I know it’s already been mentioned, but this claim is all the more confusing coming from a European firm. Here in the US, we count on gas taxes (too low, and misguidedly, I’d say) to pay for road building and maintenance. In Europe, the public transportation is better funded, and it will still be used a lot, regardless of commuting. (I know they mean office buildings, but them using a word that way doesn’t make it mean what they want it to mean. Infrastructure does not equal office buildings.)
And to add to others’ comments, we should, if anything, get a tax incentive for WFH. I’ve done so for over 10 years. Even in a small DC apt, I didn’t meet the square footage requirements to get a tax break for the part of my living space set aside for work (like you would for a daycare or home salon or such). My employer is good, and I can get hardware as needed, but the desk/chair situation is tricky and usually falls to the employee to cover. And don’t get me started on the lack of IT. I had a 2 year stint in an actual office and never appreciated that service. I never knew what I had until it was gone.
I’m looking forward to a report from the Scotch Whisky Association proposing a tax on people who don’t buy a nice bottle of Scotch every week, because they are “contributing less to the infrastructure of the economy”, or at least to that part of the economy that produces Scotch whisky. If it’s calibrated right, they won’t be any worse off than if they were buying whisky.
They’re contributing differently. I’m working from home and now I have to turn on the furnace and use electricity during the day - basically my electricity bill doubled. When I was working in office I preferred to buy something at the grocery store near my office. Living down town I have supermarkets, pubs, restaurants and so on at walking distance, even chain shops you normally find in big malls
The only thing I cut are the transportation expenses, but given that there is a pollution problem, the fact I don’t use my car or increase the public transportation demand is a good thing, I suppose.
If this trend is going to stay, the requests for real estate will change, and this is scaring the bank. Because a big office place in the suburbs or downtown now is going to lose value, and in the same time the residential and commercial real estate values could change. If one doesn’t commute, the mall in the route between office and home is a lot less interesting, but is going to be more interestin have a home with a studio and shops nearby, surely a bigger house, and so on…
A few weeks ago i completed The Rhesus Chart in my reread of The Laundry Files before i get to the latest one and it’s really no accident that Stross chooses a bunch of investment bankers to be turned into a nest of blood-sucking vampires. Maybe he’s trying to tell us something…
Our calculations suggest the amounts raised could fund material income subsidies for low-income earners
Along with bankers sneering indifference for MANY years for just such people, I doubt they’re at all concerned for low-income earners. They certainly don’t want anything to interfere with their 40+ year real estate grift, and the tax, as an added bonus, can be used toward their next bail-out!
Certainly not DB. I still remember a friend’s outrage a few decades ago (gosh, where does the time go) when DB told him he was too poor to have an account with them and could he please fuck off pronto and bank with a bank for the poors.
He was in fact what any normal person would consider pretty damn rich and only likely to become richer unless he suddenly took up a habit of snorting Fabergé. But not rich enough for DB.
Employers are saving money on everything from coffee to lighting to buildings with work-from-home. Tax them. Meanwhile workers have to have upgraded Internet access. They are lighting and heating and cooling their homes at times when they would have been away. They have to buy their own coffee. So on. So forth. They shouldn’t have to pay a tax for the “privilege” of spending more money.
Pull the other one, no mention at all of multi nationals paying tax and no longer allowing companies to be based in Ireland but no where for tax purposes and paying not tax, or choosing how much they tax they pay threw licencing deals for ip, those are the laws that need changing, I think this bank just put its head on the chopping block when the young revolution comes, part of the problem not the solution, trying to keep things the same.
Thing is, unlike their employees, businesses get to deduct stuff like electricity bills and rent from their revenue before determining their taxable profits, so by saving money on those things they are automatically liable for more tax.* So this DB proposal is really a solution looking for a problem.
* In theory. In practice, of course, no corporation ever pays a penny more in tax than it has to.
Fun little bit of history, I thought calling them Kröten was akin to calling dollars greenbacks, because of the colour and the fiddly little engraving and so on. But one source says it’s a reference to Croesus, a real estate tycoon during the Roman Republic days who tried to buy his way in politics, a guy known only for being so wealthy he almost proved the saying that everyone has their price. See also the term “richer than Croesus.”
Well, I thought it was interesting due to the real estate angle.
This form of rent -seeking was detailed by Adam Smith in the Wealth of Nations: “As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords , like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce.
Oh yes, Deutsche Bank, it rings a bell, something about being the last bank that was willing to do business with DJT? Yeah, go to hell Deutsche Bank. Please let the door hit you on the way out.
The name Crassus was used by a branch (stirpes) of the Licenia clan (gens), and Marcus Licenius Crassus was not the first to use it.
Possible etymological chain
1545-- crass is another word for heavy.
1640-- since crass is heavy, it can be distinguished from spiritual things, which are light as feathers.
1660–a thing is crass if it is slow, and ponderous, and dull, and not very spiritual
1860-- a person is crass if he hasn’t the wit to ponder the heavens.
Frankly, employers should be paying WFH folks more to cover the personal increases in electricity, monopolization of office space in the home, incidentials such as coffee, etc… If you’re WFH right now, and your company isn’t reimbursing you for home office expenses, they’re literally getting free rent & utilities. That isn’t right, regardless of whatever “convenience offsets” they claim to be “giving” you (when in reality, “giving” is actually “not taking right now”). Freaking horsepuckey.
As to Deutsche Bank, to use the Muttersprachen: Scheiß auf sie und auf diesen Mist!
I heard this floated on NPR the other day and it wasn’t proposed by DB. I can’t remember who. Anyway, it was proposed as a temporary measure where those of us who can work from home can help those who can’t until whatever new normal is agreed upon. As someone who is fortunate enough to sling code for a living, I think this is a fair proposition.
NOTE that I didn’t read the article and, so, will still think DB totally sucks if I find the time to read it.
