31–40 of 201 posts
It's a bit like taxing cyclists 10 % of their income because they don't support the car industry...
> Deutsche Bank says its research is designed to spark debate around a series of important topics.
> Report author Mr Templeman said he'd had a lot of feedback on the report. "A lot of people aren't impressed at the idea of another tax, however, some have seen it as an interesting policy that governments can use to redistribute some of the gains from the pandemic which have been unexpectedly accrued by some people while others have lost out."
>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.
That's what we want. We want to give people an economic incentive to go out and mix with people in the middle of a pandemic.
I'm working from home right now, but if you told me 5% of my pay would be taxed because of it I'd be back in the office like a shot.
>In the UK, Deutsche Bank calculates the tax would generate a pot of £6.9bn a year, which could pay
...For the massive cost of a huge wave of COVID caused by office workers who have been forced back into central london via public transport.
Or, hell, tax high-income earners. For instance bank executives working for shady banks
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 restaurants near their places of work, while expensive offices remain virtually empty.
Spending your money isn't an obligation as far as I'm aware. Should I be taxed for bringing my homecooked food to work then? What about walking to my workplace, or using a bike?
>"The virus has benefitted those who can do their jobs virtually, such as bank analysts, and threatened the livelihoods or health of those who can't," added Mr Templeman.
that one is reasonable until:
>It also wouldn't apply when people are asked to stay home for a public health emergency or other medical reasons.
So..the concern is that the virus hurts some workers, but it doesn't apply during times where workers are harmed?
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?
Who gets to decide when its pandemic related or not?
Zoom should be making more money since the pandemic, ergo a tax on high income (business related in this case) would cover your example.
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.
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.
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 assumption being that "WFH" is a net drain on the local economy.
While yes, people working from home aren't paying for public transportation, or eating out every day - they are spending money other ways. For example people are using food delivery services, buying more grocery, moving to cheaper COL areas thereby supporting a local economy somewhere else. They are buying better homes or furniture or equipment, etc. We need to understand better the complete impact on the economy to determine the net gain or loss.
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...
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...
Good analogy. But their argument is even worse because they don't look at the other benefits of remote work on the economy.