Author Topic: Deutsche Bank Proposes Taxing Employees Who WFH  (Read 5480 times)

dashuk

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 362
Re: Deutsche Bank Proposes Taxing Employees Who WFH
« Reply #50 on: November 17, 2020, 08:50:55 AM »
I think you have a pretty unrealistic approximation of what 'high earner' means.

ender

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7402
Re: Deutsche Bank Proposes Taxing Employees Who WFH
« Reply #51 on: November 17, 2020, 08:52:00 AM »
What about if the tax went towards a UBI?

Why is this a better way of raising the tax revenue to fund UBI (which I am in favour of) than taxing high earners?

+100

The implication is that all people working from home are high earners.

This just isn't true at all. It's almost certainly the case that of high earners, more of them can WFH, but the idea that all people working from home are somehow better off is silly. Unless call centers and other lower wage careers count.

mizzourah2006

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1063
  • Location: NWA
Re: Deutsche Bank Proposes Taxing Employees Who WFH
« Reply #52 on: November 17, 2020, 08:52:51 AM »
I think you have a pretty unrealistic approximation of what 'high earner' means.

What does it mean to you? Is a HH in Washington DC making $300k/yr a high earning HH? What about a HH in Birmingham AL making $150k/yr?

dashuk

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 362
Re: Deutsche Bank Proposes Taxing Employees Who WFH
« Reply #53 on: November 17, 2020, 09:08:22 AM »
I think you have a pretty unrealistic approximation of what 'high earner' means.

What does it mean to you? Is a HH in Washington DC making $300k/yr a high earning HH? What about a HH in Birmingham AL making $150k/yr?

I don't know what you mean by HH.

Pretty sure that if the median personal income in your country is $33k, the lower boundary of 'high earner' isn't fifteen times higher.

mizzourah2006

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1063
  • Location: NWA
Re: Deutsche Bank Proposes Taxing Employees Who WFH
« Reply #54 on: November 17, 2020, 09:15:52 AM »
I think you have a pretty unrealistic approximation of what 'high earner' means.

What does it mean to you? Is a HH in Washington DC making $300k/yr a high earning HH? What about a HH in Birmingham AL making $150k/yr?

I don't know what you mean by HH.

Pretty sure that if the median personal income in your country is $33k, the lower boundary of 'high earner' isn't fifteen times higher.

HH = household

My point is that cost of living impacts what is a high earner in a country the size of the US. What may be considered a high household income in Alabama may be considered a very middle class income in Los Angeles. So, unless we want to get into the habit of taxing people based off of their cost of living the safest thing to do is to identify an income that can be considered "high" in all parts of the country regardless of cost of living and most people identify that as $4-$500k+.

dashuk

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 362
Re: Deutsche Bank Proposes Taxing Employees Who WFH
« Reply #55 on: November 17, 2020, 09:39:10 AM »
So, unless we want to get into the habit of taxing people based off of their cost of living the safest thing to do is to identify an income that can be considered "high" in all parts of the country regardless of cost of living and most people identify that as $4-$500k+.

Or you might suggest that, in the context of the US, UBI might have to happen at the state rather than the federal level.


bacchi

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7056
Re: Deutsche Bank Proposes Taxing Employees Who WFH
« Reply #56 on: November 17, 2020, 09:51:30 AM »
So, unless we want to get into the habit of taxing people based off of their cost of living the safest thing to do is to identify an income that can be considered "high" in all parts of the country regardless of cost of living and most people identify that as $4-$500k+.

Or you might suggest that, in the context of the US, UBI might have to happen at the state rather than the federal level.

The GSA already sets different levels of per diem rates for many cities/MSAs. There's no reason that or something similar can't be used. It will never be exact but we know that San Francisco is more expensive than Sacramento or Tulsa.

zolotiyeruki

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5603
  • Location: State: Denial
Re: Deutsche Bank Proposes Taxing Employees Who WFH
« Reply #57 on: November 17, 2020, 01:42:18 PM »
If such a thing were passed, could I hypothetically go work in my next door neighbor's spare bedroom (and he in mine) to avoid it?

I understand the motivation.  But if the shift to WFH is expected to be permanent, or at least part of the shift is permanent, then either A) due to reduced traffic, (some of) those sandwich shops *will* eventually have to close, or B) you're stuck subsidizing them forever.  Temporarily taxing (right, how often does _that_ happen) people WFH to shore them up will only delay the inevitable.

Bloop Bloop Reloaded

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 757
  • Location: Australia
Re: Deutsche Bank Proposes Taxing Employees Who WFH
« Reply #58 on: November 17, 2020, 04:51:15 PM »
I'm surprised so many are against this. Think of it as a form of privilege tax.

It's all about what it incentivizes.

Should the government be encouraging commuting? Should the government be encouraging more and more congregation into dense urban areas? Should people who can work remotely subsidize industries?

If I am able to live life with less consumption then that should be encouraged.

The industries that suffer can pivot to offer something meaningful in the new world that we will gradually find ourselves interested in. Or maybe they can learn to consume less themselves and therefore have less need for output.

Encouraging mindless consumption is not the answer. Nor, in my view, is a UBI, as long as you have a solid safety net in place. Perhaps everyone just needs to realise that infinite growth is not a good thing.

zolotiyeruki

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5603
  • Location: State: Denial
Re: Deutsche Bank Proposes Taxing Employees Who WFH
« Reply #59 on: November 17, 2020, 05:50:28 PM »
It's all about what it incentivizes.

Should the government be encouraging commuting? Should the government be encouraging more and more congregation into dense urban areas? Should people who can work remotely subsidize industries?

If I am able to live life with less consumption then that should be encouraged.
Does reduced consumption *need* incentives, though?  Lower consumption brings its own reward in the shape of early retirement, or downshifting.  Publicity for lower consumption as a valid lifestyle choice isn't a bad thing, though.

ender

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7402
Re: Deutsche Bank Proposes Taxing Employees Who WFH
« Reply #60 on: November 17, 2020, 09:53:22 PM »
I wouldn't be surprised if there is a net increase in consumption too as not being geographically constrained likely results in larger houses, etc.

NYExpat

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 34
Re: Deutsche Bank Proposes Taxing Employees Who WFH
« Reply #61 on: November 18, 2020, 12:26:06 PM »
As someone who has a fairly short commute, doesn't eat out for work lunch and doesn't have a fancy wardrobe, I'd be pissed if I got hit with a 5% tax just because I'm "no longer supporting the local economy". I understand that I have a bit of privilege by not having to go into the office right now, but taxing me simply because someone is working and doesn't get the chance to WFH seems broken.  If the money was going to job training for people who lost their jobs then maybe I'd tolerate it.  But as someone who has a below median wage, I don't think I should be taxed just because someone doesn't have an opportunity I have.

LoanShark

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 128
Re: Deutsche Bank Proposes Taxing Employees Who WFH
« Reply #62 on: November 18, 2020, 12:59:32 PM »
Yeah, that's pretty dumb. The market will sort itself out and talent will leave unless DB pays considerably higher wages than market and net-net the employee comes out ahead.

 

Wow, a phone plan for fifteen bucks!