opposed one of the several definitions that DO actually match my post, such as;

the person, thing, or idea indicated, mentioned, or understood from the situation



or




the kind or thing specified as follows



or


one or a group of the indicated kind

That's a strange and fairly selective interpretation - choosing the one possible wrong interpretation instead of any of the multiple possible right interpretations.

Mellor wrote: »

The only person who brought up deducting the food they would have eaten was you.

Eh no, three other people brought it up, including your good self.


https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=110938599&postcount=83
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=110941524&postcount=88
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=110942246&postcount=95
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=110943668&postcount=101

Stheno

Mellor/Andrew

Please take your argument elsewhere it's not useful

In other words stop posting in this thread

mod