Bank suggest a tax on people working from home

El Tarangu

440Hertz wrote: »

You’re also forgetting that the majority of welfare payments get spent straight back into the economy on goods and services.

[...]

Also if you redistribute wealth towards the wealthier, most of it just gets hoarded in funds etc

While I largely agree with your arguments re: not cutting welfare to the bone, what do you think happens to the money that is 'hoarded' in funds? They don't just pile it up, Scrooge McDuck style, not doing anything.

To whit:

440Hertz wrote: »

Some of my money is in IT stocks that are hugely benefiting from work from home.

That money is being spent hiring new people to cope with increased demand, rolling out new infrastructure, etc.

El Tarangu

It's an interesting take on the whole thing.

Not in terms of tax, but I can certainly see companies using it as an argument to reduce salaries; if one of the reasons a company is paying a big salary is to cover employees' cost of living in Dublin/London/Paris, but increasingly the employees are living in Offaly/Cornwall/Ardeche instead, I can see this being used as an argument to reduce the salaries they are paying out.

440Hertz

El Tarangu wrote: »

That money is being spent hiring new people to cope with increased demand, rolling out new infrastructure, etc.

No it isn’t. It’s merely the speculative value of the stock.

tjhook

salonfire wrote: »

Thanks for your concern, since that fund could be part of my pension investments. You're 100% right, we need to think of the property funds and hope office space demand recovers eventually.

If your pension is managed in any sensible way, it'll be diversified in such a way that at worst, it'll be a very minor hit. Most likely, the part of your pension exposed to office space will go down, while other parts will go up. People working from home won't hide the savings under the mattress. They'll spend it elsewhere, or put it in the bank where it's lent to those who'll spend it.

Deutsche Bank could have been up-front and admitted they were concerned for their investments. But they're not. They're dressing it up as a humanitarian gesture, and looking for a sneaky subsidy from Joe Taxpayer. Screw 'em.

joseywhales

El Tarangu wrote: »

It's an interesting take on the whole thing.

Not in terms of tax, but I can certainly see companies using it as an argument to reduce salaries; if one of the reasons a company is paying a big salary is to cover employees' cost of living in Dublin/London/Paris, but increasingly the employees are living in Offaly/Cornwall/Ardeche instead, I can see this being used as an argument to reduce the salaries they are paying out.

I never understand this, it assumes that there is some sense of fairness to salaries, as if companies "take care" of their people. They will pay the minimum they have to pay to reach their objectives. If they need me to do x and I move to madagascar or madrid, it's no business of theirs as far as I am concerned. Up until it affects your ability to perform the task.

CIARAN_BOYLE

joseywhales wrote: »

I never understand this, it assumes that there is some sense of fairness to salaries, as if companies "take care" of their people. They will pay the minimum they have to pay to reach their objectives. If they need me to do x and I move to madagascar or madrid, it's no business of theirs as far as I am concerned. Up until it affects your ability to perform the task.

Supply and demand.

If they want a job done in New York they pay a premium. If that job no longer needs to be done in New York why shouldn't they offer to pay what they pay their Limerick based employees.

theological

Mooooo wrote: »

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/11/12/deutsche-bank-proposes-a-5percent-tax-for-remote-workers-post-pandemic.html?__twitter_impression=true

Gas crowd, suggesting more taxes on workers still working rather than kn corporations still operating to help with covid losses

The problem with that logic is that they are assuming that people don't have other costs working from home. For example I'm paying a lot more in energy costs since the pandemic. This is an expense normally shouldered by my employer when I'm in the office.

Having said that they are right to suggest there's been an inequality between those who work at home in pretty comfortable middle class jobs versus those who have no choice to go out to work. People who are out in customer facing roles are more likely to contract the virus than those who stay at home.

So there is a debate about how to deal with that to be had but Deutsche Bank's solution isn't one of the valid options.

Wanderer78

We really need public banking systems, so we can tell these banks and their share holders, ta fcuk off!

km991148

tjhook wrote: »

Thinking a little more about motivation, I wonder why Deutsche Bank would be proposing a measure to push people back to offices, pushing up demand for those same office buildings...

"One of the largest real estate investment managers in the world, the investment management platform of Deutsche Bank's Deutsche Asset Management - Alternatives division specialises in investment in tertiary, commercial and logistics real estate."

Ye, I was wondering if there was an 'office use' angle here when I read it, was too lazy to look into it.

A lot if empty offices, and some problems down the line if not let.
Similarly there are a lot of empty city centre apartments. If taxation can be used to encourage office use, shouldn't it also be used to tax the Kennedy Wilson's that are sitting in scores of apartments?

kippy

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Anyone is allowed to suggest changes to their country's tax policy.

I think they have a point: WFH does lead to reduced economic activity.

So does internet banking, and a myriad of other advances in human science and behaviours of humans over the years.
It's not a reason for another tax. And I disagree, WFH has far more economic benefits for the state and its citizens than it does negatives when you look at the bigger picture.

theological

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Anyone is allowed to suggest changes to their country's tax policy.

I think they have a point: WFH does lead to reduced economic activity.

Yes and no though. I have more expenses in other areas working from home as I've just mentioned. Energy being one of them.

One of the examples they cite is getting food out at lunch. On that logic should I be taxed more for making my own lunch when I'm in the office.

It's not a genuine solution to the real inequality there is between those in comfortable working from home jobs and those working in more customer facing roles which require them to be exposed to others.

I agree with the previous poster about economic benefits of working from home. Instead of funding businesses in the city centre I'm probably spending more in my local community which can only be a good thing. It just means that other businesses near my home benefit more than they would otherwise.

beauf

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Anyone is allowed to suggest changes to their country's tax policy.

I think they have a point: WFH does lead to reduced economic activity.

....They should ban it then and see what effect on economic activity that has...

...Of course the banks will have to close like everything else then...

Bob24

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

Supply and demand.

If they want a job done in New York they pay a premium. If that job no longer needs to be done in New York why shouldn't they offer to pay what they pay their Limerick based employees.

Yep exactly and quite easy to understand.

I think many white collars are still failing to understand this and the implications of the WFH trend.

Many just see it as a way to avoid commutes and live in a place with lower cost of housing while keeping the same salary.

But if the job can be done from a house in the country rather than Dublin city centre, firstly the supply of workers in Ireland willing to do it for a lower pay increases. And secondly why stopping there and not moving it to a lower cost country? (meaning Irish wages for those jobs which can be done remotely start competing with wages in lower cost countries, whereas before they were protected against that competition as there was a restriction on the geographical location of the role ... and to come back on topic, the idea of additional specific taxation on those jobs would just encourage that trend)

tabby aspreme

km991148 wrote: »

Ye, I was wondering if there was an 'office use' angle here even I read it, was too lazy to look into it.

A lot if empty offices, and some problems down the line if not let.
Similarly there are a lot of empty city centre apartments. If taxation can be used to encourage office use, shouldn't it also be used to tax the Kennedy Wilson's that are sitting in scores of apartments?

WFH will lead to a decline in commercial development, and hit a lot of big developments hard, there are 250 desks on the floor where my OH works, with less than 20 occupied each day, there will be a lot of downsizing when these leases are up for renewal

km991148

tabby aspreme wrote: »

WFH will lead to a decline in commercial development, and hit a lot of big developments hard, there are 250 desks on the floor where my OH works, with less than 20 occupied each day, there will be a lot of downsizing when these leases are up for renewal

Ye no doubt. Hard to feel sorry for the foreign property companies tho. There was a queue of them waiting with brown envelopes to get a piece of the NAMA action.

beauf

Bob24 wrote: »

Yep exactly and quite easy to understand.

I think many white collars are still failing to understand this and the implications of the WFH trend.

Many just see it as a way to avoid commutes and live in a place with lower cost of housing while keeping the same salary.

But if the job can be done from a house in the country rather than Dublin city centre, firstly the supply of workers in Ireland willing to do it for a lower pay increases. And secondly why stopping there and not moving it to a lower cost country? (meaning Irish wages for those jobs which can be done remotely start competing with wages in lower cost countries, whereas before they were protected against that competition as there was a restriction on the geographical location of the role ... and the come back on topic, the idea of additional taxation on those jobs would just encourage that trend)

More of this...

https://youtu.be/YfkPcTNnGNk

Gervais08

Bowie wrote: »

Except they are paid based on need and they'd need that 20% shortfall covered by another source. Also it's a bit silly to use tax monies to pay out only to draw 20% back. Would create pointless work I suppose.
Why reward wealth generators? Do they need the extra? The idea wealth generators are all about paying it back to society is a funny one.
If you want the wealth generators to help, raise their taxes 20%? makes more sense.

Based on need?? Get away with ye.

So that skank Caah “needs” 50k cash a year plus everything free???

Ffs.

Wanderer78

very interesting!

Eric Cartman

We’re already at the full limit for taxes, its incredibly unfair to expect almost any country in western europe to increase taxes.

storker

Anyone working from home is already paying more tax in the form of VAT on increased gas and electricity bills.

km991148

It's not too bad..?

Me though? I'm typing this from my desk out in the square...

km991148

storker wrote: »

Anyone working from home is already paying more tax in the form of VAT on increased gas and electricity bills.

That's negligible really, considering most people are paying less tax on transport and other costs.

Sticking a WFH tax on top is taking the piss, but it would not surprise me if they tried adding some BIK related bs.

Bob24

storker wrote: »

Anyone working from home is already paying more tax in the form of VAT on increased gas and electricity bills.

If you start looking at it that way it is an endless argument though.

You could also say they are paying a lot less tax on petrol for their car.

thegetawaycar

Bob24 wrote: »

If you start looking at it that way it is an endless argument though.

You could also say they are paying a lot less tax on petrol for their car.

But you can't as many don't use a car to get to work where as if WFH you are definitely using more electricity.

jimgoose

They have their porridge. If anything, t's costing me money to work from home, and I'll be putting in a claim for my few shillings at year-end with Revenue.

Bob24

thegetawaycar wrote: »

But you can't as many don't use a car to get to work where as if WFH you are definitely using more electricity.

Some have central heating for which the cost doesn't depend on their consumption. And without heating the additional electric consumption is minimal.

Also without going to the office, many aren't paying VAT anymore on all the services they usually consume (VAT for their food at the canteen which on average is more costly than their food at home, etc).

It is an endless discussion with no obvious answer as you can find arguments either way and it depends on each individual case (some will end-up paying more indirect tax in total, other less ... and frankly there is no convincing argument given yet to conclude on the average direction).

km991148

I would assume the difference in VAT paid is negligible in the context of an individual employee and wouldn't make much difference to the amount of money people have in their pockets.
Most people have some transport commuting costs and buy food etc when not at home (yes, some can walk, some take a lunch, but in general).

But a 5pc tax on salary, that's pretty steep in comparison.


(From the gov point of view VAT receipts would probably have taken a massive hit due to less disposable income being spent, but that's a completely separate issue)

CIARAN_BOYLE

thegetawaycar wrote: »

But you can't as many don't use a car to get to work where as if WFH you are definitely using more electricity.

Or maybe people are finally getting use out of their solar panels whose peak daytime hours of generation have been wasted.

thegetawaycar

Bob24 wrote: »

Some have central heating for which the cost doesn't depend on their consumption. And without heating the additional electric consumption is minimal.

Also without going to the office, many aren't paying VAT anymore on all the services they usually consume (VAT for their food at the canteen which on average is more costly than their food at home, etc).

It is an endless discussion with no obvious answer as you can find arguments either way and it depends on each individual case (some will end-up paying more indirect tax in total, other less ... and frankly there is no convincing argument given yet to conclude on the average direction).

I disagree, the only thing that is definitive is you WILL use more electricity by working at home.

The rest is possible spends, probable or indirect and really not something you can 100% relate to work from home.

I do agree with the part where you can find arguments either way, I've even had people telling me it should be given a tax break as it will help lower carbon emissions (same person now drives the kids to school which he never did before).

NuttyMcNutty

Donald Trump wrote: »

You'd imagine that their loan book would also have significant exposure to commercial assets which may go down in value.

In the US, property loans are often non-recourse.

I fcuking knew it, there's always a book involved coming up to crimbo.