Comment 97170

By Fred Street (anonymous) | Posted January 24, 2014 at 16:25:38 in reply to Comment 97166

In a grocery store or a restaurant, the cost of stock materials would be part of the operating costs – an ongoing expense. Nobody considers menu items a capital expense. The PBW1 logic would allow you to argue equally well that wages are a one-time expense, since pay is tied to time, which expires moment to moment. Or perhaps you could put it toward a year's worth of hydro bills.

Industry Canada defines operating expenses as "charges that are produced as a result of the regular operations of a business." For a food program, that would presumably be the food. (Indeed, as these programs are often volunteer-reliant, it may be the only cost.) And as Highwater points out, the fact that these programs perennially return for seconds is another indicator of an operating expense. Yes, feeding hungry kids is a motherhood issues, and it's exactly this emotional lens that blurs things to the point when semantic gymnastics get a pass.

It's a shame that the logic around this issue is not universally appreciated or the lines more clearly drawn.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds