Bank suggest a tax on people working from home

Mooooo

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/11/12/deutsche-bank-proposes-a-5percent-tax-for-remote-workers-post-pandemic.html?__twitter_impression=true

Gas crowd, suggesting more taxes on workers still working rather than kn corporations still operating to help with covid losses

gerrybbadd

Bank can fcuk off

Mooooo

Mooooo wrote: »

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/11/12/deutsche-bank-proposes-a-5percent-tax-for-remote-workers-post-pandemic.html?__twitter_impression=true

Gas crowd, suggesting more taxes on workers still working rather than kn corporations still operating to help with covid losses

Deutsch Bank.

Congratulations Deutsch Bank, you just lost a potential customer.

Tork

If that's the case, can I write off my higher gas and ESB bills against tax?

gerrybbadd

Tork wrote: »

If that's the case, can I write off my higher gas and ESB bills against tax?

Yes. You can do this currently.

Fred Cryton

We should tax all welfare payments at a flat 20% rate. This would bring in €4bn from the €20bn annual welfare budget. Then use that €4bn to give substantial tax cuts to the wealth generators, innovators and risk takers of this nation.

biko

Why is a private entity suggesting tax hikes for the government?

It seems Deutsche Bank wants to take the money you would have spent on your lunch and make it tax instead, disregarding that you still need to spend money on your lunch at home.

based on the assumed average salary of someone working from home, he calculated that a 5% tax rate would leave neither companies nor individuals any worse off.

For example, based on an assumed average salary of $55,000 for a remote worker in the U.S., a 5% tax worked out to just over $10 a day — roughly what a worker might spend on commuting, lunch or laundry.

Remote workers are

contributing less to the infrastructure of the economy whilst still receiving its benefits.

Deutsche Bank says remote workers owe others:

Therefore, he said, workers "lucky enough to be in a position to 'disconnect' themselves from the face-to-face economy owe it to them."

katiek102010

Jesus hide the article leo and mehole will get ideas.

Ffs,

ChikiChiki

Deutsche Bank are a shower of cowboys. That house of cards is a long time falling.

Mrs OBumble

biko wrote: »

Why is a private entity suggesting tax hikes for the government?

Anyone is allowed to suggest changes to their country's tax policy.

I think they have a point: WFH does lead to reduced economic activity.

briany

Fred Cryton wrote: »

We should tax all welfare payments at a flat 20% rate. This would bring in €4bn from the €20bn annual welfare budget. Then use that €4bn to give substantial tax cuts to the wealth generators, innovators and risk takers of this nation.

You could have saved yourself some time to just say, "Slash welfare by 20 percent."

lemonTrees

Fred Cryton wrote: »

We should tax all welfare payments at a flat 20% rate. This would bring in €4bn from the €20bn annual welfare budget. Then use that €4bn to give substantial tax cuts to the wealth generators, innovators and risk takers of this nation.

Any thoughts on the thread subject matter?

mvl

well, they seem to have forgotten that some US companies have announced already "paycuts" - https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/21/technology/facebook-remote-work-coronavirus.html
"Starting in January, Facebook’s employee compensation will be adjusted based on the cost of living in the locations where workers choose to live. Facebook will make sure employees are honest about their location by checking where they log in to internal systems from, he said."

cannotlogin

Working from home is a "privilege" per Deutsch Bank.

They must all have luxury homes but most people living in shared accommodation or alone cannot wait to go back, at least part time.

Orange Tiny Terror

Fred Cryton wrote: »

We should tax all welfare payments at a flat 20% rate. This would bring in €4bn from the €20bn annual welfare budget. Then use that €4bn to give substantial tax cuts to the wealth generators, innovators and risk takers of this nation.

How do you find the time to post on boards being a big important business man 😀

tjhook

Working from home meant that many people were saving on everyday costs such as travel, lunch, clothes and cleaning, as well as possibly spending less on socializing. However, the report also said it meant remote workers were "contributing less to the infrastructure of the economy whilst still receiving its benefits."

It's a blatant troll, a desperate grasp for publicity. If he was talking about a specific location like California, with specific issues, then it'd be more difficult to dismiss him.

But he's talking about the world generally, highlighting USA, UK, Germany... I wonder if he's done an analysis of the individual needs of all those countries: whether increased remote working is a nett positive or negative. Taking into account emissions, transport capacities, potential for decentralisation of population, etc. Somehow I doubt it.

RandomViewer

Fred Cryton wrote: »

We should tax all welfare payments at a flat 20% rate. This would bring in €4bn from the €20bn annual welfare budget. Then use that €4bn to give substantial tax cuts to the wealth generators, innovators and risk takers of this nation.

So you intend to increase welfare rates by 30%.?

tjhook

Thinking a little more about motivation, I wonder why Deutsche Bank would be proposing a measure to push people back to offices, pushing up demand for those same office buildings...

"One of the largest real estate investment managers in the world, the investment management platform of Deutsche Bank's Deutsche Asset Management - Alternatives division specialises in investment in tertiary, commercial and logistics real estate."

Bob24

Jobs which can be done remotely are the most at risk of being moved to another country.

How genius to think it is a good idea to tell employees/employers that a specific tax will be applied to those jobs! Both the employers and the employees will be incentivised to relocate their role to another country, meaning a complete loss of tax revenue for the country which is applying that tax.

440Hertz

It’s entirely about a property fund exposed bank trying to come up with ways of forcing you back to the office as they’re terrified of falling demand.

Won’t somebody PLEASE think of the property fund owners. Many of them can now only afford non-vintage champagne.

Donald Trump

tjhook wrote: »

Thinking a little more about motivation, I wonder why Deutsche Bank would be proposing a measure to push people back to offices, pushing up demand for those same office buildings...

"One of the largest real estate investment managers in the world, the investment management platform of Deutsche Bank's Deutsche Asset Management - Alternatives division specialises in investment in tertiary, commercial and logistics real estate."

You'd imagine that their loan book would also have significant exposure to commercial assets which may go down in value.

In the US, property loans are often non-recourse.

Atlantic Dawn

Oh it was that bank....

Germany's biggest lender Deutsche Bank on Friday admitted to a massive erroneous transfer of €28 billion in a routine operation, more than the entire bank is worth.

The unprecedented mistake happened on March 16th when Deutsche Bank carried out a transfer to an account at Deutsche Boerse's Eurex clearing house, a spokesman told AFP.

The operation was meant to involve a far smaller sum, which the bank has not revealed, and highlights IT and control issues at the banking giant.

https://www.thelocal.de/20180420/deutsche-bank-accidentally-transfers-28-billion-euros-to-wrong-account

Sand

2020 has probably been the best year for the environment in a long time. Far fewer people commuting to work, and less economic activity leading to less pollution overall. WFH is also hugely beneficial in terms of work-life balance. People are gaining back anywhere between 10-20 hours a week they wasted commuting back and forth. It helps companies by reducing the immense costs of maintaining large offices. Even those who cant WFH benefit due to less congestion on transport, and in the long term less competition for rental property in the city centre. Everyone wins.

Ideas like this are simply attempts by those invested in property and offices to put the genie back in the bottle and should be treated as such.

James Brown

Fred Cryton wrote: »

We should tax all welfare payments at a flat 20% rate. This would bring in €4bn from the €20bn annual welfare budget. Then use that €4bn to give substantial tax cuts to the wealth generators, innovators and risk takers of this nation.

Except they are paid based on need and they'd need that 20% shortfall covered by another source. Also it's a bit silly to use tax monies to pay out only to draw 20% back. Would create pointless work I suppose.
Why reward wealth generators? Do they need the extra? The idea wealth generators are all about paying it back to society is a funny one.
If you want the wealth generators to help, raise their taxes 20%? makes more sense.

440Hertz

You’re also forgetting that the majority of welfare payments get spent straight back into the economy on goods and services.

If you cut back harshly on welfare, you destroy an aspect of discretionary spending, flatten demand, cause credit problems, create a sense of financial instability, undermine consumer and business confidence. It also has serious social consequences like creating poverty traps, health issues, driving up grey market economic activities, driving up crime etc etc all of which has consequences, both social and fiscal/financial.

Also if you redistribute wealth towards the wealthier, most of it just gets hoarded in funds etc

blanch152

Bowie wrote: »

Except they are paid based on need and they'd need that 20% shortfall covered by another source. Also it's a bit silly to use tax monies to pay out only to draw 20% back. Would create pointless work I suppose.
Why reward wealth generators? Do they need the extra? The idea wealth generators are all about paying it back to society is a funny one.
If you want the wealth generators to help, raise their taxes 20%? makes more sense.

Why do public servants pay tax then?

Why is illness benefit subject to tax then?

Why are pensions taxed then?

ExMachina1000

Iv forwarded it to revenue.ie and to MM and Leo for consideration.
Thanks!

440Hertz

440Hertz wrote: »

It’s entirely about a property fund exposed bank trying to come up with ways of forcing you back to the office as they’re terrified of falling demand.

Won’t somebody PLEASE think of the property fund owners. Many of them can now only afford non-vintage champagne.

Thanks for your concern, since that fund could be part of my pension investments. You're 100% right, we need to think of the property funds and hope office space demand recovers eventually.

The J Stands for Jay

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Anyone is allowed to suggest changes to their country's tax policy.

I think they have a point: WFH does lead to reduced economic activity.

Yeah, it reduces economic activity that is of little benefit and contributes to pollution and waste.

440Hertz

salonfire wrote: »

Thanks for your concern, since that fund could be part of my pension investments. You're 100% right, we need to think of the property funds and hope office space demand recovers eventually.

You’re welcome.

As they warn: The value of an investment may go down as well as up.

Some of my money is in IT stocks that are hugely benefiting from work from home. So perhaps it would be nice if they taxed office space instead?

I just see a powerful lobbyist attempting to influence tax policy, aiming to rapidly funnel people into an investment property during a pandemic, which is another issue entirely.

When the pandemic is contained and ends, the value of those investments will recover.

thomas 123

gerrybbadd wrote: »

Yes. You can do this currently.

As someone working from home, no you cant.

You can try claim 10% percent back - https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/money_and_tax/tax/income_tax_credits_and_reliefs/eworking_and_tax_relief.html

Just wanted to clarify for anyone who is not working from home and is thinking they are hard done by.

Maybe you are looking at it from the perspective of a self employed person?

El Tarangu

440Hertz wrote: »

You’re also forgetting that the majority of welfare payments get spent straight back into the economy on goods and services.

[...]

Also if you redistribute wealth towards the wealthier, most of it just gets hoarded in funds etc

While I largely agree with your arguments re: not cutting welfare to the bone, what do you think happens to the money that is 'hoarded' in funds? They don't just pile it up, Scrooge McDuck style, not doing anything.

To whit:

440Hertz wrote: »

Some of my money is in IT stocks that are hugely benefiting from work from home.

That money is being spent hiring new people to cope with increased demand, rolling out new infrastructure, etc.

El Tarangu

It's an interesting take on the whole thing.

Not in terms of tax, but I can certainly see companies using it as an argument to reduce salaries; if one of the reasons a company is paying a big salary is to cover employees' cost of living in Dublin/London/Paris, but increasingly the employees are living in Offaly/Cornwall/Ardeche instead, I can see this being used as an argument to reduce the salaries they are paying out.

440Hertz

El Tarangu wrote: »

That money is being spent hiring new people to cope with increased demand, rolling out new infrastructure, etc.

No it isn’t. It’s merely the speculative value of the stock.

tjhook

salonfire wrote: »

Thanks for your concern, since that fund could be part of my pension investments. You're 100% right, we need to think of the property funds and hope office space demand recovers eventually.

If your pension is managed in any sensible way, it'll be diversified in such a way that at worst, it'll be a very minor hit. Most likely, the part of your pension exposed to office space will go down, while other parts will go up. People working from home won't hide the savings under the mattress. They'll spend it elsewhere, or put it in the bank where it's lent to those who'll spend it.

Deutsche Bank could have been up-front and admitted they were concerned for their investments. But they're not. They're dressing it up as a humanitarian gesture, and looking for a sneaky subsidy from Joe Taxpayer. Screw 'em.

joseywhales

El Tarangu wrote: »

It's an interesting take on the whole thing.

Not in terms of tax, but I can certainly see companies using it as an argument to reduce salaries; if one of the reasons a company is paying a big salary is to cover employees' cost of living in Dublin/London/Paris, but increasingly the employees are living in Offaly/Cornwall/Ardeche instead, I can see this being used as an argument to reduce the salaries they are paying out.

I never understand this, it assumes that there is some sense of fairness to salaries, as if companies "take care" of their people. They will pay the minimum they have to pay to reach their objectives. If they need me to do x and I move to madagascar or madrid, it's no business of theirs as far as I am concerned. Up until it affects your ability to perform the task.

CIARAN_BOYLE

joseywhales wrote: »

I never understand this, it assumes that there is some sense of fairness to salaries, as if companies "take care" of their people. They will pay the minimum they have to pay to reach their objectives. If they need me to do x and I move to madagascar or madrid, it's no business of theirs as far as I am concerned. Up until it affects your ability to perform the task.

Supply and demand.

If they want a job done in New York they pay a premium. If that job no longer needs to be done in New York why shouldn't they offer to pay what they pay their Limerick based employees.

theological

Mooooo wrote: »

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/11/12/deutsche-bank-proposes-a-5percent-tax-for-remote-workers-post-pandemic.html?__twitter_impression=true

Gas crowd, suggesting more taxes on workers still working rather than kn corporations still operating to help with covid losses

The problem with that logic is that they are assuming that people don't have other costs working from home. For example I'm paying a lot more in energy costs since the pandemic. This is an expense normally shouldered by my employer when I'm in the office.

Having said that they are right to suggest there's been an inequality between those who work at home in pretty comfortable middle class jobs versus those who have no choice to go out to work. People who are out in customer facing roles are more likely to contract the virus than those who stay at home.

So there is a debate about how to deal with that to be had but Deutsche Bank's solution isn't one of the valid options.

Wanderer78

We really need public banking systems, so we can tell these banks and their share holders, ta fcuk off!

km991148

tjhook wrote: »

Thinking a little more about motivation, I wonder why Deutsche Bank would be proposing a measure to push people back to offices, pushing up demand for those same office buildings...

"One of the largest real estate investment managers in the world, the investment management platform of Deutsche Bank's Deutsche Asset Management - Alternatives division specialises in investment in tertiary, commercial and logistics real estate."

Ye, I was wondering if there was an 'office use' angle here when I read it, was too lazy to look into it.

A lot if empty offices, and some problems down the line if not let.
Similarly there are a lot of empty city centre apartments. If taxation can be used to encourage office use, shouldn't it also be used to tax the Kennedy Wilson's that are sitting in scores of apartments?

kippy

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Anyone is allowed to suggest changes to their country's tax policy.

I think they have a point: WFH does lead to reduced economic activity.

So does internet banking, and a myriad of other advances in human science and behaviours of humans over the years.
It's not a reason for another tax. And I disagree, WFH has far more economic benefits for the state and its citizens than it does negatives when you look at the bigger picture.

theological

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Anyone is allowed to suggest changes to their country's tax policy.

I think they have a point: WFH does lead to reduced economic activity.

Yes and no though. I have more expenses in other areas working from home as I've just mentioned. Energy being one of them.

One of the examples they cite is getting food out at lunch. On that logic should I be taxed more for making my own lunch when I'm in the office.

It's not a genuine solution to the real inequality there is between those in comfortable working from home jobs and those working in more customer facing roles which require them to be exposed to others.

I agree with the previous poster about economic benefits of working from home. Instead of funding businesses in the city centre I'm probably spending more in my local community which can only be a good thing. It just means that other businesses near my home benefit more than they would otherwise.

beauf

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Anyone is allowed to suggest changes to their country's tax policy.

I think they have a point: WFH does lead to reduced economic activity.

....They should ban it then and see what effect on economic activity that has...

...Of course the banks will have to close like everything else then...

Bob24

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

Supply and demand.

If they want a job done in New York they pay a premium. If that job no longer needs to be done in New York why shouldn't they offer to pay what they pay their Limerick based employees.

Yep exactly and quite easy to understand.

I think many white collars are still failing to understand this and the implications of the WFH trend.

Many just see it as a way to avoid commutes and live in a place with lower cost of housing while keeping the same salary.

But if the job can be done from a house in the country rather than Dublin city centre, firstly the supply of workers in Ireland willing to do it for a lower pay increases. And secondly why stopping there and not moving it to a lower cost country? (meaning Irish wages for those jobs which can be done remotely start competing with wages in lower cost countries, whereas before they were protected against that competition as there was a restriction on the geographical location of the role ... and to come back on topic, the idea of additional specific taxation on those jobs would just encourage that trend)

tabby aspreme

km991148 wrote: »

Ye, I was wondering if there was an 'office use' angle here even I read it, was too lazy to look into it.

A lot if empty offices, and some problems down the line if not let.
Similarly there are a lot of empty city centre apartments. If taxation can be used to encourage office use, shouldn't it also be used to tax the Kennedy Wilson's that are sitting in scores of apartments?

WFH will lead to a decline in commercial development, and hit a lot of big developments hard, there are 250 desks on the floor where my OH works, with less than 20 occupied each day, there will be a lot of downsizing when these leases are up for renewal

km991148

tabby aspreme wrote: »

WFH will lead to a decline in commercial development, and hit a lot of big developments hard, there are 250 desks on the floor where my OH works, with less than 20 occupied each day, there will be a lot of downsizing when these leases are up for renewal

Ye no doubt. Hard to feel sorry for the foreign property companies tho. There was a queue of them waiting with brown envelopes to get a piece of the NAMA action.

beauf

Bob24 wrote: »

Yep exactly and quite easy to understand.

I think many white collars are still failing to understand this and the implications of the WFH trend.

Many just see it as a way to avoid commutes and live in a place with lower cost of housing while keeping the same salary.

But if the job can be done from a house in the country rather than Dublin city centre, firstly the supply of workers in Ireland willing to do it for a lower pay increases. And secondly why stopping there and not moving it to a lower cost country? (meaning Irish wages for those jobs which can be done remotely start competing with wages in lower cost countries, whereas before they were protected against that competition as there was a restriction on the geographical location of the role ... and the come back on topic, the idea of additional taxation on those jobs would just encourage that trend)

More of this...

https://youtu.be/YfkPcTNnGNk

Gervais08

Bowie wrote: »

Except they are paid based on need and they'd need that 20% shortfall covered by another source. Also it's a bit silly to use tax monies to pay out only to draw 20% back. Would create pointless work I suppose.
Why reward wealth generators? Do they need the extra? The idea wealth generators are all about paying it back to society is a funny one.
If you want the wealth generators to help, raise their taxes 20%? makes more sense.

Based on need?? Get away with ye.

So that skank Caah “needs” 50k cash a year plus everything free???

Ffs.

Wanderer78

very interesting!

Eric Cartman

We’re already at the full limit for taxes, its incredibly unfair to expect almost any country in western europe to increase taxes.

storker

Anyone working from home is already paying more tax in the form of VAT on increased gas and electricity bills.