6 ms·

Companies should be taxed MORE for having people work in an office?

toomuchtodo 3y ago
Yes. They are causing negative externalities without exposure to the costs. Why would we collectively not force them to internalize the costs of their requirements? Pay up. Tangentially, it is sort of fun to potentially wield capitalist economic mechanisms against poor human decisions powered by hierarchical social power structures causing detriment to physical systems. Not all hacks require code (although, one could consider statute and executive branch rule making a form of code processed by the legal system I suppose).
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  They pay them by paying their employees, who pay for transport.
  - lowmagnet 3y ago
    …but not the pollution, road maintenance due to extra wear, fuel economy stagnation, etc. That is what gp was referring to: externalities, which you don't directly pay for
    - sahila 3y ago
      Gas tax and car registrations cover a fair amount of what you're talking about.
      - smileysteve 3y ago
        I've got some bad news for you about the gas tax for repairs; at least on US Interstate highways. > (2021) The transit and highway accounts are projected to have a shortfall of $207B over the next 10 years https://www.pgpf.org/blog/2021/03/its-been-28-years-since-we-last-raised-the-gas-tax-and-its-purchasing-power-has-eroded https://www.pgpf.org/blog/2021/03/its-been-28-years-since-we... > The American Society of Civil Engineers, which gives U.S. infrastructure a C-minus, is calling on the government and private sector to increase spending on roads and bridges by at least $2.5 trillion within a decade. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/the-gas-taxs-tortured-history-shows-how-hard-it-is-to-fund-new-infrastructure https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/the-gas-taxs-tortured-...
        robertlagrant 3y ago
        Blame the people who should be setting the and spending taxes correctly for that one.
- Eumenes 3y ago
  I don't think a tax like this would have the intention you think. It would likely increase outsourcing, massively benefit large corporations who can afford to absorb the fees (and have better accountants/lawyers compared to startups), destroy the tax base of cities (after the companies flee to business friendly states), shut down tons of small business that rely on commuters/workers (like restaurants, bars, cleaning staff, etc). Believe it or not, many people like to see their co-workers daily and don't view going to an office as a crime against humanity. This forum skews heavily towards the opposite view obviously.
  - toomuchtodo 3y ago
    Either pay for the climate damage you cause or don't cause it. If tariffs are needed to avoid using outsourcing to evade the spirit of the law, implement them. No freeloading, no papering over unsustainable systems. If city tax bases crumble, so be it. If small businesses fail, that is what one would expect in a dynamic, constantly changing economic system when the system changes. > Believe it or not, many people like to see their co-workers daily and don't view going to an office as a crime against humanity. This forum skews heavily towards the opposite view obviously. I take no issue, just pay your fully loaded costs to have this experience. My work is an income, not my social life, so I cannot relate. Now if your argument instead is, "My in office work life is a core component of myself but I also don't want to pay for the externalities living this experience causes because I didn't have to previously," I do not have much sympathy. https://www.gallup.com/workplace/397751/returning-office-current-preferred-future-state-remote-work.aspx https://www.gallup.com/workplace/397751/returning-office-cur... ("Approximately 56% of full-time employees in the U.S. -- more than 70 million workers -- say their job can be done working remotely from home.") https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/real-estate/our-insights/americans-are-embracing-flexible-work-and-they-want-more-of-it https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/real-estate/our-insights... ("Another of the survey’s revelations: when people have the chance to work flexibly, 87 percent of them take it.")
    - Eumenes 3y ago
      Meh, I think the jury is still out on the effectiveness of carbon credits/offsets. Its a new system and there's no way in telling if it will have its intended impact. Levying taxes and enacting policy is an inherently political game, and these solutions impact people TODAY. Most people would prefer to keep their quality of life high today, vs mitigating some potential risk 100s of years from now when they won't even be alive.
realusername 3y ago
Why not? They pollute more because of this decision (assuming we're talking about a desk job of course)
FredPret 3y ago
Work at office: hundreds/thousands of multi-ton SUV's try to get to the same place at 9am and 5pm; parents are absent from their children and each other half the day; real estate values near offices spike insanely; if people commute by bus/train they have to sacrifice even more hours, and also, share space with crazies and you still have to move a massive amount of physical stuff around. Work from home: some electrons & photons move. Which one costs society more?

Yes. They are causing negative externalities without exposure to the costs. Why would we collectively not force them to internalize the costs of their requirements? Pay up. Tangentially, it is sort of fun to potentially wield capitalist economic mechanisms against poor human decisions powered by hierarchical social power structures causing detriment to physical systems. Not all hacks require code (although, one could consider statute and executive branch rule making a form of code processed by the legal system I suppose).

robertlagrant 3y ago
They pay them by paying their employees, who pay for transport.
- lowmagnet 3y ago
  …but not the pollution, road maintenance due to extra wear, fuel economy stagnation, etc. That is what gp was referring to: externalities, which you don't directly pay for
  - sahila 3y ago
    Gas tax and car registrations cover a fair amount of what you're talking about.
    - smileysteve 3y ago
      I've got some bad news for you about the gas tax for repairs; at least on US Interstate highways. > (2021) The transit and highway accounts are projected to have a shortfall of $207B over the next 10 years https://www.pgpf.org/blog/2021/03/its-been-28-years-since-we-last-raised-the-gas-tax-and-its-purchasing-power-has-eroded https://www.pgpf.org/blog/2021/03/its-been-28-years-since-we... > The American Society of Civil Engineers, which gives U.S. infrastructure a C-minus, is calling on the government and private sector to increase spending on roads and bridges by at least $2.5 trillion within a decade. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/the-gas-taxs-tortured-history-shows-how-hard-it-is-to-fund-new-infrastructure https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/the-gas-taxs-tortured-...
      - robertlagrant 3y ago
        Blame the people who should be setting the and spending taxes correctly for that one.
Eumenes 3y ago
I don't think a tax like this would have the intention you think. It would likely increase outsourcing, massively benefit large corporations who can afford to absorb the fees (and have better accountants/lawyers compared to startups), destroy the tax base of cities (after the companies flee to business friendly states), shut down tons of small business that rely on commuters/workers (like restaurants, bars, cleaning staff, etc). Believe it or not, many people like to see their co-workers daily and don't view going to an office as a crime against humanity. This forum skews heavily towards the opposite view obviously.
- toomuchtodo 3y ago
  Either pay for the climate damage you cause or don't cause it. If tariffs are needed to avoid using outsourcing to evade the spirit of the law, implement them. No freeloading, no papering over unsustainable systems. If city tax bases crumble, so be it. If small businesses fail, that is what one would expect in a dynamic, constantly changing economic system when the system changes. > Believe it or not, many people like to see their co-workers daily and don't view going to an office as a crime against humanity. This forum skews heavily towards the opposite view obviously. I take no issue, just pay your fully loaded costs to have this experience. My work is an income, not my social life, so I cannot relate. Now if your argument instead is, "My in office work life is a core component of myself but I also don't want to pay for the externalities living this experience causes because I didn't have to previously," I do not have much sympathy. https://www.gallup.com/workplace/397751/returning-office-current-preferred-future-state-remote-work.aspx https://www.gallup.com/workplace/397751/returning-office-cur... ("Approximately 56% of full-time employees in the U.S. -- more than 70 million workers -- say their job can be done working remotely from home.") https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/real-estate/our-insights/americans-are-embracing-flexible-work-and-they-want-more-of-it https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/real-estate/our-insights... ("Another of the survey’s revelations: when people have the chance to work flexibly, 87 percent of them take it.")
  - Eumenes 3y ago
    Meh, I think the jury is still out on the effectiveness of carbon credits/offsets. Its a new system and there's no way in telling if it will have its intended impact. Levying taxes and enacting policy is an inherently political game, and these solutions impact people TODAY. Most people would prefer to keep their quality of life high today, vs mitigating some potential risk 100s of years from now when they won't even be alive.

realusername 3y ago

Why not? They pollute more because of this decision (assuming we're talking about a desk job of course)

FredPret 3y ago

Work at office: hundreds/thousands of multi-ton SUV's try to get to the same place at 9am and 5pm; parents are absent from their children and each other half the day; real estate values near offices spike insanely; if people commute by bus/train they have to sacrifice even more hours, and also, share space with crazies and you still have to move a massive amount of physical stuff around. Work from home: some electrons & photons move. Which one costs society more?