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.

@Thisisworsethananticpated how is it fair just because it's worked out for you? I've wfh since last year. I only wfh in a really badly paid job so I can do the school runs.
As soon as school is done I am going back to an office. I have not saved anything by wfh it has cost me my salary as a lot of wfh pay you less as well.

Oh and an investment bank would unsurprisingly most likely be affected by their investments in large commercial offices. Cannot think whyyyy they don't want people wfh.
Maybe they should give all their workers extra 5% to work in the office instead

*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*

Maybe you've saved a lot working from home but why would you assume everyone had?

I've worked from home for the past ten years, I know many, many people who work from home for major companies in different fields as standard. Why am I going to have to suddenly pay more tax because a German bank think I should keep their assets in profit?

I'm in two minds...

I still buy lunch out once a week, but I do it from my village coffee shop, rather than a city centre Starbucks. Before covid, it shut down and changed owner on a regular basis, as it was only borderline sustainable. However, since lockdown, it has been very busy. I think that's great, as it keeps it open for the elderly, mums with babies, etc, who really benefit from that facility.

I am saving money - because I am burning less petrol, which is a good thing.

So contributing to the local economy and helping the environment are not actions that should be "punished" by extra tax. And obviously, it doesn't apply to everyone WFH - some will be missing out on subsidised staff canteens and paying more for heating.

Saying that, I'm not opposed to extra tax, necessarily. I'm in Scotland, and as a household, we pay £2k more tax per year than we would in England. That gives us extra things like free prescriptions, free tuition, etc. I'm happy with that.

The report makes no sense though - why would they tax people for WFH to pass on as subsidies to the lower paid? Surely that's a very round about way to tax the lower paid less, and the higher paid more. Tax should be based on income, it's the fairest way.

Most people are happy with taxes that other people will pay, same within the past Labour's propose mansion (i.e. small London terraced cottage) tax - very popular as most people's houses are not worth that or they only rent.

I think it's not as simple as that. Individuals (mostly not high earners) working from home (either because they always have or because of a pandemic) should not be personally liable through taxation for the losses of large banks or property companies due to a decrease in the value of commercial property.

@Xenia is your house worth over £ 2 million? That was the threshold they were suggesting for the mansion tax. That would be in a very small minority of houses in Harrow. Even in my area of East Finchley, 2 million gets you a 4 bed house, I wouldn't call that a small house.

Even in London, 2 million is an expensive house and even if they bought it years and years ago, I really doubt that it would be owned by poor people. a lot of £ 1 million terraces are owned by Londoners of modest means, but £2 million is a different bracket altogether.

@Xenia

Most people are happy with taxes that other people will pay, same within the past Labour's propose mansion (i.e. small London terraced cottage) tax - very popular as most people's houses are not worth that or they only rent.

This was originally a LibDem concept actually.

@JaJaDingDong

How would the tax man know you were working from home anyway?
Employer would notify them?

And what about people like me who are wfh, but who need to go in to the office several times a month. Is it pro rata?
I think that is why it refers to a daily amount.

I am doing my best to keep it under £2m!!! Zoopla says the average for our road is £2.1m but I would argue with Keir Stamer that that is deceptive as only 2 houses on the road have sold at over £2m. I will fight tooth and nail for a low valuation.

however they come first for the £2m ones and then they get down to £500k. There is past form on that. A tax on houses owned by a comapny called ATED which you pay every year is in force. It cme in for very very expensive houses and is now down to those worth only £500k. This is how big state cons people into accepting new taxes pretending it is just for those of high value and then inflation and law changes brings the threshold lower and lower and lower. Bit like when Gordon brown put 1% on national insurance and said it would fund the NHS for a generation so was well worth us all having to pay and what a con that turned out to be.

@JaJaDingDong it would be based on whether you have a desk at work, that was the suggestion. So actually lots of people could be wfh a lot but still count as office workers as they have a desk. I highly doubt HMRC is going to ask for access pass information (to track when you come into the office) or rotas.

Xenia, to avoid a wealth tax, sell the house, buy something smaller and give your kids money for their house deposits. If a wealth tax encourages fewer single people rattling around large houses it's fine with me.

We're constantly told we need more new houses, but I think a reallocation of housing would go a long way to alleviating the problem and there need to be sticks and carrots for that.

And WFH is a good thing for the environment and should be encouraged, not demonised. The only bad thing is the fact that you get less exercise. I go out for runs etc but I don't get the incidental exercise of commuting.

Not rtft, but it sounds to us like DB came up with this idea, because they know that their high earning employees like the directors, are bound to be paying more tax to pay for the corona virus; and its a way of spreading the pain to other people!

It just shows they have no conception that many people who work from home, are the low paid like self employed electricians, etc - they are not all high earning professionals!

@MotherOfDragonite

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 don't know why you would think this feels 'gendered'. It doesn't feel like that to me at all. Do you think only women wfh?
Just because a man/men thought the idea up does not make it some sort of attack on women.

Do you moan about men having thought up gendered products like:
Breast Pump.
Baby bottle steriliser.
Baby dummy/pacifier.
*Washing machine.
*Vacuum cleaner.

• At a time when it was women who did the washing and who beat the dust out of the carpets.

My suggestion is that instead of taxing people who are working from home to add an additional rate of tax on any goods purchased from Chinese companies. This virus did originate from China after all. Make them foot some of the bill that are children are going to end up paying for years.

@puffinkoala She doesn't need to sell her house to give her children deposits. That was what I was saying earlier, a lot of Londoners are sitting on houses that they could not have afforded in a million years, my MIL has never earned more than 18k in her life but owns a 4 bed terrace (tbh its more like 2 bed and a box room with an extra reception that was used as a bedroom). But it is worth 700k, not 2 million. It would probably be worth 1 million eventually, but not 2 million. With very few exceptions, I think the people who live in 2 million pound houses are actually wealthy and not just house rich. A wealth tax is meant to tax people who are actually wealthy, not some ordinary people who happened to buy a run down london terrace 30 years ago and then their area get gentrified.

@Birdsong111 cos you know, trade war with china worked so well for trump. Would probably work really well for us post brexit.

@Calmandmeasured1 I've not read the comment you're replying to sorry, but I think I've read in this thread few comments about how this will affect more women than men as wfh suits as best if we've family so we can do the childcare duties etc.
it's not something I agree with , maybe cuz of the market I'm (IT) where out of 20 colleagues it's just 3 women and we are all wfh.

But it wouldn’t be a direct trade war though it would be an additional charge that people pay on purchases they choose to make from Chinese companies. It might even encourage people to spend money with British companies which have taken a battering during this pandemic - would boost jobs etc. I don’t think China should be let off Scott free over this.

Why should people contribute to infrastructure that they are not using?

I have worked primarily from home for years. The idea that I should be taxed for working in my own house is absurd.

Homeworking is also more scewed towards women, who do it for flexibility around childcare, so I don't think this proposal would be legal per the Equality Act 2010.

@Sarahandco

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

Yep. And in the longer term, on office rental.

@EasterIssland

I think I've read in this thread few comments about how this will affect more women than men as wfh suits as best if we've family so we can do the childcare duties etc.
it's not something I agree with , maybe cuz of the market I'm (IT) where out of 20 colleagues it's just 3 women and we are all wfh.
I can't relate to wfh mainly affecting women either. My DH works in large IT company where, in the town he is based in, there are 2500 employees. Virtually all are wfh with only a very small amount (maybe 30) who have to work in the office. They didn't get a choice. It's compulsory. No discrimination there against women.

@PolkadotGiraffe

Why should people contribute to infrastructure that they are not using?

I have worked primarily from home for years. The idea that I should be taxed for working in my own house is absurd.

Homeworking is also more scewed towards women, who do it for flexibility around childcare, so I don't think this proposal would be legal per the Equality Act 2010.

Oh, and to those of us with disabilities. So yeah, great idea by the bankers! 🙄

@Birdsong111 I am from a country which suffered from SARS which also came from China. We never asked for reparations. There was an earlier thread on Mumsnet asking people to buy locally and not from Amazon. The general response was 'i like amazon because its cheap'.

Similarly, people buy from china because its cheap. even if there was an additonal charge, it would still be cheap. China is cheap because it has low environmental standards that western companies take full advantage of to maximize their profits. They also have an overpopulation/rural poverty problem that the one child policy did not fully alleviate given that the countryside was exempt and the generation before that was averaging 6-7 children.

After this pandemic, China would be world leader as America goes into permanent decline. The EU is the only entity that can hope to match the muscle of China. the UK is a very small weak country compared to China, sad to say and this is even more so after we have left the EU. It would be like a mom and pop online store trying to dictate conditions to Jeff Bezos.