Saturday, 14 November 2020

Economists suggest $10 daily tax for those who work from home

quote [ The base argument here is that people who work from home aren't using gas, buying coffee, doing things to help the economy that those who go into work tend to do.

Deutsche Bank researcher Luke Templeman is suggesting a $10 a day work from home tax in the U.S. ]

I read this bullshit logic and now I'm asking you to share the burden of my curse. I think my ears are bleeding.
[SFW] [business] [+3 WTF]
[by snowfox@7:05amGMT]


oakfloorboard said[1] @ 8:14am GMT on 14th Nov [Score:1 Underrated]
Yes, this is certainly a better idea than just adding a smaller tax to all workers..

You would make way more money to 'help out workers with lower paying jobs' by having the tax hit the highest earners.
mechavolt said @ 8:06pm GMT on 14th Nov [Score:1 Underrated]
This is fucking stupid, to an infuriating extent. I've been teleworking since March. My job hasn't given me a dime to help with that. Increased heating/cooling bills, increased lighting, no help with the internet bills, no help with upkeep costs, and I have to buy my own office supplies. We, the employees of the world, are subsidizing our job's upkeep costs out of our own pocket. Fuck this twit who thinks we should milk more from the punished. How about tax all the money businesses are saving on upkeep costs instead?
thepublicone said @ 7:18pm GMT on 15th Nov
Exactly. There are a whole lot of "ignored costs and expenses" in here that never seem to occur to the researcher, which, coming from someone at Deutsche Bank, fits the bill.

If you want to tax someone working from home, that is fine, but before you even consider even publishing your "idea" you had better tax the shit out of the rich motherfuckers profiting off the pandemic and stuffing their cash into off-shore havens and high-interest savings accounts..... like the fuckers at Deutsche Bank.

Its these types of pile-on "ideas" that start people thinking about torches and pitchforks, because they get to wondering why they have to pay another tax while Rich Uncle Pennybags is living it up in style, until one day it dawns on them that if they all just just take what the R.U. Pennybags of the world have, no one will stop them, because by then the cops are right beside them looking for theirs, too.
damnit said @ 11:47pm GMT on 14th Nov [Score:1 Underrated]
People’s spending patterns vary. To say that teleworking means less spending doesn’t track. It’s more spending on other areas so people have to spend less on like to haves
C18H27NO3 said @ 5:26pm GMT on 17th Nov [Score:1 Underrated]
The point of this "research report" is to get the populace comfortable with the idea that labor has to take up the slack, and give capital whatever the fuck they want. Whatever perks anybody got while working from home is now subject to a tax when it actually costs more in heat, electricity, and internet - all costs that used to be covered by the employer. Meanwhile, corporations are making bucket loads of money in profits. Office buildings, banks, and others see the paradigm shift, and are looking for ways to expand profits and reduce taxes on themselves.

This is the same way we're supposed to feel good about the ten year old selling lemonade in order to pay for his brothers chemotherapy.

But hey, we live in capitalism, so what the fuck did you expect?
moriati said @ 8:05am GMT on 14th Nov
I've now been working form home for 8 months and I have certainly saved money. I'm not sure if the tax I was paying on all the items I purchased whilst working outside (I used to travel around a lot) added up to $10 per working day though, but probably not far off.

The point, I suppose, is that public sector expenditure is way up, government debt is way up, tax revenue is down and bankers are getting worried at the disturbance in the flow of money.
snowfox said @ 11:32am GMT on 14th Nov
A lot of people who work from home make more than 30k but less than 55k. Many of them are also gig workers. Anyone in the arts, for example. So they never had that money to spend and they're getting taxed for deviating from the norm.

Obviously corporations should be paying for the poor. Ultimately this tax would be another form of corporate welfare. Instead of Walmart taking the hit in sales, it's trying to pass their losses onto us to punish us for not buying things.

This also passes an odd value judgment. Using fossil fuels is good, traveling less is bad. Buying crap we don't need is good, reducing carbon emissions and how much stuff we throw away is bad. It's topsy-turvy but on par for the west. Only we would invent a moral obligation to consume.
moriati said @ 5:41pm GMT on 16th Nov
Linking revenue for the state so unequivocally to consumption creates perverse incentives to be sure.
lilmookieesquire said @ 3:02pm GMT on 14th Nov
It's for an entirely different economic system that doesn't have the distance or low wages baked in?
steele said[1] @ 6:30pm GMT on 14th Nov
lol nevermind.
damnit said[1] @ 11:20pm GMT on 14th Nov
Shout out to the people who have been teleworking prior to the pandemic.
Shout out to the people who don’t buy Starbucks.
Shout out to the people who bring their own lunch to work or don’t eat lunch.
Shout out to the people with their own washer/dryer or still use laundromats despite COVID.
satanspenis666 said @ 5:51pm GMT on 15th Nov
I've been WFH since March. When I did, I started donating $100 each month to a local food bank. I figure, I'm now saving $100 on transportation, so let's help out my local community.

Sure, I also save money by not buying lunch and coffee. I also started buying more coffee beans from a local roaster. I also spend more money at the grocery store, because we eat more food at home. Unable to travel, I spent more money working on the house this year. My electrical bill is higher, because I'm home and working. In the winter, I expect to be paying more for heat as I'll be home. My spending has not stopped, it's just redirected to other things. The idea that I am now sitting on a mountain of cash is ridiculous.

My real issue with this article is taxing people who work and are consuming goods and services. By taxing individuals $3,650 per year, you are actually reducing consumer spending by $3,650. When you tax someone for not consuming, you will further reduce their spending. And who is actually going to benefit out of this? This is just corporate welfare in disguise.
mechanical contrivance said @ 4:19pm GMT on 16th Nov
I've also been working from home since March. The only way my spending has changed is not buying gasoline. Everything else is the same as it's always been. I never got coffee or takeout. I never travel. I have been buying a lot of video games, though.

Post a comment
[note: if you are replying to a specific comment, then click the reply link on that comment instead]

You must be logged in to comment on posts.

Posts of Import
SE v2 Closed BETA
First Post
Subscriptions and Things

Karma Rankings