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.

I hope they dont do this!

Dh and I used to commute together as we only have one car. Now I'm WFH permanently but he still goes in the office so we dont save any commuting costs! So that's stayed the same while our energy bills have increased. We both eat a home made lunch regardless of where we are too.

Please no!

WFH has not been a choice it has been forced upon us. My company has made savings on consumables and rates etc. This has probably saved jobs (there have been redundancies but less than there could have been). I have a commute of 1/2 a mile, take my food in etc. I am spending a fortune on my food delivery-it's gone up a lot, heating and my commute costs are the same! I hope some of the big corportations eg Amazon pay the correct amount of tax in this country.

@Lily193

There are numerous threads on here about how much money people have saved while working from home - if they continue to WFH, those people need to contribute more instead of expecting someone else to.

You save money by not shopping exclusively in Harrods, not having 10 children, and not buying a new car every year. You need to contribute more instead of speaking WFHers to.

We need a much smaller state and much less tax.

80% of workers are currently paid by the state. Those of us not paid by the state and who got no furlough money etc perhaps should be given a big tax cut to thank those who have not had furlough for keeping going!

Also I often took sandwiches into work - not everyone who works in an office is spending money hand over fist. Plenty also got a subsidised canteen which they have now lost when working from home. It is not as simple as you are much better off because you are now working fro home. Usually nothing is an expensive as having higher heating bills all winter.

WFH threatens a lot of vested interests so it wouldn't surprise me.

MN is a fan of paying more tax in general, just not if it comes from their own pockets.

I think it's more the reasoning behind it that is annoying people. I'm one of those who walks/cycles to work, takes my own lunch etc. because I need to, and working from home is costing me more than working in the office. I'm also not a high earner and DH has been made redundant due to Covid. Less income would cause us real problems and we'd be 'contributing' even less to the 'infrastructure'.

My employer is talking about not having an office at all and wfh being permanent so it may not even be a choice for me.

I'm not against paying more tax, despite the fact it would cause me hardship, if the way it's done is fair. This doesn't seem fair.

There's something fantastically Luddite about the whole 'Save Pret' angle.

What's the point of trying to reverse-engineer ourselves back to a model that was already standing on shaky grounds?

Why not look forward? Why not help businesses adapt and diversify and let the market dictate what succeeds, giving a soft-landing for those transitions of business?

I don't want to be quit of the office for good.

I want decentralisation of office spaces, and a vast increase in shared office facilities distributed around towns, villages and suburbs. I'd like everyone to be able to access shared workspaces in flexible arrangements within walking distance of their homes and children's schools. I want to see businesses serving these offices thriving.

There are professions that need to be located in a specific place.

There are parts of office work that need to take place together. There are business functions such as having a registered address that need a defined location.

There are parts of office work that can be done more efficiently from home. There are personal work/life benefits to go alongside that.

This policy is mean in spirit and backwards in intention.

(and like @Byllis, I'm personally happy to be taxed more based on my high income, but not because I WFH)

@safariboot

Fuck. Off.

I earn peanuts. My usual commute is a walk. I take a packed lunch because I can't afford to spend 60 quid a month in Greggs. I regularly have work I have to do out of hours from home. And when I am in the office I want my fucking desk to be mine.

And now Deutsche Shitheads think that means I deserve to pay more fucking tax?

Fuck. Off.

Stop sitting on the fence and tell us what you really think.

For my part - I have been WFH for over 10 years - hurrah someone has thought of a reason for me to pay more tax, great.

What's the point of trying to reverse-engineer ourselves back to a model that was already standing on shaky grounds
Exactly, the high street was already in decline and the new businesses most likely to fail have always been cafes/restaurants/bars etc, and pubs were already closing at a rate of one a week (iirc) pre-covid.

I think the only way to implement this would be as a 'tax' administered through PAYE as a 'benefit in kind', similarly to company cars etc.
That would ensure those who always worked at home, e.g. self-employed and freelancers, would not be dragged in.

However, it is still a highly short-sighted proposal, even in economic terms, since there are indirect social costs of commuting, such as pollution, wear-and-tear on the road infrastructure, costs to the NHS of RTAs, etc. These social costs are greatly reduced by WFF. So WFH does reduce many of the costs incurred by the public sector by people going into the office.

Plus in my last office job where I had to go into the office and could not work from home, I used to walk to work and go home for my lunch!
Now I WFH I am at least paying the energy companies lots of money to heat my house during the daytime and ISPs lots of money for powerful broadband.

People might not be using Pret or London Underground but they will be contributing to higher profits of utility companies when they use more electricity, upgrade their broadband package...
I'm not so sure that coffee via the Costa or Starbucks drive through is any better than spending at Pret.
Don't forget that their employers will be making savings by not renting big offices etc. Again, Pret's loss ends up as a gain for another company.

I think the only way to implement this would be as a 'tax' administered through PAYE as a 'benefit in kind', similarly to company cars etc.
That would ensure those who always worked at home, e.g. self-employed and freelancers, would not be dragged in.
Er no. Over the course of the last 10 years I have had PAYE and Self employed work - all has been WFH. I am not alone (very far from it) - in my industry (IT) there are a lot of PAYE workers who WFH under normal circumstances.

Not 'WFF' - I meant 'WFH'

@DynamoKev

I think the only way to implement this would be as a 'tax' administered through PAYE as a 'benefit in kind', similarly to company cars etc. That would ensure those who always worked at home, e.g. self-employed and freelancers, would not be dragged in. Er no. Over the course of the last 10 years I have had PAYE and Self employed work - all has been WFH. I am not alone (very far from it) - in my industry (IT) there are a lot of PAYE workers who WFH under normal circumstances.

I was only guessing what the hell DB were proposing - they don't seem to have any plan for implementing their plan to 'tax' WFH, at least not in the article linked to in the OP. Obviously I am not in favour of this proposal, which I think I made quite clear.

If they do an Equality Impact Assessment on this one, it will be found to disproportionately affect people with disabilities and quite likely women (more likely to have caring responsibilities). That would not make for a good system in most people's eyes.

Irish mama not sure where you get the idea that everyone on MN agrees that everyone is going to die if we don't all lockdown constantly and etc

You seem to be as interested in stereotyping and pigeon holing as Deutsch bank

MyOwn that's the literal billion dollar if isn't it!

I'm sure women etc would be disproportionality caught by this.

It is not my problem that Pret felt the need to open a shop every 10 feet in London. God I hate that company and the utter crap it calls food.

@Fatted why are you spending more money on food since working at home? My food bill didn't change at all in lockdown. I go to work now anyway so take my packed lunch as usual but confused by this extra consumption!!

80% of workers are currently paid by the state.

This doesn't sound right. Well, maybe in China but not in the UK.

Exactly, the high street was already in decline and the new businesses most likely to fail have always been cafes/restaurants/bars etc, and pubs were already closing at a rate of one a week (iirc) pre-covid

Its also not evenly spread. Pret's owners may be keen to sacrifice the vulnerable to prop up their incomes but my local high street of independent cafes and shops, who actually pay taxes, have done quite well.

I'm also bored with this myth that everyone working from home is raking it in and living the life of riley. Huge numbers of home workers are low paid, on variable contracts, lack suitable accomodation to work well from home and have taken pay cuts.

Its a nice attempt at dividing people to distract from the cockups this year in government, or the vested interests keen to protect their revenue streams form city centre properties but that is all it is.

Basically most commercial landlords are shitting themselves. Hardly a surprise a bank with an extensive loan book in the property sector is advocating a return to the office or a wfh tax. No surprises to see the usual MN mantra of some nebulas concept of 'the rich' having to pay extra.

I was just reading about the CGT one which will hit many people.

It really won't hit that many people and it will only hit fairly well off people. I am 52, a higher rate tax payer, and I have investments and savings and I have never ever paid CGT nor even had to report on it due to utilising the allowance. Basically, in my whole life, I have never had a capital gain.

Most people don't.

@C8H10N4O2

Exactly, the high street was already in decline and the new businesses most likely to fail have always been cafes/restaurants/bars etc, and pubs were already closing at a rate of one a week (iirc) pre-covid

Its also not evenly spread. Pret's owners may be keen to sacrifice the vulnerable to prop up their incomes but my local high street of independent cafes and shops, who actually pay taxes, have done quite well.

I'm also bored with this myth that everyone working from home is raking it in and living the life of riley. Huge numbers of home workers are low paid, on variable contracts, lack suitable accomodation to work well from home and have taken pay cuts.

Its a nice attempt at dividing people to distract from the cockups this year in government, or the vested interests keen to protect their revenue streams form city centre properties but that is all it is.

Agree with all this.

Plus of course the government were not bothered by the big-chain cafes, such as Pret, Starbucks etc, putting small cafes/restaurants out of business by opening so many outlets in recent years.
There was no EOTHO for all those independent business struggling to compete with the big chains pre-covid.
The big chains business plan was to force out competition in the locations that they opened in as part of massive market-domination expansion plans. Free-market capitalism was king for these big chain companies in the past - So now these big chains have reduced demand due to covid, why should those who WFH prop them up?

Although I suspect I am being diverted from the main impetus as several previous posters have mentioned - it is actually largely about the commercial property sector.
Does DB think money raised from increased taxation of those WFH will be paid directly to them to offset their losses in the commercial property sector. Or is it just to deter companies from letting people WFH after the pandemic is over and thus indirectly minimise the effect on the commercial property sector. I guess it is the latter - the 'taxation' of those WFH will have a disincentive that can be used as a stick to encourage them back to the office (rented/bought from commercial landlords/developers).