Culture Deutsche Bank Research: Tax home workers 'to help those who cannot' - Report says working from home should be taxed at 5% to help those whose jobs are under threat


1605147896754.png


Working from home should be taxed to help support workers whose jobs are under threat, a report has suggested.

Deutsche Bank Research suggests a tax of 5% of a worker's salary if workers choose to work from home when they are not forced to by the current pandemic.

The tax would be paid for by employers and the income generated would be paid to people who cannot work from home.

This could earn $48bn (£36bn) if introduced in the US and would help redress the balance, the bank says.

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.

In the UK, Deutsche Bank calculates the tax would generate a pot of £6.9bn a year, which could pay out grants of £2,000 a year to low-income workers and those under threat of redundancy

"For years we have needed a tax on remote workers," wrote Deutsche Bank strategist Luke Templeman. "Covid has just made it obvious."

"Quite simply, our economic system is not set up to cope with people who can disconnect themselves from face-to-face society.

Deutsche Bank Research predicts that workers in the US will now spend 4.6bn days a year at home rather than in the office.

A 5% work-from-home (WFH) tax on an average $55,000 salary works out at about $10 a day in the US. For the UK, the tax equates to about £7, based on a salary of £35,000.

"Those who can WFH receive direct and indirect financial benefits and they should be taxed in order to smooth the transition process for those who have been suddenly displaced."

Millions of people have shifted to working from home as employers closed offices to contain the spread of Covid-19.

Many big employers have said they will allow some staff to permanently work from home either full-time or part-time after the pandemic is over.

Jobs under threat

However, there are millions more who can't work from home, such as nurses and factory workers for example, and the tax should help support these roles, argues Deutsche Bank.

"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.

He also argues that remote workers are contributing less to the infrastructure of the economy "whilst still receiving its benefits".

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.

"WFH offers direct financial savings on expenses such as travel, lunch, clothes and cleaning," he said.

The 5% tax rate "will leave them no worse off than if they had chosen to go into the office".

Research from Deutsche Bank shows that one third of people want to continue working two days a week from home once the pandemic is over.

How would the tax work?

The tax would be paid directly by employers who choose to let employees work home.

But it would not apply to "the self-employed and those on low incomes".

It also wouldn't apply when people are asked to stay home for a public health emergency or other medical reasons.

The tax revenues would be used for a very specific purpose - to give grants to the millions of workers who cannot do their jobs from home and who make less than $30,000 a year.

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."

---


Be kind to others with your salary, goy.
 
Wait, so they're saying that we need to tax people who are being economically efficient by reducing emissions (no commuting), reducing congestion, freeing up space in cities (less office space needed) and reducing wasteful consumption (clothes, fast food, etc)? That sounds ridiculously counterproductive.

If anything, there should be a tax on businesses that could be doing remote work but aren't.
 
Can we get a tax on bankers first? Fuck these banking faggots.

Read connections people made that DN has alot of financial interest in commercial real estate and this is a way for them to protect their investments. Wouldn't be surprised.

Feels like us on WFH should be getting tax breaks for having to use our residential services form business.
 
Are their any economic policies at all that aren't just bullshit kike schemes to take money from the productive?
Taxes on things like pollution (an other negative externalities) exist so that people pay closer to the actual economic costs for their actions. For example if a power plant raises the temperature of the water in a river and causes the fish downstream to produce less offspring, the fishermen, not the power plant owners, are paying the cost for the actions of the power plant. As a result the operating expenses of the power plant don't accurately reflect the larger costs. If they are taxed for raising the temperature of the water then their operating expenses better reflect that and they are incentivized to cool the water before dumping it.
At least, that's how it works theoretically. In practice it's not so simple to calculate those costs or measure these externalities so that they pay an accurate tax. Add political corruption and log rolling onto it and it becomes even more of a mess...

Wait, so they're saying that we need to tax people who are being economically efficient by reducing emissions (no commuting), reducing congestion, freeing up space in cities (less office space needed) and reducing wasteful consumption (clothes, fast food, etc)? That sounds ridiculously counterproductive.

If anything, there should be a tax on businesses that could be doing remote work but aren't.
Yes. It's literally the opposite of what one would want to tax. "Oh no! The market is working efficiently over here! Better fuck it up!"
 
This reminds me of those hare-brained ideas several states have thrown around over the last decade about adding a mileage tax for hybrid cars because they use less gas (and thus generate less tax revenue from gasoline purchases) and about charging homeowners with solar panels extra fees for being "energy generators" to benefit their energy sector buddies. Because fuck being environmentally friendly -- the governor's mansion needs a new gold toilet and his kids need money for college, and those cash bribe envelopes don't stuff themselves.

Also, lol fuck you, nigger, if you want more money and/or remote work, go get a better job. I've worked hard for two and a half decades to learn the skills and accumulate the experience I need to qualify me for comfortable high-paying work-from-home gigs. You're not dipping into my pockets just because you can't hack anything besides retail, fast food or "phone monkey."
 
For 5% I would rather go to work than give it to the goverment, especially since I pay way less than 5% in order to get to and from work now.

But given who will be in charge in the US soon, the thought of a new tax probably gives them a chubby.
 
Instead of taxing home workers so they contribute to the economy in the same way as someone going into a workplace, why not open the fucking pubs and such again, seeing as the vast majority of them implemented a Kung Flu contingency plan, and let home workers contribute in that manner?

Unless it's not about the economy...
 
Atrás
Top Abajo