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

161–170 of 201 posts

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

#161

Post by fennecfoxen »

black_puppydog wrote: post #128
fennecfoxen wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> That would be true, iff the taxes canceled the gains out entirely.

psst

psssssst

it's still punishment if you wipe out slightly less than 100% of the gains; it doesn't just stop

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

#162

Post by aaomidi »

barumi wrote: post #151
damnencryption wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> Deutsche Bank placed number one in money laundering. How does that ad hominem refute or support the claim that remote workers should be taxed to subsidize vulnerable jobs?

Because it's a stupid statement when there are companies that are making more money this year than they did ever before and that billionaires have increased their wealth by so much during this pandemic.

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

#163

Post by anoncake »

herogreen wrote: post #16
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…

We also need to launch war-like economies to get our green houses gases emission close to zero, asap!

Global warming won't affect the old people we are currently protecting at all costs, so this won't happen until it's too late.

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

#165

Post by anoncake »

layoutIfNeeded wrote: post #49

Yeah, no, fuck off Deutsche Bank. How would they track if I'm working from home anyway?

If you are working, and not at the office, then you must be working from home. Or from a cafe etc. but that's the same thing in the context of this proposal.

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

#166

Post by anoncake »

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.

How would you make sure the company doesn't gain influence on where its workers to live?

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

#167

Post by 60secz »

varispeed wrote: post #55

The ideas are always around taxing the middle class, the hard working engineers, lawyers, doctors and sold to the masses as taxing "the rich", but in reality the rich never pay as much tax as middle class (as a proportion of income). Tax is often used as an instrument to discourage certain behaviour and this proposal seems to be also hitting engineers, but also people on lower income who for example assemble parts at…

Leave it to a bank to propose laying the burden solely on the shoulders of the middle class instead of actually taxing the .01%

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

#168

Post by jusssi »

anoncake wrote: post #166
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.

How would you make sure the company doesn't gain influence on where its workers to live?

Certainly for an at-will contract they could have some influence, as they could always fire anyone who lives farther than, say, 10 minutes away. Then their challenge would be to find enough workforce within that 10 minute radius. For a low paid on-site job located in an expensive city center, that could be hard.

I'm sure there would be all sorts of loopholes and weird situations in paid commutes. But there are also many of them in the remote tax suggested by the article. For instance, what would happen if a company officially says "no, you have to come to the office" but then in practice does nothing to enforce the rule?

Also, as a curiosity, where I live, there's a tax deduction for commute costs. Obviously, it's fine-tuned so that most people don't get to use it (i.e. would be so small that the effort to claim it exceeds the benefit), and so that you can never recover all your practical expenses. But some of those who have become remote workers because of COVID have lost access to that deduction.

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

#169

Post by _v7gu »

dwaltrip wrote: post #156
barumi wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Examples of large, modern societies flourishing without the use of taxation? This is a disingenuous red herring. It's one thing to claim that some amount of taxes to finance public spending can be benefitial to society. It's an entirely different thing to claim that taxing remote work brings any benefit to society.

I was responding to a comment about “ruining everything good with taxation”.

You can collect taxes without ruining everything

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

#170

Post by _v7gu »

gruez wrote: post #118
me_me_me wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Taxing fuel as an indicator of road use is outdated now with the advent of electric cars. There should also be additional taxes for gasoline due to the environmental costs, and the simplest way to make things fair is to stop taxing analogues and taxing directly instead.
Post reply on HN