Work expenses no credit card

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