Tax those working from home an extra 5%?

[Pog]

Working from home should be taxed to help support workers whose jobs are under threat, a report has suggested.

Deutsche Bank Research suggests a tax of 5% of a worker's salary if workers choose to work from home when they are not forced to by the current pandemic.

The tax would be paid for by employers and the income generated would be paid to people who cannot work from home.

This could earn $48bn (£36bn) if introduced in the US and would help redress the balance, the bank says.

It argues this is only fair, as those who work from home are saving money and not paying into the system like those who go out to work.

In the UK, Deutsche Bank calculates the tax would generate a pot of £6.9bn a year, which could pay out grants of £2,000 a year to low-income workers and those under threat of redundancy

Work From Home Tax

Thoughts?

 

[atypical_boro]

Working from home should be taxed to help support workers whose jobs are under threat, a report has suggested.

Deutsche Bank Research suggests a tax of 5% of a worker's salary if workers choose to work from home when they are not forced to by the current pandemic.

The tax would be paid for by employers and the income generated would be paid to people who cannot work from home.

This could earn $48bn (£36bn) if introduced in the US and would help redress the balance, the bank says.

It argues this is only fair, as those who work from home are saving money and not paying into the system like those who go out to work.

In the UK, Deutsche Bank calculates the tax would generate a pot of £6.9bn a year, which could pay out grants of £2,000 a year to low-income workers and those under threat of redundancy

Work From Home Tax

Thoughts?

Seems a great way to force people back in to the office.

 

[Billy69_uk]

what a load of old b***ks. Are employers really going to pay that? or are they going to force people back to work and place them at unnecessary risk?

I was thinking that working from home should actually get tax relief as an incentive to reduce face to face contact during the current situation.

 

[Laughing]

It's a bad idea for the unintended consequences already stated. I would add to that that there is an increase in cost when working from home, heating, lighting and power costs that would otherwise not have been incurred.

Much better to change the entire tax system and get everyone and every organization to pay their fair share through a, relatively, simple tax structure.

The issue here isn't a work from home person saving some money so paying that to help those furloughed. It is a crappy taxation system aimed at allowing the rich to avoid taxation whilst your low earners take up the burden.

Let's be clear there is enough money in the UK economy for us all to have a very stable lifestyle with food, power and a decent roof over our heads. Let's say that once more, there is plenty of money in the UK economy for no one to go without, to support a modern state-of-the-art NHS, a well funded set of emergency services and for every single human being to be fed, clothed and comfortably housed.

Why on earth would we be looking to fiddle with the taxation system when it is not fit for purpose? Why would we punish organizations for supporting the health and well being of their workforce?

 

[festa5]

Given homeworkers are more likely to be female and more likely to be disabled where does this stand on grounds of discrimination? Even if employers have to pay it and then subsequently force people back in. It also makes the assumption that organisations with home workers can afford to pay it, which isn't necessarily the case.

That's probably just scratching the surface of what's wrong with it. Although looks like they're proposing it for the US where they obviously have a very different and more backwards (IMO) work culture than we do.

 

[festa5]

what a load of old b***ks. Are employers really going to pay that? or are they going to force people back to work and place them at unnecessary risk?

I was thinking that working from home should actually get tax relief as an incentive to reduce face to face contact during the current situation.

There is tax relief you can apply for if forced to work from home. Martin Lewis has an article about it somewhere.

 

[atypical_boro]

There is tax relief you can apply for if forced to work from home. Martin Lewis has an article about it somewhere.

£6 a week innit.

 

[Cambsred]

The kind of idea that is great as an idea and nothing more. When it comes to enforcing/ running with it, it falls down.

So many variables to working from home. How do you decide which ones meet the taxing? Half a day in the office? Company doesnt have the space to offer a safe environment? A nice headliner, nothing more.

 

[r00fie1]

Who pays the costs of printing and photocopying and the electricity?
Its like holding a franchise for a company - being a sub-contractor.
Home-workers should be given tax-relief for saving companies money.
Companies dont need huge power-hungry buildings if "outsourcing" [homeworking] is the new norm.

 

[JM14]

Why do the people going into their work place need to be paid more? Doesnt make any difference to their finances that other people in different jobs are at home.

Government has already tried forcing us all back into the office once this year, and its likely a cause of where we are now

 

[coluka]

I think they should start by heavily taxing everyone who works in a large building with a tower, clock and bell sited on a riverbank in inner cities with underground trains running nearby.

It is entirely up to businesses how and where they decide their employees should work from, not government. I do think the pandemic has opened the eyes of some companies to make them realise they no longer need huge office blocks in city centres where they pay large amounts of rates, security and utility bills and every home could potentially be a desk space. Taxes need to be raised though still from somewhere. Employees costs are not necessarily less, increased utility bills, insurance issues will come into play, I can see claims refused or increased costs for cover. Living and working from your own home can have other negative consequences too on behaviours, performance, output and even personal relationships or mental health could be affected adversely.

I think atypical’s comment hits the nail on the head really.

 

[SuperStu]

It argues this is only fair, as those who work from home are saving money and not paying into the system like those who go out to work.

Wonder what that's supposed to mean? Surely people wfh just spend more money in their local economy.

 

[SE4 Red]

I think my employer is going to really encourage wfh post covid. There are big savings to be made. I'm already wfh until April and I know they've just rearranged our office so that my dept. 40+ people are now going to have a space allocated of just 14 desks.

 

[Laughing]

Wonder what that's supposed to mean? Surely people wfh just spend more money in their local economy.

That is a very goo dpoint Stu, I spend, or was spending money in my local cafe for coffee's and lunch once or twice a week with the wife rather than handing money over to Pret or Costa. Proper redistribution of wealth that doesn't overly depend on trickle down.

 

[Ironops]

If people can put more money in their own pockets by avoiding the high costs of commuting, lunches, work clothes etc then good for them. If there is a need to raise more money then start by closing all the tax loopholes for the likes of Amazon and Google, then raise money from general taxation. This idea of taxing home workers is idiotic

 

[festa5]

Wonder what that's supposed to mean? Surely people wfh just spend more money in their local economy.

Yep, I had the same thought. Surely Greggs sausage rolls aren't that crucial to the economy. Home workers aren't pumping as much fossil fuel into their vehicles maybe? The unpatriotic b***ds.

 

[FartingGnome]

I've worked from home for years. Decision was easy. I live in Billingham and our (only) office is in Bangor (the Bangor next to the Menai Strait).

 

[Muttley]

There is a very real green benefit to working from home in reducing pollution through less vehicle use. My second car hasn't turned a wheel in weeks (which reminds me to give it a run!) the family car has gone to the supermarket once a week. I normally spend about £60 per week on petrol (and of course wear and tear and servicing on top of that). I doubt I've spent that this month!

The back to work to save Pret a Manger thinking ignores the fact that people like me are spending more in local bakers, butchers and sandwich shops.

To pay for this we need to properly tax the extreme wealthy and hit businesses who "offshore" their profits for tax efficiency.

It might be a good idea to quietly forget about Breksh!t for a while too...

 

[r00fie1]

I think they should start by heavily taxing everyone who works in a large building with a tower, clock and bell sited on a riverbank in inner cities with underground trains running nearby.

It is entirely up to businesses how and where they decide their employees should work from, not government. I do think the pandemic has opened the eyes of some companies to make them realise they no longer need huge office blocks in city centres where they pay large amounts of rates, security and utility bills and every home could potentially be a desk space. Taxes need to be raised though still from somewhere. Employees costs are not necessarily less, increased utility bills, insurance issues will come into play, I can see claims refused or increased costs for cover. Living and working from your own home can have other negative consequences too on behaviours, performance, output and even personal relationships or mental health could be affected adversely.

I think atypical’s comment hits the nail on the head really.

 

[A]

my company was adamant that WFH was not possible (this is pre-COVID), it was going through a rough patch (turns out it wasn't a patch but an irreparably bad strategy which they wont recover from, but that's another story) and i proposed that instead of fighting the union who wanted a 4% pay rise which was utter nonsense for a company who was only making 2-3 % profit, they should introduce WFH for 2/3 days a week for those who's jobs allow (i.e. a fuel/time/saving). this would obvs not be a pay rise, but would allow a little bit more cash in the pocket in lieu of a pay rise and assist people with a work/life balance. this was rejected as a pie in the sky suggestion and was rejected with force. Then COVID happened. All office staff successfully worked from home one the IT infrastructure was in place and bedded in. There were a couple of brown-nosers who wanted to go against the grain and side with management who insisted it couldn't work, but they also managed to do so when it was de rigeur

i suppose my long-winded point is that WFH is entirely possible for many and as Stu points out, it is much better from a local business POV, (a local sandwich shop, a local coffee house, etc.) and indeed a company POV - they dont need to pay for offices to house a person at a desk with a laptop. i accept there are incidental conversations, sometimes beneficial, that will be lost working this way, but IMO if you're that uncreative anyway and cant think to have a quick Teams/Zoom chat, you're value is not in a WFH role. my wife has WFH since early March and her productivity is way better since she isn't anywhere near as stressed