[torben-friis]

This sounds like a horrible idea.

Home work improves many peoples mental state, reduces time spent at work (if you count commutes), people's footprint in terms of pollution and allow for the redistribution of people that were clustered in big cities under asfixiating rent/home owning costs. Why on earth would we disincentivize it?

>By working from home, people aren't paying for public transport or eating out at restaurants near their places of work, while expensive offices remain virtually empty.

Spending your money isn't an obligation as far as I'm aware. Should I be taxed for bringing my homecooked food to work then? What about walking to my workplace, or using a bike?

>"The virus has benefitted those who can do their jobs virtually, such as bank analysts, and threatened the livelihoods or health of those who can't," added Mr Templeman.

that one is reasonable until:

>It also wouldn't apply when people are asked to stay home for a public health emergency or other medical reasons.

So..the concern is that the virus hurts some workers, but it doesn't apply during times where workers are harmed?

[damnencryption]

Someone posted this on HN: https://medium.com/technicity/big-banks-are-at-the-front-cen...

Deutsche Bank placed number one in money laundering.

[hourislate]

There is always an angle. You just have dig to find out why Douche Bank would want this. It has to benefit them some way that isn't obviously apparent. Just like Shell starting to lobby the Biden Camp to ban all methane from drilling, it's not because they care about the environment but probably to leave an adversary in a more difficult situation.

I was hoping Douchebank was going to go under. They were a candidate there for a moment at the beginning of April. Talk was they were going to fold. Too Bad.....

[barumi]

> Deutsche Bank placed number one in money laundering.

How does that ad hominem refute or support the claim that remote workers should be taxed to subsidize vulnerable jobs?

[aaomidi]

Because it's a stupid statement when there are companies that are making more money this year than they did ever before and that billionaires have increased their wealth by so much during this pandemic.

[barumi]

> Because it's a stupid statement when there are companies that are making more money (...)

Again, that makes zero sense and is another blatant red herring. If the discussion is about taxing WFH to support vulnerable jobs, it makes absolutely no sense to waste time playing the whole whack-a-mole whataboutism game.

If you don't want to discuss the topic under discussion, please refrain from commenting at all. You'll only end up adding noise to an otherwise interesting discussion.

[brewdad]

Why not tax the corporations who stand to gain from long-term WFH? They will save millions on office space. Let's take that surplus rather than squeezing the employees yet again.

[aaomidi]

The topic of the discussion is stupid. As I said in the earlier comment.

Don't tell me when or when I shouldn't comment because this proposal is a ridiculous proposal and I'm going to say it so.

[daniellarusso]

Preserve the status quo at all costs.

Is there a term for that?

[yonisto]

We also need a name for those who wish to ruin everything good with taxation.

[dwaltrip]

Examples of large, modern societies flourishing without the use of taxation?

[donw]

Singapore and Switzerland both have very low tax rates (topping out around ~ 20%), and both are great places to live. Panama is nice as well, and they top out at 25%.

[raxxorrax]

We don't tax the richest companies because there is a race to the bottom. It is the success story of Dublin for example.

[barumi]

> Examples of large, modern societies flourishing without the use of taxation?

This is a disingenuous red herring.

It's one thing to claim that some amount of taxes to finance public spending can be benefitial to society.

It's an entirely different thing to claim that taxing remote work brings any benefit to society.

[dwaltrip]

I was responding to a comment about “ruining everything good with taxation”.

[barumi]

Sounds to me like taxing WFH fits the description of "ruining everything good with taxation".

I mean, there's already a progressive income tax. Why should society create incentives to commute to work?

[_v7gu]

You can collect taxes without ruining everything

[emteycz]

Examples of large, modern societies that gave way for new ideas instead of preserving the status quo at all costs?

[dwaltrip]

Nothing “gives way”, yet things change now and then regardless.

It shouldn’t be taken for granted, of course. And we should aspire to make it easier for good new ideas to take hold.

[op00to]

Quisling

[lwhalen]

Democrat

[aeternum]

Not sure, but "Harrison Bergeron" could work.

[pavel_lishin]

Here's the thing, everyone arguing against this tax is arguing for preserving the status quo as well. This pandemic has changed our situation, on every level from global to local. It's foolish to pretend it hasn't.

I would gladly contribute a larger share of my income as taxes to ensure my community doesn't suffer, provided it was distributed equitably (which is a whole other complicated discussion.)

[barumi]

> I would gladly contribute a larger share of my income as taxes to ensure my community doesn't suffer (...)

I would too, which is why I vote with my wallet and buy local, even at a premium, whenever I can.

However, income tax is the exact opposite of helping out the community, as it's designed to fatten up the central government's revenue which is then used up to feed the state's current expenditure.

[pavel_lishin]

Buying local isn't going to fund my school district or fix potholes.

[antepodius]

US schools don't need more funding, they need to be burned to the ground.

[tanseydavid]

>> Here's the thing, everyone arguing against this tax is arguing for preserving the status quo as well.

This is not a true statement.

[pheres]

inertia

[wdb]

Who says we will go back to eating out in restaurants near work (why not near home?) and use the bike instead of public transport?