to think WFH is going to permanent for most who have switched?

[elmouno]

I was chatting with someone earlier and I said that most people currently working from home will be working from home now permanently. There will be no switch back to the offices in the city.

The other person disagreed and said people will have to go back. If they don't too much of the city economies will collapse which will affect the overall economy (i.e. no coffee, lunch, rail tickets, cleaners etc) that it would be catastrophic.

I'm guessing that businesses will be forced to change, but maybe not? Am I being unreasonable to assume that all the people now working from home will be doing so permanently?

@Feminist10101
What tax implications for the employer? I can’t think of any

The capital gains tax for home offices certainly isn’t true

The economy does change. In the 80s we moved rapidly away from manufacturing to a service economy. Whole swathes of the country had the rug pulled out from under them. And in some areas they haven't recovered. If people can work from home, these areas with cheap housing might revive a little as people aren't chained to commuter belts.

[quote Pineapplemonkey]@Feminist10101
What tax implications for the employer? I can’t think of any

The capital gains tax for home offices certainly isn’t true[/quote]
Capital gains:

taxaid.org.uk/guides/information/a-starting-point-for-the-self-employed/self-employed/use-of-home-as-office

Employer implications (not all tax but that’s one of the many issues)

www.tax.org.uk/sites/default/files/200331%20Working%20from%20home%20tax%20reliefs%20and%20exemptions%20guide.pdf

We're still seeing the negative consequences of shortsighted massive changes in the 80s. People won't choose to live in the very deprived areas with cheap housing because the communities have a lot of social problems associated with (and caused by) deprivation. That won't improve because a few affluent office workers move in (and push up the house prices). These areas first need investment. Transport links, education, access to support including social services and better healthcare (lots of local hospitals were closed and people have to travel long distances for medical care).

Talking of transport. With passenger numbers down, the train and bus companies will struggle to fund themselves. Which means more people reliant on their cars (not good for the environment) and non drivers cut off and isolated.

City centres will struggle but at the same time local high streets will do better.
Wfh will be far more normal than it ever has been. I feel for those in their 20s though. I loved the social aspects of work when I was young. Lunches out, beers at 5pm etc.
But when you have kids wfh is far better.

Sheep I agree that a lot of former industrial areas have massive problems but, like it did in London, money will creep into them. Not to the same extent but if somebody earning average wage can wfh, move 50 miles from their office and afford to buy a house rather than rent 20 minutes from work at twice the monthly cost then they will.

@PastMyBestBeforeDate

The economy does change. In the 80s we moved rapidly away from manufacturing to a service economy. Whole swathes of the country had the rug pulled out from under them. And in some areas they haven't recovered. If people can work from home, these areas with cheap housing might revive a little as people aren't chained to commuter belts.

I agree it's a good idea to revive these areas, which have never recovered from the 70s and 80s. I also think it's a good thing for the economy to be spread more evenly across the country. Less strain on housing, more job opportunities for deprived areas, and better for the environment. But, the only way it can work well is with careful planning and a sensible balance of home/office work.

A very drastic and sudden ill-thought out change to vast sections of society is a bad idea. It might be ok temporarily but for anything to work long-term, there needs to be good advance planning and slow introduction. I think two sayings are relevant: Act in haste, repent at leisure. And, be careful what you wish for.

I don't know. Relative works for a big company usually office based. Over eighty percent of employees are mid twenties or younger and often in house shares which are really not suited to home working. I don't know what will happen if they are asked to make this permanent. Unless salaries rose immensely or house prices crashed, they would not be able to get anywhere more suitable. Not all can return to large parental homes.

Sheep we're xposting but yes, it needs some thought and planning. The government is showing no signs of doing so.
Local hubs where people could do co-working for a fee could provide a way of social interaction. It could be worked out through the tax system.

like it did in London, money will creep into them
That's one of the potential problems. Poorer Londoners are often the invisible (rarely mentioned or considered) victims of the last twenty years. It's been devastating for them. The consequences include the now huge gang crime problem and serious deprivation (one of the most deprived areas in the country, Newham, suffered one of the highest death rates during the March-April first wave).

The risk is the same will happen elsewhere - without careful planning. If planned well, it could work out.

Sorry yes we keep cross posting!
I think we also broadly agree with each other. Fingers crossed things will go the right way this time. Unlike the 70s and 80s. The right change, planned out carefully, could work out very well. I'd really love to see more work-life balance, just no extremes.

Absolutely :) With some thought it could solve many problems. The focus on London & the SE has led to massive inequalities in many areas. If people could live well in decent secure housing and be present at home across the country it would make a difference.

@FinnyStory

No, I really don't. I think most of the peope determined that it has worked well are people towards the end of their careers who've benefited from the kind mentors and coaching you can ibky get when you work in the same office and don't seem to see any need to give anything back. They also live in houses with plenty of space to wfh.

It doesn't work for the apprentice who needs to be alongside colleagues, for the graduate from an international university whi has come to the UK "to see the world", for the company whose customers are finding response times much slower, the inexperienced staff with no one to support them, no "learning with Nellie" etc etc.

It's great for people at the end of their careers, with no further ambition. It's not good for anyone else or their employers.

Agree

For us, lab based workers a senior management are back, currently they are calling back people who have issues working from home.
But all of these together are less than 30% of total employees, and they aren’t all in daily.
All our office buildings were very overcrowded previously, so with 30% they are at social distancing Which is what they’re designed to do. maximum even if people are only in 2-3 days per week.

I’m concerned about the future of public transport, and also people entering the workforce if this becomes the norm. You can’t do internships or job shadowing or school work experience in someone else’s private home, and training g for new starters may be problematic.

I hope not in some of the public facing and service roles as the service has been dreadful in some of them

If it becomes the norm the government will find some way of bringing in some extra taxes as it is not something they seem to want to encourage

We have always mixed WFH with the office pre covid.

I think this will just continue but maybe with more WFH days.

What are the tax implications of continued working from home?

DH will work from home 80/100% of the time from now on. He works in IT.

I'm a teacher so absolutely no chance for me. I have loved being back in school this week!

We will be going back 1-2 days a week from mid September and this works perfectly for me. My org has not renewed the lease on one if its main buildings and is saving tens of thousands a year.

Just on the new joiners, we have had 3 new joiners on my team in July (all WFH).

One of them I have been working closely with and we have frequent Skype messages, phone calls and sharing screens if required.

I've been setting his work for each day, making sure he is aware of what it required to complete each task and making sure he stays on track and gets everything completed on time.

I think its actually gone a lot better than I thought it would and we have started to build a good relationship even though we have never met and I have no clue what he looks like or his age.
It's a strange situation but it works and I dont envisage this being an issue going forward.
I'm hoping I'll get to continue WFH at least 4 days a week.
Anyone who wanted to go back into the office has been there since July (about 10% of staff). The rest were offered the option to go back 2 days per week from October. There were absolutely no takers to this, so they have now put off the next stage until January.

DH has been told until December at least, and they are getting DSE assessments so he thinks it will be even longer.
He hopes he'll eventually go back just once or twice a week.

For us its great, no season ticket, no need for breakfast and after school club, and we can expand our house looking to cheaper places in our city not near the train station.

I agree with you OP but I also think many companies and employees are in the honeymoon WFH period and may change their minds about all this. Having a team WFH for extended periods of time can eventually lead to people feeling isolated and losing motivation and morale. It's an especially high risk for new recruits who often need that office environment to learn and feel connected to everyone. There are definitely ways you can mitigate these risks but companies need to be really switched on to it. I worry that too many company bosses are too green on all this and will cock it up.

I think that post-covid employees will be more likely to work partly from home (say 2 days a week). Full time wfh seems to be losing its appeal for many! It was good at first (saving on commuting costs) but has become very boring. Going in to work gives you more variety than sitting down at your kitchen table all day every day.