Tax working from home, says Deutsche Bank, because the economy needs that lunch money you’re not spending Deutsche bank has proposed governments impose a tax on working from home. The bank floated the idea in Konzept, a publication it describes as “a research magazine published at regular intervals that addresses the fundamental issues driving the world of economics and finance.” A new issue of Konzeptpublished this week …
Well said. The down vote was from the bank manager.
People like this a fucking clueless. Just because you work from home doesn't mean you're saving money. Electric expense is up, along with heating. And already on a low fucking wage so taxing me for working from home would make it worse.
Typical cock of a bank manager.
Right? And I'm happily accepting contracts on a lower rate right now
a) because we're in a pandemic and I'm fortunate to be in an industry that's needed probably more than ever so not being so picky and more importantly
b) because I'm saving money on travel, lunches, and so forth and so net I'm not really deviating from my previous take home after expenses.
Yeah I'm paying a bit more for electric and heating but it's significantly less than a travel card or tank(s) of petrol. Plus the whole work/life balance thing. Being able to do my laundry without it taking up my precious weekend is valuable time clawed back!
OK Deutsche Bank here's the deal
We're paying for our own electricity, lighting & heating
We're donating square metres of office space from our homes for free, space which we now can't use for anything else
We're eating our own internet data allowance, which we're paying for
On occasion we provide our own equipment, lots of people use their own printers for example
Our employers don't have to pay any of that, nor do they have to secure or insure the workspace
Sometimes they don't even need the workspace so they save on rent
The work still gets done, our employers have less expenditure so their profit margins are up, OK in the short term they may need to spring for some laptops woo, generally all the costs of WFH are borne by us
I'll admit we don't have to commute for hours a day & we don't have to pay for that commute
But if you add it all up I reckon employers come out on top and all the sacrifices are made by us
For example me & my partner work for different companies so we can't share a workspace because of confidentiality, so we've given up a bedroom & the dining room, what's the cost of 2 separate workspaces Deutsche Bank ?
So before we start talking about extra taxation for employees
We can be paid for for the workspaces we're providing
Or our employers who are making more profit can be taxed
Or we could call it even
Or you could just do what the OP said in the title
Still want to talk about tax ?
This post has been deleted by its author
Already done round these parts.
There's a local self-serve scrappers that has an entry fee, payable at the door, whether you find the parts you need or not.
They also do not have a publicly searchable inventory, so you never know whether they have the vehicle you may need parts from in the rows.
Their new-ish competitor has no entry fee, has a searchable online inventory that's updated, and doesn't tack on ridiculous core charges on plastic trim.
I bet you can guess which one now gets more business from me.
>>only people earning undeserved amounts of money are in favour of a flat tax.
Let's be fair, it's also the poor mugs who fail to see the system is rigged (and think they can actually climb their way up the ladder just by working harder) that also favour flat taxation. (And also once they eventually manage to get one foot up on the next rung they think it's OK to urinate & defecate on the peons who are now "beneath" them.)
Because you can afford too.
There exists a basic subsistence cost to survival, typically rent (or mortgage), a minimum on food, basic necessary clothing, and transport. Each of these factors has some variance, and some of them can be effected by capital holdings. However there is still a minimum cost to survival in a modern capitalist society. Everything you earn over this amount affords you luxuries. Basic survival is unpalatable, so basic luxuries are desirable, but they are still luxuries. The more you earn the more you can afford to spend on these luxuries (including for example spending on capital holdings that may reduce your basic cost of survival). This is called disposable income, because you can dispose of it and still survive. Earn more, get more disposable income, and you can afford higher taxes and still live with more disposable income than someone who earns less than you.
Also who says you work twice as hard as people who earn half as much as you? I earn a lot more now than I did working behind the bar, and bar work is hard work. My skills are more in demand now, so I command a higher salary, but that doesn't mean I work harder.
his is called disposable income, because you can dispose of it and still survive. Earn more, get more disposable income, and you can afford higher taxes and still live with more disposable income than someone who earns less than you.
Entirely true, and largely how the system works, but still doesn't answer the question. If I have twice as much disposable income as you then it's reasonable that I pay twice the tax. Why should I be expected to pay more than twice the tax just because I can afford to do so? Take that to its logical conclusion and everybody should be taxed to the point where they all end up with the same disposable income after essentials. That won't do much for the economy.
Also who says you work twice as hard as people who earn half as much as you?
Nobody, I said if. There are other ways to earn more, the "work smarter not harder" model as you suggest. That said, I'd not consider being bar staff to be exactly hard work (and yes, I've done it). Boring, tedious, poor hours certainly, but with far fewer responsibilities and less stress than many jobs that require less physical effort.
Entirely true, and largely how the system works, but still doesn't answer the question. If I have twice as much disposable income as you then it's reasonable that I pay twice the tax. Why should I be expected to pay more than twice the tax just because I can afford to do so?
Because that's how the system works now in the UK. If you earn up to £12500 in England or Wales you pay no income tax (you still pay NI contributions that are essentially a tax now, and this complicates things, but for illustrative purposes I'm glossing over that). If you earn twice that figure you would therefore pay more than twice the income tax. Indeed you'd pay £2500 in income tax. Earn £50000 (four times the initial earnings, twice the amount paying £2500 in income tax) and you would pay $7500, three times what the previous example paid.
Our income tax system is a progressive tax system. It is fairer to charge those who are better able to bare the cost more than those who can't. There are debates to be had about where those thresholds should be, and how progressive the tax system should be. But the idea that tax rates should be even for all is daft, and contrary to the system we have. Earn more and you can afford to support society to a higher level than those who earn less.
Take that to its logical conclusion and everybody should be taxed to the point where they all end up with the same disposable income after essentials.
That's the logical fallacy of "Argument to Absurdity" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum at no point did I suggest that those who earn more should have everything extra that they earn taxed to the point that all people have the same post tax income. I simply pointed out the undeniable fact that those with more disposable income have more that they can afford to lose. They is still plenty of room for a debate about where the balance should lie.
The tax system is progressive for the lower and middle classes. I have no argument with that.
The marginal tax rate for income between about 70 and 120k is actually the highest rate of all; because within those margins certain "breaks" at lower levels are eroded.
For those lucky enough to be earning enough to afford accountants to manage their pots; i.e. those of the order of 100k+; all and sundry can be found making use of tax avoidance schemes of some sort. However legal or not they may be; the most able to contribute to the tax pot get away with paying in real terms; a vastly lower percentage of their income into the system. The system is absolutely rigged in favour of the 0.1% and we're all pissed off about it. Or, if we're not, we should be.
@pmb00cs
"Because you can afford too."
This is a wonderful argument, I look forward to seeing those who promote it redistributing their extremely well off lifestyle to support the vast majority of people globally. Even those on minimum wage can afford to take some serious cuts which can be given to governments of countries with absolutely poor people.
Note I said to their governments too, not redistributed to the people but given to those bureaucrats in charge while people are so poor.
"There exists a basic subsistence cost to survival, typically rent (or mortgage), a minimum on food, basic necessary clothing, and transport"..."Everything you earn over this amount affords you luxuries"
Shanks's pony for travel, cobbled together mud and mess for a home, food grown in the field you send your kids to work in all day because thats the peasant lifestyle that can be afforded. So tax the education and health system hard, all those luxuries. And the insane luxury of university! That also needs the hell taxing out of it.
"This is called disposable income, because you can dispose of it and still survive"
Its amazing how low this bar can be set too! All these comfy office workers with starbucks and nice clothing who not only have climate control in the room they work but also in their cars and homes.
"Earn more, get more disposable income, and you can afford higher taxes and still live with more disposable income than someone who earns less than you."
Damn right! For all those people who get up at sparrows fart and work until dark just to have something to eat we should tax everything you earn and leave you with pittance, you should be able to survive on it... most of the worlds population does.
The point of course being that its easy to drag people down to the same level, but then without those 'luxuries' we wouldnt have the developed lifestyle we have. For example the mobile phone was a crazy luxury where you carry a huge battery and clunky handset at insane call prices. Thanks to the luxury people in Africa can use mobile phones to transfer money which makes their lives much safer.
Our consumption of food has brought about changes to production which benefits countries willing to take up new methods and technology. As with medical advancements which only occur because we want the luxury of decent healthcare such as a sanitary building with equipment making it quick, painless and easy.
People work harder to get more which should be encouraged. The tax bracket mess ended up with people earning more money and taking home less. Prosperity isnt giving more money to the government, its people earning more. Its the raising of living standards. That doesnt come about by taking such progress off those who earn it and giving it to government.
If you're going to extremes.
Shanks's pony for travel
Sorry that's a capital holding. You either have to rent it (a cost) or do with out.
cobbled together mud and mess for a home
Also a capital holding, rent or do with out
food grown in the field
That field is a capital holding too, can you see where this is going yet?
Yes there are parts of the world that still largely live like this. We don't currently live there, we all live somewhere that has at least developed to the point of having an internet connection.
So tax the education and health system hard
I didn't say that education or health care are luxuries. Indeed for a functional modern society they are essential. That's why they're paid for out of taxation (for most of us anyway).
Its amazing how low this bar can be set too!
Yes the "essential to survival" bar can be set extremely low. In fact there is already a school of thought that suggests it is already set too low for many. But that doesn't change the fact that people who earn more can afford to pay more tax, and still live more comfortably than those who pay less tax.
Your entire argument here is misrepresenting my argument. I'm not proposing taxing the rich into oblivion, but the argument that the rich can't pay more tax unless we're all made destitute through taxation is entirely absurd.
@pmb00cs
"If you're going to extremes."
I am going to extremes but they are factual living conditions in the world currently of poor people (not relative poverty as we have it in the rich countries, but actual factual poverty). I intentionally pointed out this massive extreme difference because your calling for the rich to give governments more applied globally would mean even our minimum wage poor would be paying more tax because globally they are relatively rich.
"Yes there are parts of the world that still largely live like this. We don't currently live there, we all live somewhere that has at least developed to the point of having an internet connection."
Spot on and very importantly true! And why is that? It isnt from grace of robbing the rich to give to the government. Its from that disposable income which allows us to pursue better, which then becomes cheaper, then gets distributed to the globally poor at that extreme we spoke about. Disposable income does not mean money they dont need and cant spend better than government.
"I didn't say that education or health care are luxuries. Indeed for a functional modern society they are essential"
I know you didnt say they are luxuries, but they are. If you want proof go look at those extremely poor and see how education is done. Its working from sparrow fart until dark in a field because otherwise you starve. The idea of any medical care is a luxury of being able to afford it regardless of a Dr or shaman. They may be important to modern society but large portions of the world dont have modern society.
"But that doesn't change the fact that people who earn more can afford to pay more tax, and still live more comfortably than those who pay less tax."
Well said, and as I have said- I look forward to people promoting this to be taxed to hell to give money to governments of poor people. Because you can easily afford it even if you are on UK benefits. That is how poor some people in this world are.
Would those people be better off if we are all made massively poorer to send their govs money? Or would they be better off using the advancements we generate with our disposable incomes and so improving the lives of the people?
"Your entire argument here is misrepresenting my argument."
Sorry but no. I am expanding your argument from just a rich country with relative poverty to people in actual poverty around the world because we in the rich countries are the very people you talk about with creature comforts and disposable income others dont even dream of. I am suggesting your way doesnt work but if you believe it does then you yourself can do something about it voluntarily for the global poor.
"I'm not proposing taxing the rich into oblivion, but the argument that the rich can't pay more tax unless we're all made destitute through taxation is entirely absurd."
YOU ARE THE RICH. Seriously look it up-
https://howrichami.givingwhatwecan.org/how-rich-am-i
You ARE misrepresenting my argument and you know it. My argument doesn't apply internationally on the scale you suggest, and even if it did my argument isn't that the rich should be brought low to make us all equal. My argument is that people who earn more can afford higher taxes. That you choose to make an argument to absurdity (a logical fallacy I pointed out elsewhere) doesn't make my argument suddenly invalid.
Yes the world would be a better one if our standards of welfare support were exported to the poorer nations of the world, but that is a problem that is far more complex than deciding how progressive a tax system should be.
I have never stated where I think that balance should lay, you (and one other in this topic) have suggested that I want the rich made poor in the name of equality, which is absolutely not my argument. All I have said is those with more money can afford to pay more taxes than those with less money.
And having grossly misrepresented my arguments you have now also suggested I don't know my place in the world. I assure you that I know how wealthy I am. I can afford to pay more taxes than many. I'm under no illusions as to how lucky I am.
@pmb00cs
"You ARE misrepresenting my argument and you know it. My argument doesn't apply internationally on the scale you suggest, and even if it did my argument isn't that the rich should be brought low to make us all equal"
You think I am misrepresenting, but I am showing the huge flaw in your argument. You want the rich taxed more (nationally) because in your opinion people dont need so much money (green eyed envy). But as soon as you become the wealthy one (which globally if you are in a developed country then you are) you dont want to be taxed because it will take things away from you (brought low). FYI people become more equal during a recession.
"My argument is that people who earn more can afford higher taxes."
And you do. So tax you much more because you can afford it. Or lets try this another way-
1. Above what figure should be taxed extremely high?
2. You talk of taking the money but why? Is it to punish the success (remove what they dont need) or for a purpose?
"That you choose to make an argument to absurdity (a logical fallacy I pointed out elsewhere) doesn't make my argument suddenly invalid."
I am not invalidating your point, as I keep saying I look forward to you guys giving away voluntarily such amounts to the governments of poor people globally. That you think it absurd that you are the rich is stunning as either blind unwillingness to accept the fact or you wish to redefine rich to people other than you.
"I have never stated where I think that balance should lay, you (and one other in this topic) have suggested that I want the rich made poor in the name of equality"
Actually poorer not poor (in absolute terms. Relatively they could be made poor). You cannot take what people earn without making them poorer. And why would we want to dumb everyone down to low pay in the name of equality instead of having everyones wages rising? The outcome of that being more tax money collected from actual growth instead of robbery.
"And having grossly misrepresented my arguments you have now also suggested I don't know my place in the world."
Sorry if you feel that way, it was not my intention. You talk about people having more than they need (from your perspective) should be taxed more because they can afford it. You might think it is misrepresenting your argument to point out that you are that very person and if we are to tax highly the top wealthiest then we in the developed world would be made poor to do so.
You may wish to keep your view to only a national limit, but by applying it globally I am pointing out the problems in your argument-
> Your perspective of wealthy is different to others (as we are all different in our view of wealthy)
> You cannot tax the more off people without making them poorer
> Disposable income isnt money doing nothing, but in fact what makes everyones lives better (globally)
> Taking that money and giving it to government doesnt improve lives
> The way out of poverty (globally and nationally) is for people to earn more not less
> What you see as a national problem has global impact
1. Above what figure should be taxed extremely high?
This is the misrepresentation of my argument. I said more, I said nothing about "extremely high". You are using my argument "more" and misrepresenting it to an extreme to suggest "more" is also invalid. That is a logical fallacy. Stop trying to twist my argument.
You talk of taking the money but why? Is it to punish the success (remove what they dont need) or for a purpose?
All I talk of is the affordability of taxes. I personally have made no representation as to what I think should be done about that fact. That was an argument made earlier. However, yes the money should be taken for a purpose, that purpose being to support the needs of society. Funding things society deems nessacary. Health care, education, law enforcement, etc. The things that the very wealthy will absolutely HAVE to pay for one way or another. Either we have a society that imposes taxes, or society does not and the very wealthy have to fund these things in order to avoid full scale revolt, as used to be the case under feudalism. Either way the Rich are paying something. I find taxes to be more amicable than feudalism. How about you?
I am not invalidating your point, as I keep saying I look forward to you guys giving away voluntarily such amounts to the governments of poor people globally. That you think it absurd that you are the rich is stunning as either blind unwillingness to accept the fact or you wish to redefine rich to people other than you.
This is extending my argument far beyond itself to a fundamentally absurd place. It's a logical fallacy. I never argued everything should be redistributed from rich to poor, on any scale. Stop trying to suggest that is the only possible conclusion from my argument. It is not, and it doesn't invalidate my argument.
Actually poorer not poor (in absolute terms. Relatively they could be made poor). You cannot take what people earn without making them poorer.
Yes taxes make people poorer than they would be without taxes, if you entirely ignore the benefits those taxes fund. But you are suggesting that my argument isn't just that the rich should be made poorer than they would otherwise be without taxes, but that they would be reduced to the same level as the poorest in society. That is again, not my argument.
And why would we want to dumb everyone down to low pay in the name of equality instead of having everyones wages rising?
I don't argue to dumb everyone down to low pay. This is a misrepresentation of my argument. I don't argue everyone should be equal. That is also a misrepresentation of my argument.
The outcome of that being more tax money collected from actual growth instead of robbery.
Except if we refuse to take tax from those that can afford to pay it we either have to tax those who can't afford to pay it, or the exchequer gets no tax. So which do you prefer? Taxing those who can't afford the tax burden (in the name of fairness of course), or not taxing anyone?
Sorry if you feel that way, it was not my intention. You talk about people having more than they need (from your perspective) should be taxed more because they can afford it.
They can afford it. I can afford it. It is a fact. It may not be a nice fact, it may not be fair, but it remains a fact.
You might think it is misrepresenting your argument to point out that you are that very person and if we are to tax highly the top wealthiest then we in the developed world would be made poor to do so.
I Never said "highly". I said "more". I also never said how much more. I haven't expressed an opinion on if the current system is too onerous on the wealthy, or not onerous enough. I have simply stated the fact that the wealthy can afford more taxes than the less wealthy. I have certainly never argued that taxes should make the taxed poor.
You may wish to keep your view to only a national limit, but by applying it globally I am pointing out the problems in your argument-
> Your perspective of wealthy is different to others (as we are all different in our view of wealthy)
My perspective of wealthy is, in my opinion, quite healthy. I know how lucky I am simply to live in a first world country, with a system of social welfare, universal healthcare, law enforcement, and justice, among other things I get that are unavailable in poorer countries.
> You cannot tax the more off people without making them poorer
True, but "poorer" does not mean "poor" as you have consistently represented my position to be.
> Disposable income isnt money doing nothing, but in fact what makes everyones lives better (globally)
I never said it was doing nothing. My initial argument includes the point that survival without any luxuries is undesirable. And I have never said that all disposable income should be forfeit, I have simply stated that those with more of it can afford to give more of it away while still having more left over than those with less of it
> Taking that money and giving it to government doesnt improve lives
Yes, it demonstrably does, at the very least in more developed countries with advanced systems of government, in more corrupt regimes certainly less so, but that is a problem that is far more complex than taxation.
> The way out of poverty (globally and nationally) is for people to earn more not less
I have never suggested otherwise.
> What you see as a national problem has global impact
I don't deny it's a global problem. But international politics are outside the scope of my argument, and far more complex than simple taxation, and still don't change the relative affordability of taxation in relation to relative income.
@pmb00cs
"I said more, I said nothing about "extremely high""
So how much. They are already taxed highly so how much?
"All I talk of is the affordability of taxes"
Which is a useless discussion. How much people earn above bare basics is how much could be taxed, but as we all know thats a great road to ruin. It doesnt matter what can be 'afforded'. Tax should have purpose and only where its necessary.
"that purpose being to support the needs of society. Funding things society deems nessacary. Health care, education, law enforcement, etc."
What is necessary or what they would like to have? Because a lot of 'like to have' is funded already. What you deem a need of society could be seen as luxury through the lens of the truly deprived (a point I keep drumming at you).
"I never argued everything should be redistributed from rich to poor, on any scale"
Oh. So we should reduce tax's then? Cut government down seriously to only the basics that everyone needs and of course that means the gov needs a lot less money? Although if no redistribution that would remove welfare which I think is harsh. There should be a safety net in my opinion but again that might seem a luxury to someone truly deprived.
"they would be reduced to the same level as the poorest in society. That is again, not my argument."
I dont believe it is. You talk of the rich having much more disposable income and so able to be taxed more. Applied globally we would still have a higher standard of living but vastly reduced from what we currently have. Because the reality is you seem to think they are so rich that money does nothing, which is not just wrong but wildly wrong.
"I don't argue to dumb everyone down to low pay"
But want to tax the rich even more in the name of equality? Your gonna have to explain the difference (or if I get your meaning wrong).
"Except if we refuse to take tax from those that can afford to pay it we either have to tax those who can't afford to pay it, or the exchequer gets no tax. So which do you prefer?"
You cant tax those who cant afford it. First the gov could spend less if they cant afford something (that idea probably gets a few laughs). Tax on real growth works well, increasing tax for green eyes not so much.
"I Never said "highly". I said "more"."
Ok so how much more? 2 people earn different amounts but get the same % tax, the one earning more pays more. So a flat tax is fair. It punishes nobody for success and there are no tax band problems making people poorer for earning more. We could even make it progressive by not taxing people who cant meet a minimum threshold (my preferred). That already tax's the rich more, so how much more should the rich be robbed?
"True, but "poorer" does not mean "poor" as you have consistently represented my position to be."
Ok so why is it ok to make people poorer? Why not make people richer?
"Yes, it demonstrably does"
Your gonna have to prove that bit sorry it doesnt seem to work. And we obviously can exclude corruption for this part-
The government takes money off people (highest tax rates since the 70's isnt it?) and one of its jobs is to redistribute it to the poor via welfare. Yet it is private groups of people who created food banks because those people are better than the gov.
Government housing is so well managed that private renters had to step in to increase supply.
The gov (pre covid, even 2008 recession) blows the budget and sells off and still spends more than it collects. They have never been shown to be good with money regardless of party throughout history.
"But international politics are outside the scope of my argument, and far more complex than simple taxation, and still don't change the relative affordability of taxation in relation to relative income."
I disagree. It is the income that changes everything with global effects. China made a huge boom because people have so much money that they buy cheap chinese plastic toys, tshirts. and other sweat shop items which of course moved on through manufacture to electronics and now even mobile phones at prices people can actually afford globally! If the government took the money they would still have a huge deficit and demand more money.
You have consistently used the argument to absurdity against me, and continued to do so even after I have pointed out that this is what you are doing. You have done so again. You are either not entering into this debate in good faith, or are so heavily indoctrinated into a toxic philosophy that does not accept the reality of the value or affordability of taxation that I cannot change your mind. In either case there is little point in trying to discuss this further with you.
One minor point however that I would like to make, we do not now in the UK have the highest Income tax rate since the 70s, and this is before you account for the fact that Margaret Thatcher's Government reduced income tax rates by a significant margin during the 70s.
@pmb00cs
"You have consistently used the argument to absurdity against me"
A non-absurd argument you choose to ignore because it discredits your position. You want to have your cake and eat it as I listed out very easily.
"You are either not entering into this debate in good faith, or are so heavily indoctrinated"
Here is a possibility you missed- you are unwilling to look at the implications of your argument. As proven by your lack of any substantial answer to very direct and easy questions.
"In either case there is little point in trying to discuss this further with you."
As you wish
"Margaret Thatcher's Government reduced income tax rates by a significant margin during the 70s."
Damn right along with Regan in the US who both caused a massive improvement to the lives of many by making necessary free market reforms. Or would you like to return to the days of BT and chronic underfunding of public utilities? A period that got us out from begging the IMF as the country floundered.
This post has been deleted by its author
We are indeed the rich.
I remember pointing this out to some self declared Marxists online a while back.... who were railing against the 1%.... everyone in the West is the 1% if you look globally.
I understand relative cost of living, but nobody in the West lives like they do in less blessed parts of the world. The basic things you and I take for granted are hard things to gain there.
However, I am not sure my WFH tax is going to improve that situation one jot and that global wealth redistribution is not on the cards any time soon.
@AC
Damn good comment. I would suggest (in my opinion) that the global wealth redistribution is already happening. Not by taking from the rich and giving to the poor, but from the poor developing and getting involved in the world having reduced global poverty at the fastest rate in history.
Some people seem to think for the poor to have anything the rich must have it taken from them. But if everyone's standard of living is improving they will catch up to the high standard we enjoy.
Do you think owning a property and renting it out means one works harder than someone in a Sports Direct or Amazon depot?
Well, I certainly had to work harder* to earn the money to buy that property, although I pay an agent to do the actual hard work of managing the tenants, dealing with suppliers, collecting the rent, etc.
*harder in the sense of longer hours, more stress, more responsbility for many other people if I screwed up.
But I already failed to consume. I don't pay inflated barista rates for coffee; I won't pay 4 quid for a crap sandwich to eat while sat working at my desk.
I feel sorry for people losing their livelihoods, but this is tempered by their mark up on a cheese sarnie.
Rather than taxing consumers for not consuming we should consider how much charging inflated prices for sandwiches really contributes to the wealth of the nation.
Nit pick: vampire squids don't suck blood, they're shit eaters.
Think of all the bowyers, stringfellows, arrowsmiths and fletchers who lost their jobs in the 60's when the law requiring archery practice was repealed. The tax on windows used to be dealt with by bricking them up. This is no longer required as these days we can install Linux. Surely I should be paying Microsoft for not using Windows as their business needs to be protected just like the bowyers.
Are sandwich makers really self employed or are they just using a personal services company to avoid taxes? I used to make my own sandwiches and take them to work. As I was using my customer's space and equipment while being supervised I was clearly an employee according to the IR35 website. With the new rules will I be arrested for hiring myself as a contractor instead of an employee when I make myself a sandwich at home?
Tax working from home... Says bank with investments in offices that now lie vacant...
No, it should be the opposite, tax breaks to reduce unnecessary travel that would lead to an increase in congestion and pollution.
Home workers have not stopped spending money, they have changed what they are buying.
> Home workers have not stopped spending money, they have changed what they are buying.
Indeed, came here to say just that!
Home workers also spend their money and create jobs and wealth, just not on downtown sandwich stores. But AFAIK there is more in a country's economy than sandwich stores.
A bank among all people would know that, which proves that the whole thing is just a scam: They just saw the opportunity to use the politicians' greed to grab some more money (new fees profit opportunities).
"unnecessary travel"
This, most especially this. Attempts to curb pollution are resulting in "congestion charges" in city centres designed to dis-incentivise travel. This can lead to people changing where and how they work, either by finding a job outside the charging zones, using public transport or, better yet, working from home instead. This is a GOOD thing from the perspective of government pollution reduction targets. Penalising people for both travelling and for NOT travelling is just...Orwellian.
Here in the ex-colonies we are dealing with a death rate of 1000/day. This is about to go through the roof since we had 163,000 new cases yesterday and both public and private hospitals are full to the brim in many areas. One of the largest nurse's unions is complaining that personal protective equipment that is designed for single use is being used several times due to shortages. Doctors and nurses can not continue to do massive overtime for extended periods - exhaustion will cause mistakes and mistakes will kill them.
Please - do not follow in our footsteps.
There's been a lot of talk about wouldn't it be a good idea to have challenge tests for vaccines. I'm sure they'd like volunteers, especially for the control group. After all, if, as you think, there's nothing in it you wouldn't be at risk so nothing to stop you. And if you're wrong it would be a valuable learning opportunity. Why not volunteer?
It took specific weighting from the very top politicians to stop banks pay dividends right in the middle of a pandemic which would have put a lot of strain in the economic system they should fuel.
But they are sure in case of troubles they would be bailed out using tax payers money....
Moreover if you stop the nonsensical idea of moving taxes form income to spending (because it is far more advantageous for rich people shifting the tax burden to far less rich ones....), income taxes are the same if you live closed in a bunker or go around spending at will.
Yet we can still tax bankers for any time they don't spend at the office - with a specific surcharge when they spend time in luxurious places, especially abroad.
DB is already extinct, since they are technically bankrupt for years.
For a decade it is on life support from the ECB, who gives them "free money" which they on their turn invest in junk bonds from the Greek, Italian and Spanish governments against normal market rates, so they can cover up their disastrous balance sheets.
The fact their existence depends on government support, is probably the reason they made these comments, since the taxes will guarantee his comfy job in his glass palazzo prozzo in Frankfurt.
It is the curse of our time the leeching and useless financial industry has such a great leverage on politics, the unavoidable crash of the Euro will be a good moment to get rid of them as well.
Templeman argued that the tax is just an example of governments moving with the times
Is it fuck. No government is proposing this yet. Rather, it is an example of yet another Banker finding reasons to screw ordinary people out of whatever small amount of surplus they can gain from what is a pretty shitty situation all round.
I have great sympathy for the small businesses being killed off by the shutdowns, but this isn't going to help the majority of them.
How about, instead, advocating that the businesses that have made even more massive profit from on-line trade due to Covid should give 5% of their increased profit to the tax man?
"How about, instead, advocating that the businesses that have made even more massive profit from on-line trade due to Covid should give 5% of their increased profit to the tax man?"
They'll have paid the appropriate tax rate, as designed by the politicians paid by those large corporations and banks.
This post has been deleted by its author
Unfortunately, when it comes to taxation governments are all too keen to listen to "bright ideas" from financiers. A few centuries back, when English taxation was raised from 6d to a shilling in the pound (2.5% to 5%) to pay for a war, there were riots and the change had to be abandoned. Now, on average, we pay rather more than half our salaries to government throughout our working lives. Nevertheless, this doesn't seem to be enough to keep public services running smoothly and sufficiently. I suspect there's a lot of wastage, just as there is in food production.
Fortunately taxation is used to fund a few more things than wars these days.
Agreed some ( ok - lots of) wastage but social & health care, infrastructure ( roads, etc) , education and pensions didnt exist before taxes were introduced
https://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/budget_pie_ukgs.php
We're not all car driving, car park using, readymade sandwich eating, shopaholics..
It's costing me money to work at home
Paying to boil the water for hot drinks
Paying for electricity to power the laptop, 2 large screens and dock
Extra water usage ( drinking , loo flushing, hand washing)
Keeping the heating on during the day
Soap - hand washing before eating ( every little cost adds up)
Paying to light my office - extra electricity and the LEDs will wear out sooner
Extra wear and tear - carpet in my office ( those chair castors soon fsck up a nice carpet), stair carpet, kitchen fixtures and fittings ( eg: kettle, )
I used to walk or cycle to work and I'd make my own lunches. Could someone from Deutsche Bank explain how I am better off being forced to work at home for the last 9 months?
OK - I know in the UK I can claim my £6/week tax free from my employer ( yeah - try that with a huge public organsiation) or ask HMRC to adjust my tax code accordingly. I'm also saving a small amount on shoe wear & tear and the chain and tyres on my bike might last a bit longer.
Exactly, I am in the same situation as you, I cycled to work and it is getting really tedious with the various people who used to do 20 to 50 mile commutes each way honking on about how much better off they are.
Bluntly, I am worse of as I am on the list of people who have to go in when there is a problem requiring parts to be swapped out because I am closer so it is easier for me. The sting in the tail is that the parts have to be delivered to my address as there is frequently nobody at the building where we normally have IT deliveries. I then have to use my car or train to go in because the stuff is in boxes too big to carry on a bike.
Can I claim any of that back? Like hell, it is just classed as your "normal commute" even if you did not commute by that method.
Many employers have rules forbidding you from getting personal deliveries sent to your work address - it wastes the time of their post room staff that they have to pay for. Your time spent accepting their deliveries at your home, storing the goods in your home prior to departure, and transporting their goods into the workplace should therefore be billable. If it isn't, you should refuse to accept delliveries at your home address.
Doing things the way you are opens yourself up to all sorts of liabilities. What happens if their equipment is stolen from your home in a burglary before you've had the chance to take it to work? Or if the courier says it was delivered but has kept it (either maliciously or by mistake)? Or the courier has left it on your doorstep and it was stolen by someone else? Or if the equiment gets dropped and broken whilst you are carrying it on public transport? Is your employer insured for any of this, or are they going to hold you liable for any losses?
Rather than tax the ordinary folk (myself included) who are having to deal with this shit due to no fault of their own, how about significant restitution being gained from either China, the WHO, or the World bank who have had 20 odd years of warnings of ever more virluent viruses that have had all of their origins in central China... but have done absolutely fuck all to prevent it.
Whilst I may sound a bit of a doom-monger, my major concern is that COVID is the thin end of a wedge that could potentially expand to a filovirus or an outbreak of some other as yet unevolved, but more lethal strain of respitory virus due to food poverty, economic migration and / or other methods of transmission.
I'm not expounding that we close our borders to those that need it, but if another more serious virus gets a hold then "the economy" will be the least of our concerns, but it seems that trying to get these ultra short-sighted bankers and "politicians" to get that message into their stupid childlike minds is another battle altogether.
I guess one option would be to educate people to stop eating bats. But I'm not sure how that gets enforced; or how you get these small-minded regimes to admit that they are a major part of the problem.
The question there though also comes to isn't it the governments responsibility to pay attention to those issues, how much power does the WHO have to actually shape the governments policy past advice? And whilst China may not be flavour of the month at this moment, to say all o viruses originate from China is incorrect, HN51 likely started in the USA for example. Where there is mass farming of animals jumps to different species become more likely.
Like has been mentioned, eating bats isn't the issue. It's a global issue related to people encroaching/destroying wildlife and bad farming practices.
Remember the UK BSE-vCJD? That demonstrates how disgustingly bad our farming practices can be, and the fact that we haven't been the source of an Avian virus strain when you look at how we have have farmed chickens is just pure luck.
The stupidity of this idea beggars belief. What a total, evil, moron. Remove yet more money from those, who on average can little afford it. If he is such a capitalist, surely the answer is that those sandwich shops, pubs, bars, etc etc will eventually relocate to where the money is, viz nearer suburbia & housing estates. Thus improving that local economy.
Yet another example of the creeping socialism endemic in the EU, where the politicians cosy up to big business creating laws to enrich themselves "for our own good".
Where do you get the idea that this idea is socialist? It's nothing to do with redistribution of wealth but simply a way for the banks to lend more money. It's got fsckall to do with the EU.
Have a read of this - you might learn something
https://blackwells.co.uk/bookshop/product/Usborne-Politics-for-Beginners-by-Alex-Frith-author-Rosie-Hore-author-Louie-Stowell-author-Kellan-Stover-illustrator/9781474922524
> How is it a way for banks to get more money? Tax is governments taking money off people.
Irrelevant, money always stays in, or transits through banks. Governments are bank customers like everybody else, and all money movements are taxed by the banks (except they call it "fees", not "taxes"). Anyway.
In this case, as others already highlighted, it's all about supporting the banks' investments in office space: Threatening people with a "home worker tax" will push them back to corporate offices the banks can rent out for good money. In clear, "Either you force your company to give us their money, or we will take it directly from you".
Economists confuse me.
All the transport workers, sandwich makers etc. who were previously supporting production in offices are no longer required. That sounds like an increase in productivity to me. Producing the same output with fewer people; a solution to the crisis of productivity stagnation that those economists have been complaining about for ages. But no, apparently now it's "a big problem for the economy."
This simpleton has obviously never lived outside of a metropolis....
Before lockdown:
Cycled to work
Had breakfast and lunch provided (in my new office) / took food to work (in my old office)
Cycled home from work
Money spent in the city: $0
During lockdown:
Extra heating / lighting costs: around £15-20 a month
Cost of extra food for breakfast / lunch: Has got to be in the order of £50 a month (At least £30 of which is coffee)
Lunch in the local town when the weather is nice: £25 a month
Money spent locally: £95 a month
I'm worse off, like many of my colleagues, working from home and yet, conversely, I'm spending more money in my community.
And this is why, not only DB doesn't understand the habits of the population, but neither does Johnson, Gove et al.
Unless those workers have stopped eating, you haven't necessarily made things more efficient, you have just shifted inputs. Now, if your employer reduces your salary due to working from home, that could be an increase in efficiency, but would probably lower morale and reduce productivity. TANSAAFL. Of course, there they might pivot and fire the less productive workers and hire cheaper ones, depending on the availability of replacements. Human resources, you're just another input.
Reducing labor costs to improve efficiency (IE improve productivity) is only a target when it's a big part of the cost of their product. And businesses only care about employee count as a percentage of cost. If they have 100 people doing the same work as 50, they wouldn't care if it cost the same. There is actually some benefit to it. Shifting labor to busier parts of the day (IE fast food during meal times), a sick worker become less critical (1 out of 100 is 1% of your workforce, 1 out of 50 is a disruption of 2%)
There are some simple economics. Not like the crap about redistributing wealth through taxation being spewed by the author of this article.
Parasitic businesses followed their prey to city workplaces, they can follow them to their new workplaces.
Maybe we can have a future where the these businesses embed themselves where people live again. The ones relying on distress purchasing will just have to come up with a more customer friendly business plan. Or die out.
Hey bankers you spent all your time and investments positioning yourself to have advantage of how the economy worked. You guys bought all the office space and invested in property developers and put your shares in large companies and pushed people out of the city due to gentrification and now the landscapes changed. That's capitalism, we have to suck it up when it works for you, now it doesn't tough shit.
The argument that a coffee shop in the city centre is now losing out doesn't wash with me, most of them are owned by big conglomerates that pay naff all taxes, they'll be replaced by the coffee shop in the local village the one that doesn't have shareholders and spend a large amount of money on lobbyist and so on to avoid taxes, well actually get money from them, and a regenerated village still needs staff, except they probably wont have a stupid commute and have to wear corporate flair.
People working from home will have more leisure time, and more money to spend on their lives rather than just commuting, money will still move, the environment may actually improve. Just because you bought shares in Starbucks and are now shitting yourselves that you may lose the second house in Monaco is not my problem.
Unfortunately if 2008 taught us anything its that "its not MY economy" is an incorrect statement.
Whilst I love the idea of hanging bankers from lampposts, the sad reality is that everything is joined up in economics and those people in the USA who couldn't afford their mortgage repayments damaged the world in an infinite number of ways.
We aren't about to unpick that problem in a hurry and a seismic shift in working locations WILL have some massive fallout and that just because you (and I) are busy doing our jobs from our home offices, business as usual, we won't be impacted by it in some way.
The interesting question here is what happens to all of those city offices now? Apart from plunging real estate rents (which will effect us, because pension funds are heavy property investors and also the asset values of any company OWNING that property will fall) the next question is what to do with them?
Now the obvious thing is to make them into flats right? We do have a housing crisis afterall. Well, apart from that in itself being less valuable to both the property owner, its also less valuable in rates - business rates are far higher than residential ones.
Offices also make terible conversions into flats. They were never built to be flats and you end up with a lot of badly designed virtually prisons with huge unsafe corridors. Not good. They also are located in the wrong place for access to supermarkets and schools etc.
Next problem, so you have turned a city from being full of business to full of houses. Why did people want to be in the city in the first place? Because it was close to jobs and work places. The purpose of cities and the reason why they grew is about resource concentration. It is no longer. Imagine the Rust Belt in the USA, but it being London or Edinburgh or...
So... falling values for companies, falling pensions for everyone, falling tax revenues, bad housing and creation of ghost towns with no employment and everything that goes with that.
Its a serious problem and its going to bite us all.
Is this WFH tax an answer? I hope not personally, but things are very likely to have to change somehow.
Oh yeah I understand there are issues that are going to cause huge shifts, and the fallout from that is going to be bad. because your right in a way not my economy is a narrow way to think about it (the pension funds is a good point). The urban landscape will change and the effects are going to be felt. Cities are definitely going to change, but then again the current ghost and dead end towns that the cities sucked the life from may also be renewed. I actually don't think converting cities to flats would be the best thing. I wonder more what a more distributed population would look like rather than it being concentrated too much (although again this has issues, cities have higher population densities than towns so what happens to the countryside?).
But these guys suggesting the tax, would also be the same people who would put more points on a company who managed to save money by downsizing workers for robots, and state it's progress.
Their worry is their money and it that way it is 'their economy'. This is a company, who evaded taxes, has been involved in criminal cartels, libor scandals, and helped fund a pipeline through an Indian reservation. Maybe I am wrong but if a total bastard suddenly starts talking altruistic the question has to be why?
Targeting the big multi-national tax mitigating "avoiding" companies like, Amazon, Apple, Google, Starbucks, the list is endless.
Many of these have seen revenues and profits increase hugely due to the impact of COVID.
Spend the time figuring out how to hit these buggers for a fair and reasonable tax bill and many of the current issues around diminishing tax revenues will be fixed.
Far too many big corporations are routinely taken the piss when it comes to revenue, profits and tax. As more revenue switches to them, the more profit they make and money they siphon out of the system. Tax revenues then drop increasingly leave those who are least able to afford it to pick up the bill.
"Offices also make terible[sic] conversions into flats."
Templefields House in Harlow is a good example of this. Another point about this is fire-safety. Britain demonstrated just how bloody awful we can be at refurbishing blocks of flats with Grenfell Tower. The inquiry is also demonstrating how good everyone involved is at avoiding any responsibility for it. Saying that "any office conversion will be safe, as the council wouldn't let them do it otherwise" has been proven to be utterly false.
While I wouldn't completely absolve the people who couldn't pay the mortgages they took on, I can't help thinking most of the blame lays with the people wrapping them up in such a way to make the risks appear much lower to the backers and the people pushing to sell to those who couldn't afford it.
If it had been done properly then most of them would never have tried for a mortgage as the risks would have pushed their costs up too much.
Then when you think about it - if Deutsche Bank hadn't lent money to person when no one else would, would that person have been in a position to make huge cut budgets around science and medicine and if not would it have been contained much quicker?
It should be obvious that pushing workplaces and homes further and further apart and concentrating the former in larger and larger urban centres so that more and more people had to commute longer and longer distance was never going to be sustainable. The question should be "how do we get ourselves out of this mess?" rather than "how do we stay in it?". It's taken Covid and consequent WFH for the fact that it is a mess to vaguely percolate into some people's consciousness. Getting out of the mess is going to be economically painful but the longer it's put off the more painful it's going to be.
Some of the work needs to be redistributed out of the city centres (the preference for building housing on "brownfield" sits, i.e. old workplaces doesn't help with this). A mixture of WFH and conversion of city centre office blocks might be an interim measure to ease the pain. And remember that although office blocks might not have been designed for conversion to modern living spaces much the same might be said about Victorian and Edwardian working-class housing and yet a viewing of Homes Under The Hammer will reveal that such conversion is something that's ongoing.
Yes, the economy does indeed affect all of us. All the more reason why we should criticise those who've been in control for acting so stupidly in relation to sustainability.
> The question should be "how do we get ourselves out of this mess?" rather than "how do we stay in it?"
While you're obviously right, I'm willing to bet that once Covid is under control / not an issue, everything will be going back to "normal", meaning as it was before. Except for some rare cases, about which people will talk a lot despite them being just an exception.
This will be partly due to the old "If I'm not watching, they are not working" mentality (which isn't obviously going to go away overnight), and partly to the existing investments: Companies still have all that infrastructure (office space, machines, computers/networks) they had paid for, and won't want it to go to waste.
Maybe we shouldn't get paid directly and all income goes to the government. They can then give us an allowance from that based on what they think we should have.
Utterly stupid idea from a bank. If people's spending is changing, well the people that used to get that money need to change with it. Don't get me wrong I feel for retail staff, it's just not going back the way it was so those affected need to move with it. The ones that embrace it first will end up doing the best.
On a side note I do like being able to go to the kitchen (at home) and make a nice lunch each day. Prefer that to the sandwich I'd used to buy when I was in the office. Had a taste of a better life, why would we change that and why would taxing people the amount equal to their usual lunch spend make sense, they still eat lunch just bought from a supermarket and made based on our preference. Seems like a double dipping idea. If this had any validity I'd expect lunch every work day, delivered for my tax contribution.
Maybe we shouldn't get paid directly and all income goes to the government. They can then give us an allowance from that based on what they think we should have.
That is actually a cornerstone of Marxism.
From each according to their ability, to each according to their need
I do realise that you were engaging in a bit of sarcasm :)
"Maybe we shouldn't get paid directly and all income goes to the government banks"
Here, fixed it for you... That way everyone (who matters) would be happy - except of course the wage earners, but who cares for them. People who matter get dividends, expenses, compensations, stock options, retainers and bonuses. Salaries are for the proles.
...are going to get expensive with all of this.
Sure many of us have a spare bedroom that could be an office.... but what about when your partner also needs a home office.... or your grown up kids (which you can't get rid of due to house prices)
We don't need taxation on WFH, we actually need tax relief. We certainly aren't about to see employers go "that money we saved on your office, we've divided it up, here is your annual allowance of £10k each to pay for company rental of your house"
Although I suspect what will actually happen is that your local authority will decide you need to pay business rates for the "office" space.... not the case yet, but watch this space.
That being said from the comfortable leather chairs of high-level banking officials who are probably pissed that they can't have lunch at their regular five-star restaurant at the moment, so they pass their anger on us.
Taxing people because they're working from home, great idea. We're being taxed on revenue, so where we work has little to do with it. Sure, the restaurants and sandwich shops are taking a hit at the moment, everyone can understand that, but there are a lot of people who bring their lunch to work every day. Nothing changes for them except, in your scheme, they would now get taxed for not doing something they never did anyway. How's that for social justice ?
I propose something different : instead of taxing workers, tax companies that force workers to work from home - but only banks.
They have the money, they can pay.
If there was a graded tax on stupidity (the more stupid, the higher the tax), then Luke Templeman would very probably be broke.
As noted earlier, he works for a company that invested in lots of high density offices in cities and are now looking at the prospect of that income being significantly impacted.
An infernal pox on your house for eternity and if your shitty corporationever rolls, then
I will urinate efficaciously on what is your grave for eternity, screaming in mad rabid voice: "Tax this you bastards"
Pint, its Friday and I am going to require plenty before the above.
It's as pants as it sounds.
> […] fund efforts to help those whose jobs they inadvertently destroy
That is indeed his whole premise. Which makes me wonder how much he is donating to the Typewriter Repairmen's Guild or the Ratcatchers Society or the Video Store Owners Association.
Currently you rent office space for, say, $20 a square foot per month, utilities extra. Someone working from home uses anything from 20-200 square feet depending on whether they've just got a table or a spare room so that yields an effective rental of $400-$4000 a month. Now, if the person working from home was able to actually get paid for that then I'd expect them to pay tax on it; as it is its really a cost they're bearing and in the old days you could actually claim deductions for these expenses off your tax bill.
So Deutche Bank has it all backwards. (Which given the recent track record of the bank isn't that surprising.)
I'd guess the canny employer now realizes that here's another employment expense they can offload on the employees. We're used to this in California -- we just passes a Proposition that negated a law requiring that people employed as casual labor be treated as employees with regard to certain employment expenses, companies like Uber and Lyft spent $200 million on the campaign. Their line was that it was restricting the freedom of casual labor to work as they chose, which would be fair if the casual labor was actually able to work as they chose and claim all the deductions that you'd expect as a company. Its a bad deal but as I'm personally not affected -- I don't work casually and I don't use this kind of service -- I'll just watch things play out. I'd guess paying for your own employment is the logical next step. (Don't laugh -- its already a realty for some types of 'work from home' jobs. These support roles require you to pay to train to learn a particular client's speil and then you're only paid for the actual time you're on a service call. People do it because they don't have a choice.)
Are so many. Tax everyone who works from home because "They don't go to the local shop for sandwiches". Some still do fuck whit. I live a 2 min walk from the main shops so I can still go to the local sandwich shop to get one and the local Starbucks or Costa. So go fuck a duck. You BANKER.
Obviously this would encourage people not to work from home, which in turn would make controlling covid-19 harder - it's still a while until there'll be enough vaccines everywhere. Once it is under control at least some of the work-from-homers will come back into the office. That's the time to start thinking about this, when there's a real idea of the long term changes and when you're not undermining public health!
In other news buggy whip makers mourn loss of revenue because people have moved to automobiles.
If a business reduces costs and tax liability they expect to be congratulated, when a person does, fuck that, we need to find new ways to screw them over.
Dear Deutsche Bank, things change, get used to it.
I may be working from home but that doesn't mean I'm not nipping to my local shops to buy lunch, if anything I've switched from a national supermarket chain to local businesses as near work Woolies was the only option but where I live there's a cornucopia of cafes, restaurants (that do lunch) and bars (that serve food) that I can nip to (more food retailers per square kilometre that anywhere else in the city).
Would this make me exempt from the tax as I'm still being a good little consumer? Or do I just pay twice?
(that was rhetorical, I know the answer)
I guess the irony being here is if they do reduce my disposable income, being lazy and grabbing a quick bite at a café will be the first of my frivolities cut. I know this is anecdotal, but, wonder how many are in the same boat as me?
Deutsche Bank, one of the principal proponents of Self-Certification and Sub-Prime mortgages; directly responsible for leading to the disastrous collapse of banks worldwide.
Sod their analysis and their desperation. Company deserves to go the way of the dodo. Want to innovate in finance? Look at Revolut, or Freetrade.
Prior to Covid I already worked from home 2 days per week. The cost to me for commuting to work for 3 days was £90 and 12 hours (120 miles per day + 2x Dartford Crossing Tolls). Yes, the commute sucked and I don't miss it at all. I am also not polluting anywhere near as much as I was, not congesting the roads, and not requiring days off or healthcare due to the stress involved in the commute.
So, I am £90 per week better off AND I got 12 hours per week back, but I am still working 40+ hours per week, still doing what I was doing before, so still earning what I earned before. My colleagues who live 2 miles from the office earn the same as I do and do the same work as I do.
What has changed is that many companies have finally awoken to the fact that having people work from home is not leading to the feared decrease in productivity. In fact it seems to be leading to a slight increase in productivity and once the companies have downsized their offices to suit the new working regime, it will lead to an increase in profitability from reduced costs.
If you are heavily invested in commercial property, you are about to lose your shirt, and THAT is what they are all terrified of, so they are desperately trying to come up with ways of forcing everyone to go back to working in an office.
Only the invention of a 100% safe instant teleporter could convince me to work in an office 5 days per week ever again. My days of wasting substantial chunks of my life commuting are over :-)
It was the ill-advised shutdowns that caused everyone to realize that remote working actually, WORKS! The real issue is that in countries and locations with high death rates is that they failed to address the real dangers if this virus. Protect the vulnerable and let the healthy get on with their lives.
Now corporations are realizing the cost savings of remote working. No more very high prices real estate in places like NYC. I get it, this is going to hurt a lot of small business. The Hot Dog stand outside of the subway exit. That is not the corporation's nor the employees fault. It is the governments!
You think these Corporations are going to pay this tax? They will suck it out of their employees, they will raise prices. This is what these dip-shits never understand. Corporations DO NOT PAY TAXES! Taxes are an expense that they will recoup by what ever means necessary, They will reduce other expenses and the easiest way to do that is to reduce their biggest expense, LABOR!
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
