12 votes

Deutsche Bank suggests 5% tax on home workers to support those impacted by the pandemic

18 comments

  1. [17]
    Greg
    Link
    I'm not entirely convinced by this one, if anything I'm feeling the opposite, but I found it interesting in either case. The idea that home workers are benefiting, and thus can pitch in to help...

    I'm not entirely convinced by this one, if anything I'm feeling the opposite, but I found it interesting in either case.

    The idea that home workers are benefiting, and thus can pitch in to help those who have been hit through no fault of their own, seems very reasonable. My issue is that the article then takes the tone that workers who now aren't spending on transport, lunch, office space, etc. inherently should be spending on things.

    Specifically taxing home workers (or their employers, in this case) is a very... economist way to look at the problem. It's a hard shove back towards the old status quo, with the added bonus of directly incentivising more consumption.

    If we want to redistribute funds from the financial winners of the pandemic, why not just bump taxes on high incomes?

    16 votes
    1. [12]
      MimicSquid
      Link Parent
      Heck, why not tax the corporations more?

      Heck, why not tax the corporations more?

      26 votes
      1. [4]
        teaearlgraycold
        Link Parent
        Why not transfer all of the wealth of the corporations to the workers?

        Why not transfer all of the wealth of the corporations to the workers?

        12 votes
        1. MimicSquid
          Link Parent
          Aggregation of assets is valuable for larger operations and investments. If you need to obtain office space and equipment for 5,000 people it's hard to make that happen without a singular...

          Aggregation of assets is valuable for larger operations and investments. If you need to obtain office space and equipment for 5,000 people it's hard to make that happen without a singular organization making the purchase.

          I'd be much in favor of worker ownership, but I think there's value in the existence of organizations that hold wealth for the worker/owners.

          11 votes
        2. [3]
          Comment deleted by author
          Link Parent
          1. MimicSquid
            Link Parent
            It almost certainly won't, but you might try engaging with the question as opposed to just saying "won't happen" and walking away. I have serious issues with the proposal, but I at least expressed...

            It almost certainly won't, but you might try engaging with the question as opposed to just saying "won't happen" and walking away. I have serious issues with the proposal, but I at least expressed why I thought it was a bad idea.

            What was your goal with this comment?

            7 votes
          2. ohyran
            Link Parent
            Its late AF here so don't have the where-withall to find the exact quote, but before we got the common vote here - before the hunger riots, before the royal family fled, before politicians found...

            Its late AF here so don't have the where-withall to find the exact quote, but before we got the common vote here - before the hunger riots, before the royal family fled, before politicians found themselves pushed to scream "Four cheers for the parliament of the streets" - there is a very shared opinion that it would never happen. Normal people didn't know how to vote. The smelly unwashed masses don't even want it!

            I think it was something like "its like giving a dog a typewriter"

            Never underestimate our inability to change, and never underestimate our ability to change. Against all odds

            (ok this SOUNDS kinda conflict styled - its not. Imagine me smiling while writing it, and sort of "nudge-nudging" you, like we're on the same team - I am just to tired to write it properly)

            1 vote
      2. ohyran
        Link Parent
        But they create all the wealth! Didn't you hear? Without them people would just slump around in corners and die slowly from hunger, never doing anything! Minus the sarcasm: I think because they...

        But they create all the wealth! Didn't you hear? Without them people would just slump around in corners and die slowly from hunger, never doing anything!

        Minus the sarcasm: I think because they are buddies with politicians.

        Plus a bit of anger: This is why we need to start mass-producing guilliotines and put them outside of all parliaments. Just to let them know.

        2 votes
      3. [6]
        papasquat
        Link Parent
        Because corporate taxes are very easy to avoid paying. Capital gains, income tax, and wealth taxes on individuals are the best way to equalize incomes.

        Because corporate taxes are very easy to avoid paying. Capital gains, income tax, and wealth taxes on individuals are the best way to equalize incomes.

        1 vote
        1. [5]
          MimicSquid
          Link Parent
          Corporate taxes are currently easy to avoid paying, but that's not an immutable fact of the world. Part of taxing corporations more would be changing the tax laws that cover various investment...

          Corporate taxes are currently easy to avoid paying, but that's not an immutable fact of the world. Part of taxing corporations more would be changing the tax laws that cover various investment deductions and writeoffs. I'm not saying "just duble the tax rate and itll be fine!", but suggesting that a higher tax rate combined with a reconsideration of the allowable tax deductions would make it so that corporations pay a more appropriate share.

          3 votes
          1. [4]
            papasquat
            Link Parent
            Why bother though? Corporations aren't real things. They're groups of people, and the ones in control of them are the ones that are causing income inequality. Why worry about patching every...

            Why bother though? Corporations aren't real things. They're groups of people, and the ones in control of them are the ones that are causing income inequality. Why worry about patching every corporate loophole you can find and playing whack-a-mole when you can just get rid of corporate taxes as a whole and raise taxes on individuals?
            It's relatively easy to move your corporate revenue production to tax havens even if you're effective. However, most billionaires aren't willing to uproot they and their kids lives just to avoid paying taxes.

            1 vote
            1. dredmorbius
              Link Parent
              Corporations are as real as any other human construct. People ... and corporations ... create corporations to shelter assets, income, payments, and other financial activities and properties. Where...

              Corporations are as real as any other human construct.

              People ... and corporations ... create corporations to shelter assets, income, payments, and other financial activities and properties. Where the underlying owners are obscure and the corporation itself more evident and taxable, tax the corp directly.

              3 votes
            2. [2]
              MimicSquid
              Link Parent
              So make every corporate entity a passthrough entity for tax purposes? That's an interesting idea I've not heard before. I'm not sure it would actually work to bring up tax revenues, as a lot of...

              So make every corporate entity a passthrough entity for tax purposes? That's an interesting idea I've not heard before. I'm not sure it would actually work to bring up tax revenues, as a lot of the tax "evasion" on the part of corporations is using deductions that are legal within certain frameworks. If the company doesn't owe any taxes due to reinvestment or other tax reductions measures, passing the nonexistent liability through to the owners still doesn't increase tax revenues.

              Anyway, it's no longer necessary for the billionaire to move. If they are the beneficiary of a trust founded in a useful tax haven it can pay all their expenses and they may not actually own a dime, but are still cared for and have access to billions.

              2 votes
              1. papasquat
                Link Parent
                Personally I feel that corporate taxes are just sort of putting the cart before the horse, and attempting to do the same thing as income/capital gains tax but in a more roundabout way. A...

                Personally I feel that corporate taxes are just sort of putting the cart before the horse, and attempting to do the same thing as income/capital gains tax but in a more roundabout way. A corporations main responsibility is shareholder value. Their main function is to increase their stock price/dividends at all costs. As such, increasing corporate tax rates will usually just result in prices being passed on to consumers, layoffs, and other short term desperation moves to try to preserve shareholder value. What usually doesn't happen is slashing executive compensation or reducing dividend payouts. Corporations also have absolutely zero sentimental ties to a specific country. There's noting keeping them in the US besides a simple quantitative cost benefit analysis. Once that analysis tips in the favor of offshoring, that's what they'll do.

                If you take a step back, what we're really trying to do is to stop a very small group of people from hording all the wealth in the country. So why not just... tax those small groups of people? Shut off the ability for billionaires to haven their wealth offshore, and basically just enact the ultimatum that if you're a US citizen, all of the wealth you control, no matter what country it resides in, is subject to US taxation. If they want to become citizens of Northern Ireland or the Bahamas or UAE to avoid paying taxes sure, go ahead and fuck those countries up, but enjoy relinquishing your US citizenship and becoming an ex-pat.

                1 vote
    2. [4]
      Gaywallet
      Link Parent
      Billionaires have increased their wealth by nearly a quarter during the pandemic. If we're going to tax anyone, it should be them. That being said, the proposal is for employers to pay the 5% tax,...

      Billionaires have increased their wealth by nearly a quarter during the pandemic. If we're going to tax anyone, it should be them.

      That being said, the proposal is for employers to pay the 5% tax, so I'm not against it.

      15 votes
      1. [2]
        Comment deleted by author
        Link Parent
        1. Gaywallet
          Link Parent
          Absolutely, this had entirely slipped my mind when I wrote the short reply that I did. Thank you for bringing it up, because you're correct - businesses are mostly self-interested and will do...

          Absolutely, this had entirely slipped my mind when I wrote the short reply that I did. Thank you for bringing it up, because you're correct - businesses are mostly self-interested and will do whatever they can to avoid paying to support anything but their own business.

          5 votes
      2. [2]
        stu2b50
        Link Parent
        To be fair, much of that is in unrealized gains as a 0 or even negative interest rate in much of the world caused massive amounts of capital to go into the stock market. You can increase capital...

        To be fair, much of that is in unrealized gains as a 0 or even negative interest rate in much of the world caused massive amounts of capital to go into the stock market.

        You can increase capital gains taxes (which are applied upon liquidation of the assets), but it's not like you just turn on a switch and the government can get a piece of all the billions, most of the billionaires are going to be holding onto their quickly appreciating equity.

        4 votes
        1. Gaywallet
          Link Parent
          For some, sure, but when you have that kind of money, you're usually diversified quite a bit and that means that you're constantly turning over something to realize gains. When you have a wide...

          most of the billionaires are going to be holding onto their quickly appreciating equity.

          For some, sure, but when you have that kind of money, you're usually diversified quite a bit and that means that you're constantly turning over something to realize gains. When you have a wide portfolio, you cash out regularly. It's why stocks can't continue to skyrocket forever, the higher the turnover per unit of time, the more likely people who hold the stock will sell some off to realize and redistribute to other stocks. The same is true of any investment that isn't realized until you sell assets.

          6 votes
  2. dredmorbius
    (edited )
    Link
    DB, as with all banks, makes money via loans, which are enabled by assets. Real estate, to banks, is a major asset class, and among if not the largest. Any decrease in asset valuation, unanswered...

    DB, as with all banks, makes money via loans, which are enabled by assets.

    Real estate, to banks, is a major asset class, and among if not the largest. Any decrease in asset valuation, unanswered by Central Bank or policy response, reduces banks' loan-making capabilities.

    The Covid / Post-Covid work-from-home / remote-work revolution threatens office, commercial, and residential real estate investment values.

    A tax on home-workers would tend to reverse these impacts, and is transparently self-serving to DeutscheBank.

    This is a horrendous idea. Idle wealth and assets should be taxed, not productive activity.

    9 votes