They can't help but penalize change. Work from home is a change that is resulting in much lower tax revenue, and they need new income streams to make up for it.

"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."

They simply need more people to "pay into the system" again.

Maybe they should consider taxing the office space since businesses do not need to pay for it when most of their staff works from home.

Taxation of WFH people is like taxing vegetarians because the tax revenue from sugar tax is too low.

Edit: Also fuck banks, of course their employees suggest taxing the middle class.

>Taxation of WFH people is like taxing vegetarians because the tax revenue from sugar tax is too low.

How is sugar consumption related to meat eating?

fine, if red meat was taxed for substitute it for sugar tax.

Or better example if cyclists were taxes because they don't pay motor/petrol tax.

I get your point, and don't disagree with it, but the analogy you used is still off. In the case of fuel taxes, they're mostly used to fund road maintenance. Since the amount of road damage (and therefore maintenance cost) increases exponentially/geometrically with axle weight[1], it doesn't make sense to tax cyclists because the amount of cost they incur is negligible. On the other hand, it does make sense to charge electric vehicles extra $$$, because they incur road wear but don't pay for it via fuel taxes.

[1] https://streets.mn/2016/07/07/chart-of-the-day-vehicle-weigh...

Taxing fuel as an indicator of road use is outdated now with the advent of electric cars. There should also be additional taxes for gasoline due to the environmental costs, and the simplest way to make things fair is to stop taxing analogues and taxing directly instead.

Should we also penalize people who cycle to work, and pack their lunch at home? On paper they are no different than people working from home.

Every option is on the table, when we're "not paying into the system", but your examples are not the issue discussed in the article.

> your examples are not the issue discussed in the article

From TFA:

"By working from home, people aren't paying for public transport or eating out at restaurants near their places of work"

It's exactly what the GP comment referenced.

> They can't help but penalize change.

I don't believe it has anything to do with change.

I believe it has everything to do with isolating a vulnerable subset of society to exploit them. Divide and conquer. They want a bigger chunk of your hard earned money, thus they fabricate a tall tale of entitlement to vilify and turn the peole against you, and proceed to rob you of your paycheck because they want your hard earned money.

So raise tax revenue across the board. Will that make the commuting lifestyle unaffordable? Well that might just be because it's not economically viable and heavily subsidized.

I'm spending more on heating, electricity, water and food...

Saving money? I spending more money than before I worked from home.

More money on electricity, heating, had to get better internet etc. Spending more on food as I am snacking and drinks more at home. It's not like the employers are sharing in this increased cost. The independent owned coffee place near my home is more expensive than the coffee can buy in the work canteen.

I wonder how large Deutsche Bank's exposure to the office space market is.

People who WFH will still spend a similar amount of money, just on different things and in different places.

It's Germany, penalizing change is what they do best.

Paying a flat tax on all writeable media to fund GEMA. Having to use Sofortüberweisung for online payments, etc.

In Germany many people are already penalized for working from home, because the tax exempts for commuting are quite generous.

No, it’s not. Quote from the article: “... wrote Deutsche Bank strategist Luke Templeman.”

Looking him up on LinkedIn shows he is working in London since 2009, at DB since 2015, did an MBA in NSW, Australia and another one at LBS in London.

I think this is an immune response by capital. If people don’t need multiple spaces for living, that has a big impact on the people who own property and land. Shifting to things like drone delivery, etc, which I think is a great idea, would be an imposition to edified capital interests. I am pessimistic that our system has the will or momentum to shift toward what individual laborers and human groups need, but it is heartening to see that the fight itself is becoming so overt.

Deutsche Bank obviously wants this tax to prop up real estate. This is a general unemployment problem yet they somehow suggest a tax that is supposed to make one type of worker worse off even though every worker should be taxed to help the unemployed? The irony is that we are in an economic situation in which we actually need the opposite: Tax cuts everywhere.