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. "WFH offers direct financial savings on expenses such as travel, lunch, clothes and cleaning," he said. The 5% tax rate "will leave them no worse off than if they had chosen to go into the office".
Translated:
"You're not making the choices we want, so we'll force you to pay to make sure we get the money we expect"
"Wah, wah, our expensive commercial real estate is losing value!"
From what I've heard commercial real estate is crashing in major cities like New York, London, etc. Real estate is largely controlled by people who bought it as an investment, for tax avoidance or money laundering. Basically a best-of of Deutsche Bank. As few businesses can afford their rates anymore these cities are dieing.
It's also tied to how much those banks can loan out. If commercial crashes in those major markets their balance sheets start to look real bad real quick.
The tax would be paid for by employers and the income generated would be paid to people who cannot work from home.
This is another transference of wealth just like the ACA. That alone makes it a bad idea. The job you work, the skills you teach yourself, are all personal decisions so if you're working from home or not is the end result of your life's decisions. The government is not here to compensate for your decisions.
The other issue here is that they're mistakenly believing people who go to work are paying into the system. As an example I ride a bicycle to work and eat lunch at home. It's very rare for me to not eat at home even after work. In this scenario I would be one of the employees who gets the benefits from being at work but I don't pay into the system the way they pretend workers do. That's not even mentioning the fact that people choose to live different distances from work. So the closer you are the more beneficial it would be for you. But again, all of this is a matter of personal choice and the government shouldn't be taxing your choices on what skills you choose to learn and where you choose to live in relation to where you work.
Sounds really messed up. And it sounds like they have an unseemly agenda:
"For years we have needed a tax on remote workers," wrote Deutsche Bank strategist Luke Templeman. "Covid has just made it obvious."
I do support Deutsche Bank's stated aim of helping people who can't work from home, but who on earth will believe that this is actually the intent of these corrupt banks? Deutsche Bank was pushing 'refugees' just a few years back.
These people are working off insane ideas. They view the world as a MMO economy: the money supply is a water basin; government/devs pour money in to reward behaviors; and taxes/repair bills are simply a drain to balance inflation.
The only intent is more taxes, so they can pour more money in somewhere else. These are ruinous ideas in the real world, but the Deutsche bank executives will be happy as long as they rule it.
So, eating at home is somehow bad, now? Making your own food from ingredients from the grocery store?
And I should pay more because we don't need a car, and don't sweat paying a cabbie maybe $30 a month to help us shift heavy loads of groceries? (We live about a five minute walk from my husband's work. Paying mandatory jokesurance would be a total waste of money).
Maybe I should be punished for being able to save money after quitting smoking, too, because gee, all of a sudden you're worried about the poor tobacco farmers?
I really hope this idea does not spread out of Germ-any.
The American Left is sweating in lust over the idea of taxing people who aren't doing things they want to, it can easily spread here.
Its why their go to response to any "unhealthy" thing is to just over tax it so you can't afford it. They keep getting pushback on soda, but the cigarette one literally traps people in poverty for no reason other than "punish them worse!"
I can attest to that, Wales and scotland have introduced a minimum price per unit on alcohol, not that it bothers me over much, I brew my own, so fuck you Mark Drakeford, and as it happens in voting against in may when the senedd elections happen so fuck you twice now I think on it
Self sufficiency is bad because it means fewer economic transactions by the individual, which means financial institutions have fewer instances from which they can pinch half a penny from. Multiply that by millions of individuals doing thousands of transactions and that adds up to billions that economic middlemen like themselves could be pinching.
I'm just flabbergasted that eating at restaurants has gone from a "once in a while treat" to "an everyday thing that people actually rely on because they can't cook/think being able to cook is the oddball thing to do."
Christ, I was worrying about my ability to ply a survivlist trade should The Collapse come while I still have to inhabit a human body, but I realized I already have one or two, because none of these modern primate moo-cows understand fire, or would know how to use it to avoid dying of food poisoning.
This sounds so German. "Something doesn't work the way we are used to, so we will lie to the public about the potential benefits of our new demand, force people who were innovative or did something new to take a loss and then pocket and misuse that, instead of benefiting whoever we claimed would actually benefit from it."
“Don’t disobey the lockdowns, you’re a literal fascist who’s going to kill everyone!”
Then “Pay more for doing what we say! You’re ruining everything if you don’t!” Fucking spare me the theatrics, bank. If you punish people for obeying the law, they will turn to crime.
They did this in California with the drought. They encouraged people to conserve water, and multiple municipalities passed laws that would fine unnecessary water usage like watering a lawn or washing a car. People obeyed and water consumption fell. Lack of revenue from utility consumption made the water utility raise prices until it replaced the lost revenue from lower consumption. It's all a scam.
I don't necessarily disagree that people could have more money because of working from home, even with a tax. But the money is going to useless businesses to keep them on life support indefinitely, more migrants, and a bigger welfare state.
So, they finally decide to be honest.
Translated:
"You're not making the choices we want, so we'll force you to pay to make sure we get the money we expect"
"Wah, wah, our expensive commercial real estate is losing value!"
From what I've heard commercial real estate is crashing in major cities like New York, London, etc. Real estate is largely controlled by people who bought it as an investment, for tax avoidance or money laundering. Basically a best-of of Deutsche Bank. As few businesses can afford their rates anymore these cities are dieing.
It's also tied to how much those banks can loan out. If commercial crashes in those major markets their balance sheets start to look real bad real quick.
Their balance sheet already looks like shit. DB has been in the red for quite a while now.
This is another transference of wealth just like the ACA. That alone makes it a bad idea. The job you work, the skills you teach yourself, are all personal decisions so if you're working from home or not is the end result of your life's decisions. The government is not here to compensate for your decisions.
The other issue here is that they're mistakenly believing people who go to work are paying into the system. As an example I ride a bicycle to work and eat lunch at home. It's very rare for me to not eat at home even after work. In this scenario I would be one of the employees who gets the benefits from being at work but I don't pay into the system the way they pretend workers do. That's not even mentioning the fact that people choose to live different distances from work. So the closer you are the more beneficial it would be for you. But again, all of this is a matter of personal choice and the government shouldn't be taxing your choices on what skills you choose to learn and where you choose to live in relation to where you work.
Work pressures you to eat at restaurants to "socialize and network", that's the thought.
Sounds really messed up. And it sounds like they have an unseemly agenda:
I do support Deutsche Bank's stated aim of helping people who can't work from home, but who on earth will believe that this is actually the intent of these corrupt banks? Deutsche Bank was pushing 'refugees' just a few years back.
These people are working off insane ideas. They view the world as a MMO economy: the money supply is a water basin; government/devs pour money in to reward behaviors; and taxes/repair bills are simply a drain to balance inflation.
The only intent is more taxes, so they can pour more money in somewhere else. These are ruinous ideas in the real world, but the Deutsche bank executives will be happy as long as they rule it.
You're completely right. Worse, every MMO experiences runaway inflation until their whole credit system has to be reset... ... ...
This isn't an accident. They know what they are doing.
Now if only this reset was somehow a really big one, maybe even great...
The people making these decisions probably aren't Germans.
The symbols and the leaders change, but Germany’s maniacal urge to dominate lives on from generation to generation.
Allowing Germany to exist after 1918 and 1945 were the greatest mistakes of the 20th century.
What they failed to do by force they appear to have achieved by coercion and judicious application of the religion of peace?
Ron Paul was right about banks once again
He wasn't the only one who was right about banks.
Andrew Jackson should be studied more in history.
Why is a bank advocating for increased taxation?
Where do they stand to gain?
Could it be that they personally benefit? ?
So, eating at home is somehow bad, now? Making your own food from ingredients from the grocery store?
And I should pay more because we don't need a car, and don't sweat paying a cabbie maybe $30 a month to help us shift heavy loads of groceries? (We live about a five minute walk from my husband's work. Paying mandatory jokesurance would be a total waste of money).
Maybe I should be punished for being able to save money after quitting smoking, too, because gee, all of a sudden you're worried about the poor tobacco farmers?
I really hope this idea does not spread out of Germ-any.
The American Left is sweating in lust over the idea of taxing people who aren't doing things they want to, it can easily spread here.
Its why their go to response to any "unhealthy" thing is to just over tax it so you can't afford it. They keep getting pushback on soda, but the cigarette one literally traps people in poverty for no reason other than "punish them worse!"
I can attest to that, Wales and scotland have introduced a minimum price per unit on alcohol, not that it bothers me over much, I brew my own, so fuck you Mark Drakeford, and as it happens in voting against in may when the senedd elections happen so fuck you twice now I think on it
Self sufficiency is bad because it means fewer economic transactions by the individual, which means financial institutions have fewer instances from which they can pinch half a penny from. Multiply that by millions of individuals doing thousands of transactions and that adds up to billions that economic middlemen like themselves could be pinching.
I'm just flabbergasted that eating at restaurants has gone from a "once in a while treat" to "an everyday thing that people actually rely on because they can't cook/think being able to cook is the oddball thing to do."
Christ, I was worrying about my ability to ply a survivlist trade should The Collapse come while I still have to inhabit a human body, but I realized I already have one or two, because none of these modern primate moo-cows understand fire, or would know how to use it to avoid dying of food poisoning.
This sounds so German. "Something doesn't work the way we are used to, so we will lie to the public about the potential benefits of our new demand, force people who were innovative or did something new to take a loss and then pocket and misuse that, instead of benefiting whoever we claimed would actually benefit from it."
It doesn't sound German it sounds communist
Glad I didn't pursue that job opportunity with these fucks.
There's a whole bunch of dystopian shit in the document they put out. Grab a bucket and read here: https://www.dbresearch.com/PROD/RPS_EN-PROD/PROD0000000000513730/Konzept_%23_19%3A_What_we_must_do_to_rebuild.PDF
“Don’t disobey the lockdowns, you’re a literal fascist who’s going to kill everyone!”
Then “Pay more for doing what we say! You’re ruining everything if you don’t!” Fucking spare me the theatrics, bank. If you punish people for obeying the law, they will turn to crime.
They did this in California with the drought. They encouraged people to conserve water, and multiple municipalities passed laws that would fine unnecessary water usage like watering a lawn or washing a car. People obeyed and water consumption fell. Lack of revenue from utility consumption made the water utility raise prices until it replaced the lost revenue from lower consumption. It's all a scam.
Tax those who don't dig holes and then fill them
the money counters are getting uppity again
"""bankers""" are the root causes of world wars.
I don't necessarily disagree that people could have more money because of working from home, even with a tax. But the money is going to useless businesses to keep them on life support indefinitely, more migrants, and a bigger welfare state.