Increased tax for WFH

[echt]

Not an AIBU, but what is theses days?

Have a look at this proposal:

www.theguardian.com/business/2020/nov/11/staff-who-work-from-home-after-pandemic-should-pay-more-tax

I find the argument about WFH not contributing to the infrastructure interesting, as you could have a WFH employee who formerly cycled to work and brought packed lunch never contributed to the infrastructure as put forward here.

Completely ridiculous idea, dreamt up by an over-paid man.

I don't know why this feels so gendered, but it does -- and it was thought up by men, I saw when I went to check.

I guess I imagine a lot of people who benefit from working from home are women, because women pick up a lot of the caring/parenting responsibilities. Working from home allows me to put a load of laundry on at lunch, and do all the school pick ups and drop offs (on a bike, following my home made sandwich). My energy bills are higher as I have to heat the house while I'm at home. I make no saving as I cycled to work and made my own lunches. But sure, charge me for the privilege, while the offices become the bloke bastion.

I actually love going to the office because it's a break.

But sure, just tax me for taking the option that works best with my responsibilities.

It is the companies that should pay - they must be saving vast amounts on electricity, broadband ect.

Silly. Why dream up ways of encouraging people back onto congested roads, for a start?

That's ridiculous. I've worked from home for the last 10 years. My contract states I'm home based.

My whole team is remote and located all round the UK. That would be a totally unfair tax. There isn't even an office in the area that I could commute to daily.

@Sarahandco

It is the companies that should pay - they must be saving vast amounts on electricity, broadband ect.

They are not just saving on that. They are saving by sneaking the workload up so there is an expectation to work extra hours every week because we are saving time and energy from commute. That really is happening and it adds up.

I imagine it would be indirect discrimination as more women and disabled people I imagine work at home, at least pre covid. They are thinking about rich city folk probably but there are other ways to target them. What about those who wfh but work on a table in a coffee shop? Will that be tax deductible? What about if they build a garden office, are they contributing enough to the economy? Some business models will thrive in the new environment and others won't.

I mean it's not like I've been given a choice

The proposal sounds to me like a thinly-veiled version of let's get back to shopping at Pret.

I'm also not impressed by the idea that the tax would go to the less-wealthy as hypothecating tax is unlikely.

@Sarahandco

It is the companies that should pay - they must be saving vast amounts on electricity, broadband ect.

In most cases they are not. The offices still have to be run, heated etc. Even though we are all working from home our IT team has to go in now and then, so the office is using more or less the same energy. Plus it's leased so the landlord charges for that anyway.

I also read recently that us all running our heating at home with one or two people is using way more energy than heating an office with a few hundred people. So the green impact is not proved.

However, if we're not contributing to infrastructure, that's because we're not using it. If we're not using it, there doesn't need to be as much of it. Simple.

I hope to goodness they don’t start taxing wealth. My husband and I are hoping to retire next year (we are in our 40s) and live off our accumulated “wealth”. If they tax it, there goes that idea. Hope that doesn’t take off!

I walk to work, bring my own lunch most days but we do have Pret Fridays. I’ve been at home since March and our energy bills are already up quite a bit, balanced against a saving of about £6 a week.

Ummm fuck off Deutsche Bank. What a ridiculous suggestion.

Putting a barrier in the way of flexibility at work would be detrimental to women, disabled people and the environment.

Ridiculous suggestion. We should be moving towards more working from home not penalising people or companies for it.

Many big companies have done very well as a result of the higher paid employees wfh. They are saving a lot by letting go of city centre offices. The employees are sucking up broadband and energy costs in return for commuting savings.

I would imagine the owners of the big office blocks would like this proposal, as they stand to lose rent if companies downsize their office space requirements.

@TW2013

I imagine it would be indirect discrimination as more women and disabled people I imagine work at home, at least pre covid. They are thinking about rich city folk probably but there are other ways to target them. What about those who wfh but work on a table in a coffee shop? Will that be tax deductible? What about if they build a garden office, are they contributing enough to the economy? Some business models will thrive in the new environment and others won't.

This was my first thought!

While things are changing and many men are enjoying the flexibility of working from home, we all know that women are more likely to continue working from home if they can, to make it just a bit easier to juggle all their home life responsibilities.

This would really, really piss me off.

Won't happen.

Deutsche Bank just want to protect their own commercial property funds. What could happen is more commercial sites are released for conversion to housing. Pret is saved and SDLT takings will far outweigh the £7bn which is less than 1% of UK tax collection.

I read this and was musing today.

Firstly one of the things that struck me is that part of the argument is all about paying towards infrastructure, but this infrastructure has built up around working in City and town hubs, paying for the unused offices and the levies on travel, on the flip side, if people wfh more coming out of covid then you will find that more people are living and shopping locally, so this will drive that infrastructure to be provided more locally, benefiting people living in those many many more in number local locations than the fewer. City hubs. City office may move to other uses and the environmental benefit, of less journeys is potentially vast. It also makes journeys for those who have to travel much more pleasant and quicker. Just because we have become used to paying above the odds to fight our ways. In to working hubs, in to cramped and stressed cities doesn't mean we should continue to do so. And the benefits to generating more local business not only benefits the wfh workers, but non workers such and. Pensioners, sahp who will have more available on their dorrstep rather than having to go to cities or miss out.
In addition, outside of people who a commuting in to big cities (eg those who are making a saving on travel and pricey lunches) each wfh worker is seeing household costs increase in terms of water,.gas.and electric, all of which is saving the employer, and potentially in the long run saving the employer on building costs.

So no, I don't agree on such targeted taxing on wfh on the basis proposed in the article.

I can't read the whole article.

This is a suggestion from Deutsche Bank?

Sounds like they want their people back in the office for whatever reason and are not keen on distance working. Fair enough but why are the suggestions from one albeit large company getting time in the press? Especially the guardian?

Weird

Will read thread now.

@maddening it's ridiculous that we could prop up an outmoded way of life. Usually it's the workers who need to change after a leap forward. This time it's the employers.

Also HS2. Why are we implementing 20th century transport rather than 21st century infrastructure?

They clearly have no idea how much more I am eating from pret by wfh because I’m so bored walking to the shop is the only thing of interest I have to do each day!

Idiotic, self-serving idea.

I wonder if Deutsche Bank are exposed to a lot of debt linked to urban real estate?

Can't see this being a vote winner somehow.

It is based on a faulty premise that employees wfh are somehow not holding up their end of a bargain to support a system. The problem is that there was no bargain. Employees have paid their way as far as public infrastructure goes through taxes and fares. Private sector real estate investments and retail businesses are not their responsibility - that's the free market that Deutsche Bank loves to operate in.

This is just typical capitalism - individualise the gains and socialise the losses.

you could have a WFH employee who formerly cycled to work and brought packed lunch never contributed to the infrastructure as put forward here.

You could, but they would be a minority.

You could, but they would be a minority.

But it is irrelevant though. Taxpayers have no reason to subsidise private business because their business models are no longer appropriate and transport infrastructure has either already been funded by taxes/fares or can be scaled back if usage drops.