Why isn't money spent on necessities deductible from your taxes?
"Law is a mass of special cases, informed by but not driven by some general principles. Tax law likewise. Don't try to make it make sense; you will only confuse yourself.  Not all ""necessities"" are deductable, only those which someone has explicitly passed a law to make deductable." The answer is simple. You can generally claim a deduction for an expense if that expense was used to derive an income. Of course social policy sometimes gets in the way and allows for deductions where they usually wouldn't be allowed. Your rent is not tax deductible because this expense is not used to derive your income. If however you were working from your home, example - you had a home based business, and you dedicated a part of your home for your work, say an office, then part of your rent may then become tax deductible. "You could debate the ""why""s of tax policy endlessly. There are lots of things in tax law that I think are bad ideas, and probably a few here and there that I think are good ideas. I am well aware that there are things that I think are good ideas that others think are bad ideas and vice versa.  To your specific point: I suppose you could say that having a place to live is a necessity. But most people do not live in the absolute minimum necessary to give them a place to sleep and protection from the weather. You could survive with a one-room apartment with a bed on one side and a toilet and some minimal cooking facilities on the other. Most people have considerably more than that. At some point that's luxury and not necessity. And if you want to push it, you COULD live in a cardboard box under a bridge, you don't NEED a house or apartment to survive. Personally I think it's absurd that as a home-owner I get a deduction for my mortgage interest, while if someone were to rent an identical house with a monthly rental equal to exactly the same amount that I am paying on my mortgage, he would receive no deduction. The stated goal of that one was to encourage home ownership. But people who own homes are generally richer than those who rent, so the net result is that the poor are paying higher taxes to help subsidize the homes of the rich. And then the rich congratulate themselves on how they are giving these tax breaks to help make housing more affordable for poor people. To reiterate @keshlam, tax laws only makes sense when understood politically. Yes, some people have fine ideas about what is fair and just. Others simply want tax breaks that benefit their business or people with tough financial situations that just happen by chance to resemble their own. Many of the people with noble ideas have little concept of what the implications of the policies they push are. Many of the ideas that some people view as worthy and noble, others view as frivolous, counter-productive, or even evil. Then you mash all these competing groups and interest together and see what comes out." Another way to look at it is that deductibles are intended as incentives or subsidies to particular industries (in this case the healthcare industry). Guaranteeing a decent standard of living and making sure everybody can meet the costs of “necessities” can be achieved much more easily by a low tax rate on the first XXX$ of income and/or generic welfare benefits rather than any measure focused on making healthcare, food or whatnot cheaper or free under certain conditions. Incidentally, many countries do have different forms of benefits or tax breaks for accommodation-related expenses.
"&gt; What does it even mean for something ""to come out of IT's budget?""  From the IT managers perspective he has a budget of X dollars to allocate. When X dollars are spent that's it, he isn't allowed to spend any more.   If unforeseen expenses are incurred (e.g. the computers for the new hires) and deducted from his budget that leaves a deficit that has to account for, usually by dropping something else he had previously though urgent enough to spend money on.  How this is represented in the books is of no interest to the IT manager. His world view is limited to “I had X dollars, now I only have X-Y dollars.”" You have many options, and there is no one-size-fits-all recommendation. You can contribute to your IRA in addition to your 401(k), but because you have that 401(k), it is not tax-deductable. So there is little advantage in putting money in the IRA compared to saving it in a personal investment account, where you keep full control over it. It does, however, open the option to do a backdoor-rollover from that IRA to a Roth IRA, which is a good idea to have; you will not pay any taxes if you do that conversion, if the money in the IRA was not tax deducted (which it isn't as you have the 401(k)). You can also contribute to a Roth IRA directly, if you are under the income limits for that (193k$ for married, I think, not sure for single). If this is the case, you don't need to take the detour through the IRA with the backdoor-rollover. Main advantage for Roth is that gains are tax free. There are many other answers here that give details on where to save if you have more money to save. In a nutshell, In between is 'pay off all high-interest debt', I think right after 1. - if you have any. 'High-Interest' means anything that costs more interest than you can expect when investing. To keep the math simple, say you are in the 25% federal tax bracket. Your 4% mortgage effectively costs you 3%. Did Mr Advisor tell you what he suggests investing the money in? Borrowing at 3% net to put the money in .1% CDs makes little sense. And for most people, investing it in the stock market hoping to come out ahead, also makes little sense.  Credentials or not, people like him give humans a bad name, and make me love my dog even more. I'd stay far away from this guy. Very far away.  Edit - on further reflection (seeing mhoran's reference to $100K) it occurred to me that once a house is paid off, the only deductions allowed is for the first $100K of new mortgage or HELOC, absent a renovation or improvement of some kind. Given the limit and current 4% rates, it would seem to me that a rich retiree paying a fortune in taxes, isn't going to benefit much for a $4000 deduction. "Your wages are an expense to your employer and are therefore 100% tax deductible in the business income.  The company should not be paying tax on that, so your double-tax scenario, as described, isn't really correct. [The phrase ""double taxation"" with respect to US corporations usually comes into play with dividends.  In that case, however, it's the shareholders (owners) that pay double.  The answer to ""why?"" in that case can only be ""because it's the law.""]" (1). Is this right? Pretty much, though this is a really rudimentary way to think about it. (2). If it is, why is it that extensive services are provided by high margin companies competing for talent, rather then lower margin businesses looking to boost their profits by reducing their expenditures on employees (by cutting out the government)? It's the polar opposite of that. Google (and companies like that) do things like have a day care center on premises.  The company staffs a day care center which has costs, then lets employees use it for free.  This is a business expense for Google, and in relative terms, a considerably large business expense that a lower margin business could no afford. Employer healthcare is a tax protected expense for employees via section 125 of the tax code.  The company portion of the healthcare costs are a deductible business expense to the company, as expected.  Healthcare is different than most other expenses because the employee can forego income before it's effectively received which negates it from taxable income.   This doesn't work for something like food purchased at a cafe on a Google complex.  If employee money is being spent at a corporate cafe, it's taxable income being spent (though the cost of running the cafe is a tax deductible business expense to the company). There have been discussions in congress to assess a value as income to employees for services like on site child care and no cost employee cafeterias. To address your new example: For example, suppose John Doe makes $100,000 a year taxed at a rate of 20%, for a take home pay of $80,000. He spends $10,000 on food. His employer Corporation decides to give him all of his food and deduct it as a business expense - costing them $10,000. But now they can pay John Doe an amount so his take home pay will be reduced by $10,000 - $87,500 The company is now spending $97500 employing John Doe, for a savings of $2500$. This would be an audit prone administrative nightmare.  Either You need John to submit receipts for reimbursement up to the $10,000 agreed upon amount which would require some kind of administrative staff, or After a very short period of time John forgets the abstract value of the food cost arrangement, that is only really benefiting the employer in the form of lower payroll expense, and is enticed away for more pay somewhere else anyway.  The company may be saving $2,500, though again there will be an additional administrative expense of some sort, but John is only saving $500 ($97,500 * 0.20 - $100,000 * 0.20). "I would say to only bother keeping the ones you know you'll use for itemized deductions. This includes any unreimbursed business expenses and vehicle licensing fees. There are a lot of other itemized tax deductions possible, but those are two common ones. Also, keep track of your business mileage (mileage before and after the trip, and commuting doesn't count as ""business mileage""). You may also want to keep receipts of all out-of-state purchases if your state is one of those that tries to collect state tax on out-of-state purchases. Ensure your supported charities are 501(c)(3), and they'll give you a receipt at the end of the year. Don't bother keeping fast food or gas receipts (unless they're business expenses)." "When I have a question about my income taxes, the first place I look is generally the Giant Book of Income Tax Information, Publication 17 (officially called ""Your Federal Income Tax""). This looks to be covered in Chapter 26 on ""Car Expenses and Other Employee Business Expenses"". It's possible that there's something in there that applies to you if you need to temporarily commute to a place that isn't your normal workplace for a legitimate business reason or other business-related travel. But for your normal commute from your home to your normal workplace it has this to say:  Commuting expenses.   You cannot deduct the costs of taking a bus, trolley, subway, or taxi, or of driving a car between your home and your main or regular place of work. These costs are personal commuting expenses. You cannot deduct commuting expenses no matter how far your home is from your regular place of work. You cannot deduct commuting expenses even if you work during the commuting trip." On form 8829, line 20 you can list utilities paid for the home office. You have two choices: 1) You can list the entire amount under column (b) as an indirect expense. You will then get a deduction for the fraction of the amount based on what fraction of your home is an office. This makes sense if the service equally benefits your entire home. 2) You can compute the portion of the expense reasonably attributable to the business/office and list that amount under column (a). This entire amount will be deducted. Which option you choose depends on how well you think you can allocate the expense between your office and the rest of your home. For example, I have had to do this with electricity, but I specifically measured the electricity used by my office. If you think you can defend allocating a larger portion to the office, use option 2. If you would have paid the same amount even if you didn't have an office, it's hard to justify allocating more of the expense to the office than its portion of the home. If you opted for a more expensive service or otherwise incurred additional costs, it makes sense to allocate a higher fraction to the office and to calculate that yourself.