| CURRENT EVENTS Deutsche Bank > 5% 'privilege' tax on people choosing to work from home, with the money given to low-income staff

[TerryP]

Deutsche Bank researchers call for a 5% 'privilege' tax on people choosing to work from home, with the money given to low-income staff

Deutsche Bank said that people would not be worse off if they paid the tax, because they save money on travel and lunches by working from home.

www.businessinsider.com

.

• Working from home should be taxed to help support people on low incomes who cannot do their jobs remotely, Deutsche Bank said Tuesday.
• People choosing to work from home despite their company providing a permanent desk should pay the tax, at 5% of their salary. If companies do not offer permanent desks, they should pay instead, the report argued.
• Deutsche said the tax could raise $49 billion per year in the US, 20 billion euros ($23.6 billion) in Germany, and £7 billion ($9.3 billion) in the UK.
• The bank said an average worker would not be worse off if they paid the tax, because they are saving money on travel, food, and clothes by working remotely.

 

[rocknthefreeworld]

If they can tax it they will.

 

[planomateo]

Insanity

 

[BamaFan334]

Wow, banks will do anything to turn a profit. What's the "admin fee" associate with handling this? Getting creative they are. Shorting their already volatile position in housing was pretty slimy, and this may even take that cake.

 

[It Takes Eleven]

Deutsche execs can just do that within their own organization and make a difference there. Not a tax, just pay cuts and raises. Their "research" group doesn't speak for company execs, though.

I should first note that Business Insider is the single worst website masquerading as a business news source. Crappily written and, many times, lazily wrong. I went and read the actual research article:

Download Pdf

www.dbresearch.com

It's three pages, including snazzy graphics. It looks like something someone on a deadline - working from home and not producing anything - threw together to keep from getting fired. The numbers defy logic, and the logic is lazy, relying on a 17th century British tax scheme to justify it. They first say that the WFH tax would not apply when the government mandates WFH, and then it uses maximum WFH numbers during stay-at-home orders to derive a potential government take. It also uses an "average WFH salary" of $55M to determine it would only cost someone $10 a day, which would be less than commuting costs. It doesn't talk about the many who would get hit harder.

Back in the real world, companies who have paid up to have employees work in high-cost areas like San Francisco, Silicon Valley and NYC are now cutting employees' pay who elect a full-time WFH status and move out of those areas.

RTR,

Tim

 

[sk33tr]

Yeah let's not give a raise to help those who make less; we're going to tax those who can work from home MORE, to help those who make less.

We can't be paying people more out of our OWN money. We need to take it from one group of employees and give it to a different group of employees.

That's almost how Socialism works.

 

[planomateo]

Yeah let's not give a raise to help those who make less; we're going to tax those who can work from home MORE, to help those who make less.

We can't be paying people more out of our OWN money. We need to take it from one group of employees and give it to a different group of employees.

That's almost how Socialism works.

Giving a raise? Who pays for that? Businesses are already strapped.

I standby my belief that if the government is going to shutdown business, then the government needs to compensate and not with more taxes. Figure out how to pay it without more tax burden or else don't shutdown business.

 

[sk33tr]

Giving a raise? Who pays for that? Businesses are already strapped.

I standby my belief that if the government is going to shutdown business, then the government needs to compensate and not with more taxes. Figure out how to pay it without more tax burden or else don't shutdown business.

Where I work, they stopped giving us a $100/wk bonus (which they'd been doing since May) and gave everybody a $1/hr raise. Deutsche Bank makes 2.8 times as much money as the company I work for. And we have WAY more people (a little over 5 times as many) on our payroll than they do. So if they company I work for can do that, they can, too.

 

[planomateo]

Where I work, they stopped giving us a $100/wk bonus (which they'd been doing since May) and gave everybody a $1/hr raise. Deutsche Bank makes 2.8 times as much money as the company I work for. And we have WAY more people (a little over 5 times as many) on our payroll than they do. So if they company I work for can do that, they can, too.

He's an analyst/strategist, making recommendations for all. Having worked for a large bank, I can tell you banks won't generously give up money to employees.

You work for a company that has 450,000 employees?

 

[It Takes Eleven]

10 Largest Employers in the United States - Largest.org

The largest employers in America are businesses covering a variety of areas. Some are in retail, others in manufacturing and ... Read more

largest.org

 

[sk33tr]

He's an analyst/strategist, making recommendations for all. Having worked for a large bank, I can tell you banks won't generously give up money to employees.

You work for a company that has 450,000 employees?

Yep. But that's world-wide, not just the U.S.

 

[planomateo]

Jeeze, my last 3 employer's. 8k, 220k, 280k.