Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Remote workers should be taxed for privilege...


aGENT
 Share

Recommended Posts

The author needs to be hit with a stupidity tax.

"Money could fund subsidies for low-income earners and essential workers who are unable to work remotely."

So why are workers being taxed again to provide a social safety net for others when it's the government's own responsibility?  Also essential workers agreed to their jobs at their current income level, at no one else's compulsion.  Why is there a Robin Hood mentality, that workers are robbed to provide for others, when remote workers aren't even rich?

Lastly, having seen how the CERB was abused, I could only imagine that the workers would just choose to stay at their essential jobs since they'll be getting paid by the middle class taxed folks.

Edited by Phil_314
  • Cheers 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Phil_314 said:

The author needs to be hit with a stupidity tax.

"Money could fund subsidies for low-income earners and essential workers who are unable to work remotely."

So why are workers being taxed again to provide a social safety net for others when it's the government's own responsibility?  Also essential workers agreed to their jobs at their current income level, at no one else's compulsion.  Why is there a Robin Hood mentality, that workers are robbed to provide for others, when remote workers aren't even rich?

Lastly, having seen how the CERB was abused, I could only imagine that the workers would just choose to stay at their essential jobs since they'll be getting paid by the middle class taxed folks.

The argument seems to be that they're spending less money... Which, frankly I find hard to believe.

 

Any money they're saving on things like gas or eating out are almost certainly being spent elsewhere given people's spending habits. And if not, if people are actually applying it to our reported record high debt levels... Would that be all that bad?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The UK just instituted this.

 

Essentially they're claiming ti will be a fund used to help at risk businesses.  Which, by their own admission is utter crap.  Imagine, people now working from home having to use their heat, electrical phone and internet for work purposes after most major corporations told employees working from home their wages would be cut to reflect their relaxed level of atmosphere will now have to pay $7 a day on top of essentially subsidizing heating and electrical costs for their employers who gave them a pay cut.

 

I's insulting.  Beyond insulting.  Especially in the UK as their leadign party voted to give themselves a $10k a year bonus to pay for the cost of...you guessed it. 


Working from home

  • Cheers 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quite ironically the opposite will likely happen.

If you reserve a room in you house for "work purposes only " you should receive a tax break (percentage back from internet, power etc)

 

Not an accountant but that's how I read the working from home tax exemption on the Gov Can website

  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, aGENT said:

The argument seems to be that they're spending less money... Which, frankly I find hard to believe.

 

Any money they're saving on things like gas or eating out are almost certainly being spent elsewhere given people's spending habits. And if not, if people are actually applying it to our reported record high debt levels... Would that be all that bad?!

Well I would agree that I've been saving more money (still with family although I give them money each month, and instead of eating out I can put away bank), it still doesn't justify being taxed for that though.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So basically they’re saying people who work at home will be saving money and be more financially stable, so how can we correct that?

 

Its almost like they want people to be right on the edge of poverty...

 

Not surprising coming from a bank. Their whole business revolves around owning people for life.

 

Edited by DeNiro
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Warhippy said:

The UK just instituted this.

 

Essentially they're claiming ti will be a fund used to help at risk businesses.  Which, by their own admission is utter crap.  Imagine, people now working from home having to use their heat, electrical phone and internet for work purposes after most major corporations told employees working from home their wages would be cut to reflect their relaxed level of atmosphere will now have to pay $7 a day on top of essentially subsidizing heating and electrical costs for their employers who gave them a pay cut.

 

I's insulting.  Beyond insulting.  Especially in the UK as their leadign party voted to give themselves a $10k a year bonus to pay for the cost of...you guessed it. 


Working from home

Haha, Sweden would riot if that happened. I must say the Swedish government has done a good job of keeping the country afloat, it also helped that we didn't go into strictly stupid levels of lockdown. People in Sweden are already anti-social so keeping distance was not a foreign concept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, aGENT said:

I mean, I like the idea of giving critical workers more support. But this method is idiotic. A 5% "levy" as they call it would just push people to work at Starbuck, the local library or a cheapie hot desk for a hell of a lot less money. 

 

I could see the gov't reducing or eliminating the tax credits you can get by claiming partial home use for business purposes if too many people start using it and/or abusing it. Its a giant pain in the ass already to do things like claim car use and which 1/20th of your basement your actually using for storage, etc. so maybe that just goes away down the line but thats different from this cash grab. 

 

If we really want to help people lets turn empty downtown office buildings into co-op condo's. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I mean, I like the idea of giving critical workers more support. But this method is idiotic. A 5% "levy" as they call it would just push people to work at Starbuck, the local library or a cheapie hot desk for a hell of a lot less money. 

 

I could see the gov't reducing or eliminating the tax credits you can get by claiming partial home use for business purposes if too many people start using it and/or abusing it. Its a giant pain in the ass already to do things like claim car use and which 1/20th of your basement your actually using for storage, etc. so maybe that just goes away down the line but thats different from this cash grab. 

 

If we really want to help people lets turn empty downtown office buildings into co-op condo's. 

I like your perpetual optimism Jimmy, if everyone thought like you did there'd be no war, unfortunately there's constantly bitter people out there, and Nimbys, lots and lots of Nimbys.

Edited by canuckster19
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, canuckster19 said:

I like your perpetual optimism Jimmy, if everyone thought like you did there'd be no war, unfortunately there's constantly bitter people out there, and Nimbys, lots and lots of Nimbys.

I should run for government, but the problem is I can be bought. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...