Live data from Hacker News

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

bbc.co.uk

21–30 of 201 posts

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

#21
post #7

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.

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.

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

#22
Deutshe Bank was in top of the list of another article that hit the homepage today, about massive international money laundering... (2Trillion) [1]

I wonder how companies are so amazing that feel they can do such evil shit with one face, and then turn with another and tell people they need to pay more taxes...

I mean LOL

[1](https://medium.com/technicity/big-banks-are-at-the-front-cen...)

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

#24
What a bizarre suggestion.

People working from home save their employers money through reduced need for space, services and consumables at offices or other business premises.

They make lesser demands of public facilities, notably reducing the load on overcrowded transport infrastructure and so improving efficiency, the environment and, particularly at the current time, the health and safety of those who do still need to travel.

They support local businesses in the areas around their homes.

Their own quality of life may be qualitatively improved, not least by getting back several hours every week that is no longer wasted on commuting. This has obvious benefits including greater personal productivity, better mental health and providing more family time for parents and children during the week.

And as a secondary benefit, forcing businesses to accept more remote working might undermine long-standing toxic practices and presenteeism culture imposed by bad management, further improving both business productivity and personal quality of life for many.

We shouldn't be taxing working from home (or working closer to home instead of in distant facilities). If anything, we should be incentivizing this shift in our way of life, and we should be adapting our planning and infrastructure policies to support doing more of it in the future for those who can and want to. That could mean anything from just allowing more small business premises within predominantly residential areas where their services are likely to be needed right up to creating local business hubs where people can set up to work, access shared facilities and enjoy some personal contact if they don't have good facilities to work literally at their own home or they prefer a more social work environment.

We're definitely going to have some big bills to pay after the coronavirus problem has been mitigated, but I can think of a lot of more reasonable ways to generate extra revenue on the required scale than this. How about some real international collaboration to establish transaction taxes on multinationals that make huge amounts of money largely by moving money and/or personal data around with little evidence of any wider societal benefit from their activities, for a start?

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

#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 such an inherently socialist proposal such as wealth redistribution.

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

#26
post #22

Deutshe Bank was in top of the list of another article that hit the homepage today, about massive international money laundering... (2Trillion) [1] I wonder how companies are so amazing that feel they can do such evil shit with one face, and then turn with another and tell people they need to pay more taxes... I mean LOL [1]( https://medium.com/technicity/big-banks-are-at-the-front-cen... )

[deleted]

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

#28
post #27

Why not "tax people with a lot of money, to help pay those who do not"?

Or those who gained a lot from the crisis? It's not like they were planning for a pandemic; for e.g. zoom this was simply a windfall. Why not tax that?

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

#30
post #27

Why not "tax people with a lot of money, to help pay those who do not"?

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.
Post reply on HN