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

121–130 of 201 posts

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

#121

Post by dhdhhdd »

xlm1717 wrote: post #7
maxharris wrote: post #2

Instead of penalizing change, why not encourage it? When you work from home, you don't put anywhere near the carbon into the atmosphere that you would commuting. You also spend a lot less on lunch, and you don't need to put your children into state-run schools that are really there to function as daycare centers as much as they are to educate. If all of that office space in downtown areas stays dark, and the zoning l…

They can't help but penalize change. Work from home is a change that is resulting in much lower tax revenue, and they need new income streams to make up for it. "It argues this is only fair, as those who work from home are saving money and not paying into the system like those who go out to work." They simply need more people to "pay into the system" again.

I'm spending more on heating, electricity, water and food...

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

#122

Post by wutbrodo »

flashyfaffe2 wrote: post #110

Its quite unusual to have so witty comments on this forum. I believe a lot have been said here and it reveals how the so called economist at DB thinks. On my side,I would just like to add a reference to F.Bastia And its well known sophism: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/frederic-bastiat.asp#:~... .

I think it's just because this is the rare case where pretty much everyone agrees with how stupid the proposal is (thanks again, Europe's regulatory culture!)

When there's a significant balance of good-faith disagreement, mocking turns the temperature up substantially and people tend to avoid it more.

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

#123

Post by dwaltrip »

yonisto wrote: post #77
daniellarusso wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Preserve the status quo at all costs. Is there a term for that?

We also need a name for those who wish to ruin everything good with taxation.

Examples of large, modern societies flourishing without the use of taxation?

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

#124

Post by [deleted] »

0xfaded wrote: post #46
spyke112 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious, which jobs do you define as bullshit?

There's a whole book on that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit_Jobs To quote wikipedia "The author contends that more than half of societal work is pointless, both large parts of some jobs and, as he describes, five types of entirely pointless jobs: flunkies, who serve to make their superiors feel important, e.g., receptionists, administrative assistants, door attendants goons, who oppose other goons hired by o…

[deleted]

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

#125

Post by unglaublich »

This is absurd. Not having to take public transport and not eating in restaurants is considered a 'unfair financial benefit'? People that don't use those facilities have to pay for those that have? How is this different from people that work in expensive and cheap neighborhood? Why don't we all contribute to the expensive lives of people in Los Angeles, Hong Kong and New York because it's unfair that the rest of the world lives so cheap?

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

#127

Post by starfleet_bop »

GabrielBen wrote: post #120
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".

Privately owned banks, which encompasses all banks in the western world, bar central banks, are the primary creators of money supply. I think that counts as a pinnacle of the capitalist system.

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

#128

Post by black_puppydog »

fennecfoxen wrote: post #113
black_puppydog wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fra…

> Your state-capitalism solution punishes the firms which successfully adapted

That would be true, iff the taxes canceled the gains out entirely. Which... I never said. But that always seems to be the expectation when someone proposes to tax wealthy people. Pandemic or not, I never argue for an effective tax rate close to 100%. But I don't have to. I can argue for the effective tax rates being much, much higher than they are currently, and still stay comfortably far away from 100%. So the incentive to gain more would still be there, it just wouldn't be as strong. Not-so-incidentally, I think that would actually be a good thing.

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

#129

Post by neilwilson »

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #117
neilwilson wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

Neither of those are the case.

Work it through. Government spends $100. My spending is your income less tax. Your spending is my income less tax. The tax rate is 1%.

Run out the maths, and see what tax you get. As you can see it doesn't mean less tax revenue. It means it moves to a different transaction.

Then work out how it gets delayed.

Post reply on HN