I think it depends on the approver, company, culture etc. Personally I think it's a fine thing to do, but just wondered what people thought.

For instance it's kinda an unwritten rule to regularly eat expensive meals right? So in that same line of thinking, you might get a few eyebrows raised if you spend $100 even if you only expense $50 of it.

Once again I think it depends on your company's culture and the people approving. I'm a food oriented person so I can understand if people treat themselves once in a while to a nice meal.

In a government agency the worst that can happen is your expenses are made public in response to an access to information request and you are defending your high-flying lifestyle on the front page of your local newspaper.

If you need a fancy meal and nice wine buy it yourself. Business travel is not an excuse to live to a standard above your usual lifestyle.

Interesting logic. You probably wouldn't last a day employed in management at my firm however.

It's real simple Eltham. If I produce more business than the next 3 salesmen combined, I expect to be 'rewarded', not bribed, with the same income as those other 3 salesmen combined. Why shouldn't I? Do you think we should all be paid the same? How I choose to negotiate receiving my just reward is my business.

Early in my sales career, when I landed my first $1 million plus order (in the 80s when a million was worth something), I got a pat on the back and the company President, with his wife, took my girlfriend and I out to dinner at his choice of restaurant. At the time, it was the single largest order in that company's history. That's when I understood the saying, 'no applause please, just throw cash.' I remember clearly, sitting there and thinking, 'a pat on the back and dinner at a restaurant I didn't even pick myself, that's my reward.' That was also the last time I ever worked for a salary. At year's end, I negotiated a new compensation package based on 100% commission. Not the domain of those afraid of risk.

Businesses have always rewarded high performers with promotions, corner offices, first class travel and hotels, year end performance bonuses, etc. etc. If all you think you have to pay me is the same as any mediocre employee, you are in for a surprise. I expect to be paid based on results, not based on a 'job description pay scale'. If my sales are 'off the scale', so should my pay be. Those who think we should all be paid the same based on a job description, are those who would earn the least if paid based on their performance.

Even in low level jobs like a guy on a factory production line, you get the 'old hands' telling an eager new employee to 'slow down' or the company will expect them all to produce more per day. That is the domain of the mediocre. I once stood in the middle of an office full of people and proclaimed out loud, in frustration, 'I'm going to put a big poster up on that wall that says, 'Think small and conform.' There are always people trying to hold a high performer down to their level.

Check the expenses of the bean counters and pen pushers if you will, they are only a cost to a company, they are 'staff' positions which produce no actual product unlike those in 'line' positions. But for salespeople, check their sales to expenses ratio. If my expenses are equal to 1% of my sales, who cares how much that 1% actually represents in $. Try negotiating a percentage of expenses:sales with me, Im amenable to that. Then negotiate the percentage of commission I will be paid, I'm amenable to that. If I don't produce, then I don't get paid. I want a total package that pays me 5% of every $1 I bring in.

Now for those complaining about their expense 'limits', how many are willing to do the same?

Logic is always interesting enviroian. I am not a fan or believer in any way of the term 'employed'. Other than as a legal description, I've never considered myself to be 'employed' by anyone other than myself. I've never 'worked for' a company, I've always 'worked for' myself. The companies I worked with may have considered me an employee, but I never did.

My approach is that basically, at the end of each and every day, a person has produced X amount and a company has paid them an agreed amount for doing so. So at the end of each day, they are even. No one owes the other anything and no one owns the other in any way. Both are free to go their separate ways if they wish. If you are working with me and you don't produce, I am free to say, 'you didn't produce enough today, your services are no longer required.' You are free to say, 'you didn't pay me enough for today relative to the amount I produced, I no longer care to work with you.' That to me is logical.

Now your 'firm' might not like that idea at all. Especially the, 'you didn't pay me enough today, so I'm leaving.' They might prefer to think they are in charge/control of their 'employees'. But who really cares what your 'firm' would prefer? Not me. I tried to instill that same thinking as a Sales Manager into those I worked with. Some got it, some didn't. Your firm wouldn't have to worry about me 'fitting in' to their ideas of management, I probably wouldn't last a day with them as you say, if they insisted on that. The difference is that you think they wouldn't want me, while the reality is I wouldn't tolerate them or their rules. If they have agreed to pay me X amount to produce Y results, all I expect them to do is get out of my way and let me do what I do best. If they then try to get in my way, I no longer feel any obligation to do anything for them and I am in charge of that, not them. They can't make me produce for them, only I control that.

Many companies talk about, and a whole raft of 'consultants' profit from, the idea of 'motivating' their employees. There is nothing a company can do to motivate an 'employee' however that can come close to the self-motivation of a person who knows they work for themselves and not for a company. All a company has to do is get out of the way and let them do their best.

Nor most major firms / companies...this post really gave me pause about sales practices (not to go too far off topic).

I have worked in a technical support role with the sales dept of my company for about 18 years now. I've run into dozens of windbags in that time. Among my group we always address them as "Senator". Their (apparent) success is based on what is known as the "filibuster negotiation" - basically, the customer will sign anything just to get them to stop talking.

Travel expense policy recently took a turn for the worse at the small (<500 employee) company I work at. Additional documentation is now being required even on minor meal expenses -- like the three $6-ish breakfasts I charged last week. What, you want a selfie of me with the bagel and diet coke so you know the receipt I already provided isn't a fake? In addition there are ignorant demands like, "Could you please explain why your hotel cost more on Tuesday-Wednesday nights than on Monday night." Yeah, bozo, it's called demand-based pricing, and it's been standard in the hotel industry for decades. I've already begun the conversation with my management that these policies a) cost the company more in lost productivity than they save, and b) make me less willing to travel in support of business.

Where exactly is this 'unethical, immoral and possibly illegal' activity you are referring to? I have never done any of that in order to get a sale and have never encouraged anyone else to do so. You are making a statement as if you were talking about facts, when none have been presented by me or anyone else that indicate any kind of wrong doing.

I could argue that anyone who gets FF points when flying on company business and then uses them for personal gain ie. upgrade or personal travel, is stealing from the company. I'm sure though that most people here would not see it that way, not when it is them personally that are getting the points. If you are trying to suggest that if I expensed a meal that cost more than a Big Mac, that I am acting in an unethical manner, that's just ridiculous.

So tell me exactly what unethical or possibly illegal activity you are referring to.

In what way gwade? Please be specific. It is easy to interpret your comment as stated in any way someone wants to interpret it. Should I take it that you are referring to companies who try to tell a salesperson how to do their job and put obstacles in their path to doing it?

Presumably he/she is referring to the provision of expensive dinners / £300 bottles of wine / whatever else is offered to buyers as, essentially, a bribe designed to induce them to make a decision based not solely on an objective assessment of price and quality, and not solely in the interests of their paymasters / shareholders.

A perfect example of a company that doesn't understand how to handle expenses darthbimmer. The result as you note is a person becoming demotivated.

What many companies, managers and bean counters never seem to understand is the concept of trust. If an expense I put in is perhaps somehow not legally allowed by the tax people, I can understand it being questioned and I would expect that to be made clear to me when the expense is questioned. Other than that however, if an expense I put in is questioned without it being tax related, then the person questioning me should consider the message they are giving me beyond the question. The message is that I am not trusted and my integrity is being questioned. It is important for the person being questioned to realize that is the actual message they are being given. It should result in a high degree of indignation on the individual's part!

Let me repeat that. I am not trusted and my integrity is being questioned. I would make it clear to management that this person who is questioning your expenses is questioning your integrity unless they have a very good reason for questioning at all. Management are people too and not infallible. They may not(probably) have looked at it from your perspective as questioning your integrity. If the only reason your expenses are being questioned is to try and 'save a few dollars' for the company, then I would suggest that the person needs to be taught that their job is not to put obstacles in the way of people doing their job. To be fair, often the bean counters are in fact measured by whether or not they 'save a few dollars'. That is a management mistake in that case, not the bean counters mistake.

I'm reminded of the old story of the salesman who was called in by his manager one day for a 'chat'. The manager told him that he had noticed the salesman's average number of visits to customers was 12 per week, while the overall average for all salespeople was 15. The manager suggested that it might be an efficient use of time issue. The salesperson nodded his head in acceptance and said, 'OK, I'll work on increasing my number.' A month later, he was called in again by the manager. The manager said, 'well, your average last month was 20 per week. that's a huge improvement. How did you do it?' The salesman replied, 'oh, it wasn't hard at all to increase it. I could have increased it to 25 or even 30 but some of the clients wanted me to actually spend time talking with them.'

You can spend time on all kinds of things including finding a $5 breakfast and the lowest possible hotel price, etc. etc. Or you can spend your time doing what you are supposed to be doing, making sales. The question to ask is, which would the company prefer you to do?

I'm not saying there has never been a salesperson who hasn't 'padded' their expenses or stayed in a more expensive hotel because they got 'points' from doing so. In any job, there are people who behave in an unethical way for their own gain. But treating all people as if that were applicable to all individuals, is in fact saying that the relationship between the individual and the company is adversarial. They are questioning the individual's integrity and saying they are playing a win/lose game with the company.

This attitude exists in many companies. All employees are out to screw their employer is the belief and as a result you have employees who believe all companies are out to screw the employee. Unfortunately, in our society today, this adversarial win/lose attitude is all too common. But it does not mean that people cannot learn how to have a win/win approach to everything. The irony is that with win/lose, neither side actually wins.

Your employer or at least the person questioning your expenses is playing win/lose darthbimmer.

I read that and what I see is '18 years in one company and one role'. That tells me all I need to know.