I was going to say, in Australia you would be able to claim that as a work expense against your income, reducing your tax owed.

But it looks like in the US, you would need to be self employed or own a business where it is an expense. Which is a bummer.

Reducing tax is nowhere near dollar for dollar, it would still be a huge cost. If the company wants it, they can pay.

> you would be able to claim that as a work expense against your income

only if it was necessary for the job, and the employer would've otherwise paid for it.

But if the employer originally paid for an LLM, but chose not to now, i am not sure that you personally paying for one is tax deductible (might have to argue it out with the tax office).

> I would most certainly work the extra hours without it.

If PRs dropped by 95% then you'd have to work 20 times more hours to compensate. If you work 2 hours per week it's doable but if more than it's strenuous to impossible.

Reality check: you work same hours as before and that is it. It is not like Claude would made people worl less before, they ended up burning out. Removing it wont make them work more.

This indicates engineering culture where no one reads or checks PR and just merges as long as tests are passed.

people pay out of pocket for transport to job all the time. granted, $1k/month is quite high, and personally i would say that it ought to be an employer responsibility to provide the tooling (and bear all the costs). But it is understandable, if not foolhardy imho.

> people pay out of pocket for transport to job all the time.

Not an equivalent example, at all. Firstly, because people _have_ to have a car to get to work in 99% of the world (unfortunately). Also, it is a durable good where if you no longer need it, you can sell it and recover some of the value.

Well yeah. Like my bills aren’t going down, so taking a haircut on the salary isn’t really a great option.

Get him fired for using unauthorized personal subscription.