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.

@JustBidenMyTime - I can see both effects. Companies like amazon, google, the big banks will probably offer wfh as a benefit to get the people they want and will pay the tax, either directly or by upping salaries.

For other organisations, it will make wfh less appealing than it currently is and they'll roll back or not go ahead with flexible schemes. I read one article on this proposal that said the 5% would be paid pro rata for every day at home. Not sure if that was in the report or speculation. Can't imagine how many companies would want to offer wfh if it involved complex administration of that sort! So presumably there'd actually be less wfh across the board as employers who are happy for office workers to do the odd day at home would stop.

@minionsrule

I like to think my contribution to saving the environment by not driving 70 miles a day 4 days a week should be more important. Taxes versus environment , take your pick

Yes, another lost opportunity to slow/reverse climate change. And this WFH behavioural change would not even require any promotion or up-front costs as it is a change that is already underway so would have been an easy win for reducing carbon emissions. Same with the decrease in aviation, although the job losses are more controversial. Deutsche Bank is large enough to diversify its investments to prevent being taken down by commercial property alone.

It won't happen.

" Hopoindown31 Thu 12-Nov-20 11:05:27

@Xenia

80% of workers are currently paid by the state."

28m employers in total.
"As of October 18, 2020, approximately 9.6 million job....furloughed" www.statista.com/statistics/1116638/uk-number-of-people-on-furlough/

NHS 1.5m.
Teachers 500,000

(In June 2019 there were 5.4 million public sector workers in the UK, representing 16.5% of all people in employment. )

So have now got up to 10m (furlough), about 5.4m state workers which is 15.4m which is 55%. I read the 80% somewhere. Then we need to add in those not earning much but wages topped up by universal credit. I think a lot get universal credit and they work but I have not got a figure for those.

Then we have state owned institutions such as London Under ground, Nat West/RBS bank and I think some railways recently.

The article I read joked that despite communism since about 1914 trying to take over and have everyone paid by the state it has taken CV19 and a Tory Government to move us to a country where most people are kept and paid by the state.

Can i suggest all those furloughed face 5% tax increase for a year per month claimed.

Completely unfair to tax those who have worked through the pandemic and those who couldn't and have had a jolly will now earn more money.

Lots of potential for women to lose out. And a significant number of people voted to potentially remove or reduce protection in the workplace. Oh dear. 2021 will be harvest time for some people and very unfortunate for others. I have to WFH at the moment as that's what my employer has decided.

I saw a headline in the Sunday Times that home offices were going to be taxed as business premises on selling.
But we have a summer house which is extra space for a family member (very small bedroom) to keep their hobby stuff in.
I’m currently WFH at my dining table, and wonder what, if anything, I would have to do to prove that there is no “office space” in the house to HMRC if I should decide to sell up?

@grassgreenthisside

Can i suggest all those furloughed face 5% tax increase for a year per month claimed.

Completely unfair to tax those who have worked through the pandemic and those who couldn't and have had a jolly will now earn more money.

You win the prize for the most solipsistic poster of the day. And there is some stiff competition

I worked throughout but have many friends who were furloughed. They would have much rather worked and not lost 20% of their monthly salary, most of them suffered mentally with the malodorous stink of redundancy hanging over them throughout. A lot of them have gone onto being made redundant.

While you were one of the lucky ones who worked throughout and got to hold onto your job I hope for your sake you only save opinions like this for MN randoms, otherwise you will come off as a proper knob.

Have a word with yourself.

Call me cynical but this reads as an element of DB wanting to protect its commercial property interests from what is likely to be a substantial price readjustment to reflect what is now likely
We to be a significant oversupply, plus wanting to perpetuate the "presenteeism" culture that still surrounds most City jobs. Beyond that I agree with many PP that it is the product of a lot of unconscious/pig ignorant (delete as appropriate) bias towards women and the disabled in particular.

We do need to think creatively about how to fund the economic train crash that is COVID but layering more tax on the employed is probably not the answer. I think that an unearned income surcharge at the higher rate would be a better idea - that is also likely to hit the older generation hardest which would be equitable given that the younger generation are (according to the Bank of England) the ones hardest hit at the moment. It also would have the result of bringing the overall effective rate of tax on unearned and earned income more in to line as unearned income does not attract NIC. (I accept you won't agree if you want to hold to the concept that NIC is really a pension contribution.)

We could also look at means testing all benefits - but that again will hit the older generation so the government won't do it.

notjust that was in issue in about 1972 when my father built on a study/consulting room at the front of the house (psychiatrist) used twice a week for patients. Capital gains tax potentially is due and has been since then although most people doing office work tend to use a room for dual use rather than ear marking it just for work. When I set up in 1994 from home it was a question too as is when do you pay business rates if you write books from home - probably not but if you repair cars on the front drive you might... always been a very difficult grey area. We never seem to achieve simple clear low taxes.

It is a bit annoying that I work about 365 days a yea and have not had a night away from the house all year and up and down our supposedly private road day in day out all the people whoa re not currently working traipse up and down, chatting, on phones on those electric bike things, on bikes, talking loudly, dropping litter - as if they are choosing to rub our faces in it i a sense (and I clear up their dog dirt, face masks and drug stuff too from my verge). I am working 6 or 7 days a week to pay for them to be completely idle on furlough.

@Notjustanymum

I saw a headline in the Sunday Times that home offices were going to be taxed as business premises on selling. But we have a summer house which is extra space for a family member (very small bedroom) to keep their hobby stuff in. I’m currently WFH at my dining table, and wonder what, if anything, I would have to do to prove that there is no “office space” in the house to HMRC if I should decide to sell up?

I don't think they can bring this in retrospectively. People who have always worked from home because they are self-employed can't be forced to pay capital gains tax in the future on a property they bought long before. That would be like a punishment on the self-employed and cause chaos in the housing market. Some would sell instantly and move into rented to avoid CG tax and others would be stuck in properties they could not afford to sell.

Btw I am referring to those working in a spare bedroom or dining room (so dual use) not those with a dedicated working space who have always been at risk of CG tax.

@Xenia your post about 80% of the population being paid for by the government was illuminating, didn't think about it that way. But don't blame the people on furlough. The Tories did not do it out of the compassion in their hearts, they wanted to keep house prices and consumer spending up. Most lenders don't allow you to spend more than 30% of income on the mortgage so if you are getting 80%, it would still allow you to pay the mortgage.

TBH i don't know of a single government who hasn't been generous with the covid 19 stimulus. I can think of plenty more countries where they have been even more generous. However, the UK has a double whammy as it is unique in the sense that our public health service, the NHS, is the country's biggest employer so they have to pay all those salaries as well as the furloughed.

Call me cynical but this reads as an element of DB wanting to protect its commercial property interests from what is likely to be a substantial price readjustment to reflect what is now likely
We to be a significant oversupply, plus wanting to perpetuate the "presenteeism" culture that still surrounds most City jobs. Beyond that I agree with many PP that it is the product of a lot of unconscious/pig ignorant (delete as appropriate) bias towards women and the disabled in particular.

@Londonmummy66 totally agree. There are a lot of wealthy people with a vested interest in keeping city property prices high (not just office space, but the city flats/retail premises etc that go along with them).

It's also a fact that increasing taxes on employment income is a much simpler way to increase tax revenues than on passive income etc as it's much harder to use tax dodges planning to reduce PAYE than other types of income.

@xenia ons says there are over 32 million employed people.

So yeah, nowhere near 80% then. We are talking millions of people difference here so it does matter.

Don’t worry they’ll find a way to tax us all, either by reducing the tax free allowance we have or by increasing the actual tax we pay.

Hop 28m was what I had found. Anyway huge numbers. I knew at election time this was a big party high tax high spend Tory party even before CV19 which is probably why it got in as whoever steals the middle ground gets elected in the UK. Better than Corbyn though.

On this "I don't think they can bring this in retrospectively. People who have always worked from home because they are self-employed can't be forced to pay capital gains tax in the future on a property they bought long before" - I don't think people need to worry and I don't think the law will change. It has always been dreadfully worrying even from the 1970s as to what will count as dedicated space for work eg I work in my home office. I also as now go on MN on it and later will probably watch some TV in it. Same with my father in the 1970s - he saw patients 2 half days a week in the office and was worried about CGT being charged if the house were sold. Like most of our tax law it has always been as clear as mud on many of these issues. Same with planning permission. Arguably my whole law firm being in this house since 1997 (ie.one person working at a computer seeing no one like a writer) is much less a planning issue than when my children's father lived here and saw eg 10 piano pupils at the house from 9am to 7pm on Saturdays.

On the planning side this may be useful for people "Planning Permission

You do not necessarily need planning permission to work from home. The key test is whether the overall character of the dwelling will change as a result of the business.

If the answer to any of the following questions is 'yes', then permission will probably be needed:

Will your home no longer be used mainly as a private residence?
Will your business result in a marked rise in traffic or people calling?
Will your business involve any activities unusual in a residential area?
Will your business disturb your neighbours at unreasonable hours or create other forms of nuisance such as noise or smells?

"

On CGT HMRC say you are okay if "you have not used part of it for business only" then you are okay.

I have worked from home for years now. Why should I suddenly pay more for the privilege of doing the same thing as I did before covid?
Due to being a part of a national organisation, over 3/4 of our employees couldn't work from an office. There just is not the physical space and it would actually mean that we would reduce the provision that we have if forcing to be office based. This would mean reduced employment, reduced coverage etc. A lose lose situation.
Fwiw, even if I worked from one of the 5 offices, which wouldn't be practical, I wouldn't be buying food and drinks. I wouldn't be adding to the local economy of the office location. All I'd be doing is costing the organisation travel expenses or if I'd had to have a change of contract I'd be voting with my feet and resign as I would need to recoup the travel costs, the travel time costs, childcare. Something I wouldn't do.

I think Deutsche Bank is kite-flying, softening up the debate for who's going to pay for Covid.

As well as cacking it because of the vested interests in commercial property. The money-laundering bastards:

www.occrp.org/en/daily/12710-deutsche-bank-fined-for-dealing-with-epstein-and-money-laundering-banks

The answer is we're all going to be paying for this for a very long time, whether in increased taxes or reduced services, and I'm not sure many people have wrapped their heads round that yet wonder if we would be less keen on locking down if we did

@Notjustanymum

I saw a headline in the Sunday Times that home offices were going to be taxed as business premises on selling. But we have a summer house which is extra space for a family member (very small bedroom) to keep their hobby stuff in. I’m currently WFH at my dining table, and wonder what, if anything, I would have to do to prove that there is no “office space” in the house to HMRC if I should decide to sell up?

I saw that article too. I keep some fitness gear in my garden room as well as as desk and a sofa-chair!

It’s very fair
No one will like it
Myself included
But ethically , it’s fair
I have saved a lot working from home

But it won’t be done here as we are not socialist

Could you explain how it's fair?

Should everyone who shops in Aldi pay a tax for not shopping in M&S?
Should everyone who takes a packed lunch pay a tax for not buying sandwich?
Should everyone who has a self-catering holiday in Cornwall pay a tax for not buying a fortnight in a 5* Barbados hotel?

And what about the additional costs of wfh - heating, electric, having to pay extra for upgrading your internet connection which we had to do, other expenses such as office equipment etc. I used to drive to work, and spend 40 minutes in a car to sit at a desk and do the same job that I can do from home. I took a packed lunch with me every day. The only company that has lost out has been the petrol companies as I don’t need to refuse my car anymore. If my employer threatened to dock my pay for wfh I would be enraged and would look for another job.

Fuck off Deutsche Bank you twats. Here’s an alternative idea - all bankers at firms like yours should get a 10% tax hike to cover the cost of the pandemic, with immediate effect.