Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tax working from home 'to support vulnerable jobs' – Deutsche Bank

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 201 posts

Re: Tax working from home 'to support vulnerable jobs' – Deutsche Bank

#111

Post by me_me_me »

gruez wrote: post #109
me_me_me wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe they should consider taxing the office space since businesses do not need to pay for it when most of their staff works from home. Taxation of WFH people is like taxing vegetarians because the tax revenue from sugar tax is too low. Edit: Also fuck banks, of course their employees suggest taxing the middle class.

>Taxation of WFH people is like taxing vegetarians because the tax revenue from sugar tax is too low. How is sugar consumption related to meat eating?

fine, if red meat was taxed for substitute it for sugar tax.

Or better example if cyclists were taxes because they don't pay motor/petrol tax.

Re: Tax working from home 'to support vulnerable jobs' – Deutsche Bank

#112

Post by xenocratus »

black_puppydog wrote: post #82
amadeuspagel wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Why not punish people for building the infrastructure that helped us survive this crisis?"

Straw man. I never said the taxes should cancel out their entire gains.

Yeah, but if you tax more the businesses that helped sustain working from home and keept some parts of the economy going on "as normal", would that incentivise people to create other companies that have that as a goal (or even side effect)? They haven't defrauded people or robbed the money - there was more demand for their product, good for them. Are you going to also tax, for example, any farms that saw an increased demand because of different culinary choices? Apps for home workouts? Restaurants that do takeaway/delivery? Toilet paper manufacturers?

Re: Tax working from home 'to support vulnerable jobs' – Deutsche Bank

#113

Post by fennecfoxen »

black_puppydog wrote: post #70
fennecfoxen wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I beg you explain. First of all, what are you going to tax? Sales / VAT tax? Revenues? Profits? Why is the existing VAT inadequate for this? Is the new tax just going forward, or is it retroactive? How much is Germany specifically supposed to tax NASDAQ:ZM, incorporated in the US? Why just tax Zoom — Cisco, Google, and others have meeting products too (I'm stuck on WebEx, eww) so why should they be treated differentl…

Frankly I'd be fine with simply stepping up the game against tax evasion. If corporations paid their fair share to begin with, we'd have a lot less issues like this to begin with. In terms of concretely for this year (and not being a fiscal expert, just some rando on the web, as I'm sure you're aware) I see governments giving out help to people/companies in need, based on a comparison of current incomes/profits and l…

Your state-capitalism solution punishes the firms which successfully adapted, to rescue the firms which were incapable of adapting. This creates substantial moral hazard and is a key reason why state-managed capitalism sees less innovation, and is instead plagued by inefficient zombie firms which make their profits off bailout funds instead of in the market. The scheme rewards the entrenched interests for running fragile operations, while shutting out new competitors who might be better or more resilient.

Mind you, these zombie firms proliferated in Europe after the 2007 crisis, so this is really nothing new. And the good news is that when you do such a thing, you can avoid more disruption. But the bad news is that doesn't leave the economy more resilient when you're done: it leaves it more fragile. In the years ahead, if Europe is further tested by crisis, we may see the real price that her people have paid, and it might very well fall hardest on those who can least afford it.

Re: Tax working from home 'to support vulnerable jobs' – Deutsche Bank

#114

Post by [deleted] »

inquirerofsorts wrote: post #53
FreshFries wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every option is on the table, when we're "not paying into the system", but your examples are not the issue discussed in the article.

> your examples are not the issue discussed in the article From TFA: "By working from home, people aren't paying for public transport or eating out at restaurants near their places of work" It's exactly what the GP comment referenced.

[deleted]

Re: Tax working from home 'to support vulnerable jobs' – Deutsche Bank

#116

Post by jacknews »

We should tax the banks more.

Because their business model is so intimately tied to state power, they're not really just a business, like others. They're able to create fractional money on which they charge interest, customer deposits are state-insured, even they are almost always first in line for bailouts and other special treatment in challenging times. They can also quite clearly afford to pay more.

Re: Tax working from home 'to support vulnerable jobs' – Deutsche Bank

#117

Post by tonyedgecombe »

neilwilson wrote: post #106
tonyedgecombe wrote: post #11

There will be a bill to pay for lockdowns and I expect tax rises are looming but this policy is bonkers. If some jobs have become zombified because working practices have changed then those jobs need to go. We should support those people through the transition but trying to prop up unviable businesses isn't a sensible policy. Coming out of this period should be a period of creative destruction but it seems to me curr…

"There will be a bill to pay for lockdowns" Why will there be a bill? The cost has already been paid by definition in lost output. And when those that have saved more and borrowed less change their position taxes will automatically rise because tax is a ratio, not a fixed amount. The more activity there is, the more tax arises. Savings are a store of taxation as well as value.

Lost jobs and businesses means less tax revenue and a higher benefits bill.

More borrowing means more debt that needs servicing.

Re: Tax working from home 'to support vulnerable jobs' – Deutsche Bank

#118

Post by gruez »

me_me_me wrote: post #111
gruez wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Taxation of WFH people is like taxing vegetarians because the tax revenue from sugar tax is too low. How is sugar consumption related to meat eating?

fine, if red meat was taxed for substitute it for sugar tax. Or better example if cyclists were taxes because they don't pay motor/petrol tax.

I get your point, and don't disagree with it, but the analogy you used is still off. In the case of fuel taxes, they're mostly used to fund road maintenance. Since the amount of road damage (and therefore maintenance cost) increases exponentially/geometrically with axle weight[1], it doesn't make sense to tax cyclists because the amount of cost they incur is negligible. On the other hand, it does make sense to charge electric vehicles extra $$$, because they incur road wear but don't pay for it via fuel taxes.

[1] https://streets.mn/2016/07/07/chart-of-the-day-vehicle-weigh...

Re: Tax working from home 'to support vulnerable jobs' – Deutsche Bank

#119

Post by marcosdumay »

darkerside wrote: post #62
darkerside wrote: post #58

The macroeconomics of this make sense, but the behavioral impacts of this could be damaging. For that reason, I'd rather see this framed as a tax credit for essential workers. It ends up being similar, but framed as a positive reinforcement instead of a negative punishment.

Another thought, why not tax internet traffic instead? In a world where internet is driven by natural resources, be they spectrum, cables, or other, it makes sense to internalize the costs of those resources to the system.

Cables are not exactly natural resources.

By all means, tax the spectrum. Also work on making its distribution egalitarian.

Re: Tax working from home 'to support vulnerable jobs' – Deutsche Bank

#120

Post by GabrielBen »

aronpye wrote: post #25

Obviously have no evidence for this, but the cynical side of me thinks that this bank wants to destroy working from home in order to keep people going into the office so that companies keep paying for office space. That way banks with holdings in property, property insurance, mortgages, etc. don’t lose money on their investments. There is close to zero chance a bank, the pinnacle of capitalist institutions, supports…

Banks are almost government entities. They are far away from "pinnacle of capitalism".
Post reply on HN