And that is most assuredly not my problem. They should have planned for their unexpected dive into poverty. Corporations are people too, after all.
10 Likes
Other way around. Businesses should be paying employees more now that workers have to provide their own office space.
4 Likes
Ha, I wasn’t aware of that, sounds plausible! Also, such government bond usually have a long duration, so your toads will be returning as slow as a tortoise…
Do you plan to continue working from home when the risk of infection drops to zero?
My wife and I both would like to get back into the office. Two desk setups put a real dent into a small house’s usable floorspace.
2 Likes
So, you won’t be taxed. If your employers decline to provide office space, they’ll be taxed.
Remember, this proposal is for the post vaccination world.
1 Like
As much as WFH is currently weighing on me, I’d love to be able to continue doing it with the ability to change the scenery once the infection risk drops. Not being able to go to a coffee shop or the library for a day instead of being at the same desk at home has been really grating.
I still don’t understand why that means I should be taxed for it.
10 Likes
Some people will defend the greed of ‘the Haves’ to their very deaths.
11 Likes
The paper is predicated on the belief that separating commercial infrastructure from residential infrastructure has certain efficiency advantages, and a society which, for economic reasons, asks individuals to incorpate office spaces into their homes is not a desirable one. The tax system attemnpts to remove that economic incentive.
Okay, but that’s not I have a problem with. Businesses that plan on continuing the WFH model should increase compensation, otherwise they’re co-opting the workers’ homes. I rent the whole house, and now the boss gets to use one room for a third of the time for free? Yeah no.
11 Likes
Fixed for accuracy, although your version’s assumption of DB’s altruistic concern for society and for the working poor (who’d never see a dime of these tax revenues) is touching. Understanding the bank’s (and late-stage capitalist society’s) true nature it still doesn’t explain why @alahmnat should be taxed to cover DB’s unfortunate bet.
9 Likes
This is an awful idea, as pointed out very well by numerous posters before me.
To the ‘this isn’t so bad, I wanna help people out of luck!’ crowd, you don’t need to be taxed for working from home to help people in a worse circumstance than you. You can just help them directly or through any number of social service organizations.
Obviously, a social safety net shouldn’t be left to voluntary donations by citizens, but nor should it be extracted from an arbitrary subset of workers just b/c they aren’t contributing to DB’s financial holdings through commercial rents.
My vote go to eliminating the tax split between earned and unearned (capitol gains) income. Why is 100,00 of interest taxed at a lower rate than 100,000 of income? (It’s b/c only rich people can earn 100,000 in interest)
10 Likes
Quoting from the paper:
In the US, the $48bn raised could pay for a $1,500 grant to the 29m workers who cannot work from home and earn under $30,000 a year (excluding those who earn tips). Many of these people are those who assumed the health risks of working during the pandemic and are far more ‘essential’ than their wage level suggests.
Similarly, in Germany, the €15.9bn raised could fund a €1,500 grant to the bottom 12 per cent of people in the country who have a standard of living equivalent to €12,600 (after adjusting for the size of their household)2. Similarly in the UK, the £6.9bn raised could provide a grant of £2,000 to the 12 per cent of those aged over 25 who work for the minimum wage3. Of course, the exact amount of the grant could be based on an asymmetric tapering system.
I recall that when states rushed to invent Lottery schemes (taxing innumeracy), the moral evils of this sort of gambling (such as they are) were excused on the grounds that these revenues would subsidize schools. What proponents neglected to mention was that for every million dollars earmarked for the schools, a million dollars in regular appropriations would no longer be needed.
Presently, there are no income support schemes for this telecommuter tax to displace, but I can’t help thinking that the proposal serves the same rhetorical purpose as a “revenue neutral tax”-- a way for economists to regulate through the tax code without needing to contemplate who specifically it would burden.
3 Likes
Protip: Never, ever, take Deutsche Bank at their word. Those who do are the kind of people who think Il Douche is a good credit risk, and who’d happily give a scorpion a ride across a river on their back if he promised not to sting them.
Again: that amount and more could be raised by taxing employers directly based on their massive savings from having employees work from home full or part time. Although that’s no guarantee that the revenues would end up in the bank accounts of the working poor instead of bailing out landlords, developers and – ultimately – DB and other mortgage holders.
Only in that, like many such taxes proposed by bad actors like DB, it isn’t “revenue-neutral” in practise. Shady rhetoric to cover a cynical motive.
14 Likes
One of the more recent developments has been that a slow erosion of trust in Deutsche Bank is turning into a landslide collapse under its foundation, like a Malibu dream house falling into the Pacific. By the time this hit the German press, the uniform reaction amongst pundits and politicians was derision and a sort of “man, you can tell it’s a bad idea because Deutsche Bank is spouting it!”
But you are right, there are enough cronies and lobbyists out there who might nod in agreement. Even as other lobbyists are pushing for tax benefits for home office and tax breaks for those companies that make it easer to work from home.
I think this is a real issue in the USA, and one of the reasons I decided to remain an expatriate (at least until I get German citizenship, then I can call myself an immigrant). American zoning is business-unfriendly in many ways, the biggest being that it’s against local entertainment. “Want a small cafe where the neighbours can gather? Or a little gastropub where you can go with the wife and enjoy a wine or a beer with your meal? Just where do you think you are?”
I have actually heard this from a colleague.* “Yeah, like I’d trust a bank that still lent Trump money.”
*On one of those days when I did commute in to the office. Once this is over, as much as I appreciate working from home I think I would still prefer communing with my fellow devs and having in-person meetings and talks. I enjoy getting away from the nagging at home.
5 Likes
A picky, but I feel important, point: the working poor may pay no income tax, but they pay a disproportionate amount of sales tax. At least, they do in the UK, where the basic rate of VAT is an eye-watering 20% (though a fair few items, such as food, children’s clothes, and electricity and gas, are either taxed at a lower 5% rate or are exempt entirely). Governments, especially right-leaning governments, are fond of VAT, because it’s hard to avoid and keeps the headline income-tax rate down. The fact that it’s viciously regressive is, it seems, a regrettable side-effect.
13 Likes
Agreed on that point. Such taxes are often pretty regressive.
10 Likes
Yes. In my city the sales tax is 10.25% (once the highest in the state, but now very common in the more populated SoCal counties), and it’s a regressive tax that disproportionately affects the working poor.
I don’t think anyone is arguing against taxation, especially if it’s for much needed social programs. However, the wealthy need to step up their game and contribute more. The shrinking middle class is unlikely to have access to tax loopholes and accountants to help them minimize their taxes while the wealthy and corporations would rather take their money and pay accountants to help them minimize their tax liability.
I also think there is also a generalized mistrust that these taxes will NOT be used as proposed.
6 Likes
Fuck yeah, I do.
2 Likes
@SheiffFatman @Mindysan33 and not just sales tax! Don’t forget about payroll taxes and social security which, for some reason, doesn’t apply to income over 137,700 (142,800 next year). I say ‘some reason’ like I don’t know why, but we all do.
Employer ‘provided’ healthcare is deducted per paycheck also! ( Its only fair we pay for part of our compensation, after all 
)
11 Likes
