It makes good economic sense.
I really dislike this "us vs them" attitude. Sure the company has free food and sure you can have lunch with your colleagues and sure that's more likely to happen than if you had to find your own lunch but...
- you don't have to have lunch with your colleagues
- you don't have to eat at your desk or work through lunch
- you don't have to have a short lunch
I love the food simply because it's something I don't want to have to think about. I'm certainly not going to make my own lunch. It's not even about the money of going out and buying lunch. I just don't want to think about what I want for lunch today, where should I get it from, when should I go, how long will I have to queue, will it be a pain getting out of and back into the building (eg elevator queues) and so on. I just eat whatever is on offer that day.
So while the company may benefit from you being more likely to eat with your colleagues and that undeniably helps build culture overall, it's also of clear benefit to me and many others.
Why does this have to be a zero-sum game?
Try this experiment: pick a friend that you eat out with a lot and set up a system where you each alternate picking up the whole bill. You'll each spend the same amount of money on aggregate, but I am confident each of you will feel better every time you go out.
Too many companies will not provide food or overtime.
Food, car allowances/company car, travel and gym vouchers and virtually any other kind of benefit are taxed all over the world it’s also one of the easiest things to tax since the company knows how much it’s paying per head for each of those items.
Basically if it’s an expense that can be expensed for normal business reasons it’s not a BIK but anything else is taxable.
For food specifically if it’s just your normal lunch it’s a BIK if it’s a lunch while traveling for business or performing another business related activity such a business lunch with a client it’s an allowable expense.