"In another sign of a new focus on the issue, the IRS and U.S. Treasury Department last week included taxation of "employer-provided meals" in their annual list of top tax priorities for the fiscal year ending next June."
IRS has nothing else to do... May be they can look for the destroyed/missed emails instead?
It really destroys the UX of HN. Support the WSJ if you would like and browse the articles on that site. Don't submit them to a site where one expects to be able to read the article that is linked to. In this case the valleywag blog spam summary of this article is more useful because I can actually read it.
Comments
I actually agree with the IRS that gourmet free food should be a taxable fringe benefit.
The food at Google was awesome, but I would not have minded paying a fair income tax on it. Fair is fair.
"In another sign of a new focus on the issue, the IRS and U.S. Treasury Department last week included taxation of "employer-provided meals" in their annual list of top tax priorities for the fiscal year ending next June."
IRS has nothing else to do... May be they can look for the destroyed/missed emails instead?
A WSJ article that is pay walled and has no comments is on the HN second page, approaching HN front page. Something is wrong with this.
What specifically is wrong? Are there too many paying WSJ supscribers on HN?
It really destroys the UX of HN. Support the WSJ if you would like and browse the articles on that site. Don't submit them to a site where one expects to be able to read the article that is linked to. In this case the valleywag blog spam summary of this article is more useful because I can actually read it.
Try this: http://www.jongales.com/blog/2014/02/13/how-to-get-around-th...
Thanks. Doesn't appear to work anymore. Googling the URL still works but it's a pain.
WSJ allows a certain number of free reads per month.
It was the second day of the month. The first time I have been to WSJ this month.
Why is it a problem? The WSJ has high quality reporting. If the content is worth reading, then support the creators.
Perhaps it is not a quarrel with the WSJ policies, but with the upvoting of an item people may not care to read.
Actually, both but specifically the fact that it seemed to be approaching the front page in a state that most people could not have read it.