At least from Argentina, German politicians and economists seemed serious people. But, judging by the news that we are going to comment, they have the same hobbies as their colleagues in this part of the world.
Deutsche Bank proposes to put a tax on those who work from home.
The other days I was talking to a personal trainer who lost his job because the gym where he worked had to close due to the extensive quarantine in Argentina. Like so many others found the way out of teaching remotely only that instead of using proprietary solutions like Zoom, he used free software. (As soon as I convince him to give me a report, I publish it)
The point is that He managed to gain his own clientele (before he worked for a salary), many of whom told him that this methodology is much more useful than having to go to the gym.
As the, many people found that working from home using technology was much more efficient than having to commute to the workplace every working day. But, it seems that not everyone is satisfied with the change.
From the comfortable pot of yogurt they live in, the strategists at Deutsche Bank's research division They believe that anyone who decides to work from home after the pandemic should pay for this privilege.
Your proposal includes a 5% tax for those who work "voluntarily" from home. I put the quotation marks in voluntarily because they understand it when there is no obligation imposed by the State as during the pandemic.
The idea of there are people who work from home as a freelancer because they cannot find another type of job, it does not seem that it has occurred to them.
They estimate that this measure could generate a collection of 48 billion dollars a year in the US and around 16 billion euros in Germany. This could finance subsidies for low-income and essential workers who cannot work from home.
Why do you propose to put a tax on work from home?
According to strategists at Deutsche Bank tworking from home saves money on commuting, lunch and social life - it also offers greater job security and flexibility. However, people who work from home contribute less to the infrastructure of the economy and thus may prolong the decline in growth rates.
I confess that I got lost here. I understand the displacement thing. But, people who work from home continue to eat and, unless they are columnists on a Linux blog, they have a social life. Besides, hisThey are responsible for purchasing and maintaining the equipment they work with and for paying for the energy that runs it. On the other hand, means of transport tend to be high pollutants and cause traffic jams, by not using them they contribute to improving air quality and reducing the travel time of essential workers.
I owe it to them to explain where they get the best job security from. I can't guess how they come to that conclusion. As for what those who work contribute less to the infrastructure of the economy, at least it is debatable. Working from home brings people into the job market who might not otherwise be able to do so; students, mothers and fathers of young children, retirees and people who need an additional income.
What is behind this proposal?
One of the comments from site from which we took the news seems to have hit the nail on the head
If a bank tIf you have a commercial building investment division, the work-at-home home office alternative should be more expensive for workers. Otherwise, the office towers owned by Deutsche Bank will soon be empty. Soon there will also be a tax on the consumption of food or sleep at home, to support the infrastructure of restaurants and hotels.
Does Deutsche Bank also invest in toilet factories? Then there will be a tax for going to your own bathroom
In recent years, Deutsche Bank has been embroiled in several money laundering and law-breaking scandals.
Interesting news and personally I dare to say that the idea is not emergent, since it has a base only adapted to the new way of working.
I do not know how the governments of Europe and Argentina collect taxes (as you say). But from what I live day by day here in Mexico and based on the constitution of my country, it tells us that any activity carried out by a Mexican both in national territory and abroad must pay taxes (their contribution to the country, basically, although all over the world these collections from citizens are not used as one would think ...).
Although that is only textual, until a few months ago in Mexico many activities (professional or not), were in a taboo (of whether they should pay taxes), such is the case of the income received through the internet (advertising, videos, donations , etc), as well as applications such as Uber, didi (with everything and its food delivery methods), among others.
But it was not until just last year when various reforms to the law came into force so that activities like these would enter the Mexican tax collection package and now all these activities must contribute to the treasury, so I tell you that it is not nothing new, since I do not remember well in which countries, this type of tax payment is in function.
That is why working from home does not exempt you from paying taxes, at least here in Mexico and I do not doubt that in other countries, (I know many of us think it is a robbery, but in the end it is your contribution as a citizen to your country) As for what is the tax on it here in Mexico (Tax on Labor Product, or ISR) it is proportional to the amount you earn monthly and ranges from 0% to 35%.
Finally, regarding the part that if this generates that offices are not rented, transportation services or food services are used and therefore they want to increase the collection, etc. This if it is stupid because in any case if it is applied in that way, then it emphasizes the interpretation that those who make these types of expenses to get to their jobs should have the benefit of being able to deduct all that investment to get to your workplace ... and possibly this part if it is omitted from such a proposal.
Hello david.
Thanks for comment
From how I interpreted the news, what they propose is an additional tax to what is already paid.
Yes, you are right, since as such it is not explained well in the source, so it can be interpreted by both cases as much as if it were handled as something new or on what is already raised.
Regards!
What is the surprise?.
There are two societies, the one they conquered, their parents, my grandparents, their great-great-grandparents, fighting with dictators.
But now, that of starting a war is ugly and dirty, we sell them colored crystals, and we enslave them, so that they work for us.
This society is divided into producers and livers, producers, produce, physical goods, ideas, art, health.
And the livers, they think about it, living off the workers, the right and the left died, there are only livers and workers.
What group do we want to be in?