Live data from Hacker News

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

bbc.co.uk

141–150 of 201 posts

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

#141

This sounds like a horrible idea. Home work improves many peoples mental state, reduces time spent at work (if you count commutes), people's footprint in terms of pollution and allow for the redistribution of people that were clustered in big cities under asfixiating rent/home owning costs. Why on earth would we disincentivize it? >By working from home, people aren't paying for public transport or eating out at resta…

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

Not sure, but "Harrison Bergeron" could work.

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

#142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The ground they run through certainly is

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

#143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because Deutsche has consistently gone above and beyond when it comes to hiding (or assisting others in hiding...) illegally obtained money, whether its cartel leaders, money launderers, Bernie Madoff, JEpstein, Donald... Shocking they would try to throw some shade at a quantitatively irrelevant group.

I can recommend the book "Dark Towers: Deutsche Bank, Donald Trump and an Epic Trail of Destruction" https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/feb/16/dark-towers... Edit: I know that name is a bit unfortunate, but it's a good book and I'm recommending it because of it's coverage of Deutsche, not for the political element - which is actually quite small.

I'll pick it up! Looks cool :) Thanks for the recommendation

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

#144
huh? by the same logic:

Should we put an extra tax "at source" for - online shopping to support high street retailers ? - electric car manufacturers to support the oil industry? - all renewable energy companies to support coal mines?

There do you draw the line then?

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

#145

This sounds like a horrible idea. Home work improves many peoples mental state, reduces time spent at work (if you count commutes), people's footprint in terms of pollution and allow for the redistribution of people that were clustered in big cities under asfixiating rent/home owning costs. Why on earth would we disincentivize it? >By working from home, people aren't paying for public transport or eating out at resta…

Someone posted this on HN: https://medium.com/technicity/big-banks-are-at-the-front-cen... Deutsche Bank placed number one in money laundering.

There is always an angle. You just have dig to find out why Douche Bank would want this. It has to benefit them some way that isn't obviously apparent. Just like Shell starting to lobby the Biden Camp to ban all methane from drilling, it's not because they care about the environment but probably to leave an adversary in a more difficult situation.

I was hoping Douchebank was going to go under. They were a candidate there for a moment at the beginning of April. Talk was they were going to fold. Too Bad.....

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

#146

This sounds like a horrible idea. Home work improves many peoples mental state, reduces time spent at work (if you count commutes), people's footprint in terms of pollution and allow for the redistribution of people that were clustered in big cities under asfixiating rent/home owning costs. Why on earth would we disincentivize it? >By working from home, people aren't paying for public transport or eating out at resta…

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

Here's the thing, everyone arguing against this tax is arguing for preserving the status quo as well. This pandemic has changed our situation, on every level from global to local. It's foolish to pretend it hasn't.

I would gladly contribute a larger share of my income as taxes to ensure my community doesn't suffer, provided it was distributed equitably (which is a whole other complicated discussion.)

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

#147

By the same logic in the article I think we should tax electric cars and bikes as ppl using them save more money than those driving petrol ones.

One state in Australia is looking to add taxes on low or zero emission vehicles (aka electric cars).

Fuel excises are used to fund roads, since electric cars don't use fuel, they don't generate revenue. Thus additional taxes are being contemplated.

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

#148

huh? by the same logic: Should we put an extra tax "at source" for - online shopping to support high street retailers ? - electric car manufacturers to support the oil industry? - all renewable energy companies to support coal mines? There do you draw the line then?

> Should we put an extra tax "at source" for - online shopping to support high street retailers ?

Some countries are losing revenue, especially where products are bought from overseas and are not subject to some kind of value tax such as VAT, Sales Tax, GST. So yes some countries are looking into how they can tax online shopping. Which this is not to support the retail industry, it is to prop up the Government's funds.

> electric car manufacturers to support the oil industry?

Some countries are looking at taxing electric vehicles differently because they lose the excise taxes attached to fuel consumption. Which this is not to support the oil industry, it is to prop up the Government's funds.

> all renewable energy companies to support coal mines?

This will come, it is expensive to build and maintain power infrastructure. This will be especially more susceptible when power infrastructure is nationalized in a country.

The first example here was interesting as it displays a loss in tax revenue, the second is a loss in revenue to cover the cost of existing services, and the third an example of the same.

If the government builds infrastructure for a train for example, the cost does not stop because people stop using it. There maybe loans which need to be paid, maintenance which needs to be ongoing, jobs which need to be paid for etc. While over the long term this may dwindle down, the short term is that these costs need to be covered. Just like if you lost your job, you would be looking for a new job to cover your expenses, they just don't go away, the government does the same thing by relocating or reallocating taxes or revenue generation to another sector.

While I don't agree with the concept put forward, the general principles make sense.

Post reply on HN