Deutsche Bank placed number one in money laundering.
I was hoping Douchebank was going to go under. They were a candidate there for a moment at the beginning of April. Talk was they were going to fold. Too Bad.....
How does that ad hominem refute or support the claim that remote workers should be taxed to subsidize vulnerable jobs?
Again, that makes zero sense and is another blatant red herring. If the discussion is about taxing WFH to support vulnerable jobs, it makes absolutely no sense to waste time playing the whole whack-a-mole whataboutism game.
If you don't want to discuss the topic under discussion, please refrain from commenting at all. You'll only end up adding noise to an otherwise interesting discussion.
Don't tell me when or when I shouldn't comment because this proposal is a ridiculous proposal and I'm going to say it so.
Is there a term for that?
This is a disingenuous red herring.
It's one thing to claim that some amount of taxes to finance public spending can be benefitial to society.
It's an entirely different thing to claim that taxing remote work brings any benefit to society.
I mean, there's already a progressive income tax. Why should society create incentives to commute to work?
True -- which explains why the following rhetorical question is indeed a RED HERRING.
> Examples of large, modern societies flourishing without the use of taxation?
No one has suggested zero taxation anywhere in the thread that I can find...
It shouldn’t be taken for granted, of course. And we should aspire to make it easier for good new ideas to take hold.
I would gladly contribute a larger share of my income as taxes to ensure my community doesn't suffer, provided it was distributed equitably (which is a whole other complicated discussion.)
I would too, which is why I vote with my wallet and buy local, even at a premium, whenever I can.
However, income tax is the exact opposite of helping out the community, as it's designed to fatten up the central government's revenue which is then used up to feed the state's current expenditure.
This is not a true statement.
Home work improves many peoples mental state, reduces time spent at work (if you count commutes), people's footprint in terms of pollution and allow for the redistribution of people that were clustered in big cities under asfixiating rent/home owning costs. Why on earth would we disincentivize it?
>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.
Spending your money isn't an obligation as far as I'm aware. Should I be taxed for bringing my homecooked food to work then? What about walking to my workplace, or using a bike?
>"The virus has benefitted those who can do their jobs virtually, such as bank analysts, and threatened the livelihoods or health of those who can't," added Mr Templeman.
that one is reasonable until:
>It also wouldn't apply when people are asked to stay home for a public health emergency or other medical reasons.
So..the concern is that the virus hurts some workers, but it doesn't apply during times where workers are harmed?