The GP might be suggesting that it benefits both the employer and the employee here. The employee gets a better tax treatment and the employer can have a permissive approach to expenses when it might be politically difficult to officially give a raise.

Ah, OK. Thanks.

For what it's worth: I didn't downvote.

Nevertheless there seems to be an attitude in certain circles that expenses ar a form of free for all.

My assumption is that you have a relationship with your employer, which pays you for work provided. If something stinks in that relationship then it's the stink, which should be removed.

I'm aware that this is an idealized view. Especially in the US where courts seem to be overly employer friendly, or, even worse, where employees are completely shafted by mandatory arbitration clauses.

You are assuming the employer - at least the first level manager, but more likely all the way up - isn't aware of this, and approves.

Allowing expenses as pay is very common, widely practiced and normal. From buying books to hotel room stays to letting family travel along for long trips (and providing entertainment for them). Seems to happen all the time.

Hell, isn't the white house an example of it ?

(I would also like to point out that buying meat for a snake might simply be a mistake. I certainly would have tried feeding a python something dead first, wtf)

Although an official policy of being permissive with what expenses are covered seems like it'd be better than "we look away when you lie on your expenses claim". Legal safety for the employee, more fairness among employees. E.g. the first example in the article of someone having the company pay for dog care during business travel seems something that'd be fairly easy to justify as a policy.