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

131–140 of 201 posts

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

#131

Post by candiodari »

amf12 wrote: post #40
ThePhysicist wrote: post #31

Wow, so because I save myself and my employer money by not mindlessly commuting to work everyday I should pay an extra tax? That's one of the most ridiculous ideas I've heard so far. It's a bit like taxing cyclists 10 % of their income because they don't support the car industry...

> It's a bit like taxing cyclists 10 % of their income because they don't support the car industry... Good analogy. But their argument is even worse because they don't look at the other benefits of remote work on the economy.

It is also an extremely weird organisation to suggest this sort of thing. They're definitely not an organisation looking for fairness in the world, I've only ever heard of central banks implement policies for the general benefit or taxation, and then only with great reluctance, usually after their hand got forced.

On the other hand they have a huge real estate portfolio (and mortgage portfolio) that I'm sure is now no longer looking like such a smart investment. So they're looking for them and their customers to be the recipients of these grants, no doubt.

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

#132

Post by candiodari »

amf12 wrote: post #38

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. By working from home, people aren't paying for public transport or eating out at restaurants near their places of work, while expensive offices remain virtually empty. This is a terrible argument that just makes a lot of assumptions without also considering the benefits. The main ass…

> > while expensive offices remain virtually empty ...

> This is a terrible argument that just makes a lot of assumptions without also considering the benefits ...

You forget who is the beneficiary of people using those expensive offices. Could it be Deutsche Bank has a huge investment into commercial real estate and is looking to be the recipient of these "grants" ?

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

#133

Post by candiodari »

capableweb wrote: post #75
svrtknst wrote: post #34

Counterpoint: Tax employers additionally, since they now face lower rent and spend less on office supplies and coffee. Or, hell, tax high-income earners. For instance bank executives working for shady banks

Obvious solution is to tax high earners more than low earners. If the inequality is increasing anyways, increase the amount of tax the high earners have to pay, and lower the one for low earners. But if you're one of those high earners (that let's say works at Deutsche Bank) who sit in an office, you're not gonna write a proposal for higher tax for yourself. So instead you focus on those other people, who are "steali…

That's exactly what they're suggesting. You forget what "high earners" are and aren't. It is not the super-rich since the assets of the super-rich don't actually amount to that much compared to the total.

The state taxes where the lion's share of TOTAL wealth is (not wealth per person). That's the income of the middle class. That's why another new tax on income is suggested.

https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/revenue_pie%2C_...

So middle class income represents 80% of the total tax income (and that's ignoring that customs duties and excise taxes also mostly come from that bucket, then we'd easily get to 85%)

"High earners" are generally defined as anyone earning more than double the average income in the country. For the US that's anyone making $62k2 = $120k per household*. Or for an individual that would be a chunk above that $62k, let's say $68k. All figures before tax, of course.

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

#134

Post by emteycz »

dwaltrip wrote: post #123
yonisto wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Examples of large, modern societies that gave way for new ideas instead of preserving the status quo at all costs?

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

#135

Post by avgDev »

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…

I am rewriting a crappy application as we speak, I guess I have bullshit job. feelsbadman.jpeg.

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

#136

Post by vfclists »

> "For years we have needed a tax on remote workers," wrote Deutsche Bank strategist Luke Templeman. "Covid has just made it obvious."

The chutzpah of these turds is unbelievable.

"For years we have need a tax on TBTF banks, their traders, their bosses, their board members, their speculators, and the taxes and bonds raised them to bail them of their losses, their bankruptcies, and their assholery." "Covid has just made it obvious".

Why don't we start on a 45% tax on the salaries of Deutsche Bank employees who can work from home but refuse to.

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

#137

Post by TheOperator »

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.

So raise tax revenue across the board. Will that make the commuting lifestyle unaffordable? Well that might just be because it's not economically viable and heavily subsidized.

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

#138

Post by TheOperator »

silvester23 wrote: post #54
svrtknst wrote: post #34

Counterpoint: Tax employers additionally, since they now face lower rent and spend less on office supplies and coffee. Or, hell, tax high-income earners. For instance bank executives working for shady banks

In the article, it says > The tax would be paid for by employers and the income generated would be paid to people who can't do their jobs from home. But somehow nobody in this thread seems to have read that sentence.

Which still amounts to subsidizing pollution in order to sustain economically unviable work. If more taxes are needed, raise taxes across the board.

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

#139

Post by [deleted] »

jusssi wrote: post #97

A free market solution would be to make commute time paid (maybe to some reasonable maximum e.g. 1h per direction). So instead of companies forcing their employees to come to the office so they don't get slapped with a penalty tax, they'd be actively participating in optimizing commutes. And it would similarly support those workers who have no option.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN