|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Aug 12, 2024 11:13:18 GMT -5
On one hand, I can understand that this extra perk feels unfair to those who have no ability to work remotely. On the other, it isn't that different from white collar jobs having better salaries, just one more benefit on top of what already exists.
It didn't make it into law in the Netherlands, but hybrid working still exists for a lot of people, myself included.
|
|
|
|
Post by herzlos on Aug 13, 2024 3:34:39 GMT -5
It's unfair, sure. But as you said it was already unfair. White collar workers got to slack around in a nice air conditioned office drinking coffee and not doing any work (I'm sure I've seen stats saying office workers are only 40% efficient), whilst blue collar workers are spending their day in vans or working machines.
The white collar workers working from home at least part time doesn't seem any less fair than working in offices.
I'd actually go further and say that remote work is beneficial for everyone except for real estate and office service companies, because less people pointlessly driving to work means less traffic for those who actually need to.
I haven't seen any job listings outside of IT, but all of the ones I've seen have at least been hybrid. I don't think I've seen any that are 'fully remote' as there's usually a requirement to visit the office at least a few times a year. But some are infrequent enough you could live anywhere and fly in once every other month for a few days.
|
|
|
|
Post by Haighus on Aug 13, 2024 3:37:26 GMT -5
I think the UK has seen less pushback against WFH than the US. Maybe because we have a bit more workers rights and a better appreciation of work-life balance, and/or a lower frequency of control-freak managers?
I get the impression Europe is also seeing less pushback than the US.
|
|
|
|
Post by Peregrine on Aug 13, 2024 4:13:37 GMT -5
Maybe because we have a bit more workers rights and a better appreciation of work-life balance, and/or a lower frequency of control-freak managers? Probably. The resistance to remote work is 99% idiot parasites who hate how it makes it so obvious that they add nothing of value to the company or society in general. If you have fewer parasites in the UK then it's easier to do the right thing for the company instead of the right thing to fluff the ego of some petty tyrant who failed at everything else in life. |
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Aug 13, 2024 4:27:27 GMT -5
I think there is (even in Europe) a somewhat perverse government incentive not to enshrine the ability for hybrid working into law, specifically for some of the benefits that Herzlos mentions.
Here, there is a massive tax on fuel (like 1/2 to 2/3rds of the price). All those people working from home are no longer filling up those cars (or pay VAT on public transport). This will become a serious problem when electric vehicles become the majority, but WFH created that problem right away.
I know that our US and Japanese divisions cancelled WFH, for the reason Peregrine stated. The Japanese leadership is 90% about emailing and replying to emails with everyone in CC, proving that you're working, even if the work is pointless busy work. They don't trust their employees, because they don't even trust each other in higher functions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Haighus on Aug 13, 2024 4:31:16 GMT -5
I think there is (even in Europe) a somewhat perverse government incentive not to enshrine the ability for hybrid working into law, specifically for some of the benefits that Herzlos mentions. Here, there is a massive tax on fuel (like 1/2 to 2/3rds of the price). All those people working from home are no longer filling up those cars (or pay VAT on public transport). This will become a serious problem when electric vehicles become the majority, but WFH created that problem right away. On the other hand, the reduced commuting means much less wear and tear on infrastructure anyway, so that isn't pure loss. Road infrastructure for motor vehicles especially wears very quickly and is low efficiency. Although a shift to per-mile vehicle taxation is definitely going to become the norm at some point as more vehicles switch to electric or hybrid. The current taxation system isn't really sustainable to start with and is only getting worse. Not considered a popular policy though. |
|
|
|
Post by herzlos on Aug 13, 2024 4:32:25 GMT -5
It'd give them a huge leap towards their environmental goals though - if WFH even dropped vehicle mileage by 5% that's a lot of CO2 not produced.
The same would happen with infrastructure - with the same 5% vehicle mileage and congestion reduction you may not need to expand so many roads, do so many repairs etc.
I hadn't considered that there'd be a difference in attitude between the US and Europe on WFH, but then the US doesn't really treat workers like humans or seem to care about the environment so I wouldn't be surprised if there's a bigger push back into the office from the US.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Aug 13, 2024 4:38:19 GMT -5
I think there is (even in Europe) a somewhat perverse government incentive not to enshrine the ability for hybrid working into law, specifically for some of the benefits that Herzlos mentions. Here, there is a massive tax on fuel (like 1/2 to 2/3rds of the price). All those people working from home are no longer filling up those cars (or pay VAT on public transport). This will become a serious problem when electric vehicles become the majority, but WFH created that problem right away. On the other hand, the reduced commuting means much less wear and tear on infrastructure anyway, so that isn't pure loss. Road infrastructure for motor vehicles especially wears very quickly and is low efficiency. Although a shift to per-mile vehicle taxation is definitely going to become the norm at some point as more vehicles switch to electric or hybrid. The current taxation system isn't really sustainable to start with and is only getting worse. Not considered a popular policy though. I'm not sure if the system is similar in the UK, but to explain: We have a tax on ownership, this tax is measured by weight of the car (for the wear and tear as you say). This is used for upkeep of the road system, as it is dictated by the amount of existing cars, regardless of how often or far people drive each month. The fuel tax is similar to that on alcohol or cigarettes, this is just general income, not earmarked for road maintenance. So no matter how many days you WFH, road maintenance is covered by your vehicle tax. |
|
|
|
Post by redchimera on Aug 13, 2024 4:45:39 GMT -5
On the other hand, the reduced commuting means much less wear and tear on infrastructure anyway, so that isn't pure loss. Road infrastructure for motor vehicles especially wears very quickly and is low efficiency. Although a shift to per-mile vehicle taxation is definitely going to become the norm at some point as more vehicles switch to electric or hybrid. The current taxation system isn't really sustainable to start with and is only getting worse. Not considered a popular policy though. I'm not sure if the system is similar in the UK, but to explain: We have a tax on ownership, this tax is measured by weight of the car (for the wear and tear as you say). This is used for upkeep of the road system, as it is dictated by the amount of existing cars, regardless of how often or far people drive each month. The fuel tax is similar to that on alcohol or cigarettes, this is just general income, not earmarked for road maintenance. So no matter how many days you WFH, road maintenance is covered by your vehicle tax. In the UK the road tax (or Vehicle Excise Duty) goes into general revenue for the Treasury, it's not earmarked specifically for road maintenance. It's a fixed amount not based on car size, but there are discounts for greener cars and also 'classic' cars. As more people switch to electric that discount will disappear at some point, to make up for the lost revenue. |
|
|
|
Post by Haighus on Aug 13, 2024 4:48:47 GMT -5
On the other hand, the reduced commuting means much less wear and tear on infrastructure anyway, so that isn't pure loss. Road infrastructure for motor vehicles especially wears very quickly and is low efficiency. Although a shift to per-mile vehicle taxation is definitely going to become the norm at some point as more vehicles switch to electric or hybrid. The current taxation system isn't really sustainable to start with and is only getting worse. Not considered a popular policy though. I'm not sure if the system is similar in the UK, but to explain: We have a tax on ownership, this tax is measured by weight of the car (for the wear and tear as you say). This is used for upkeep of the road system, as it is dictated by the amount of existing cars, regardless of how often or far people drive each month. The fuel tax is similar to that on alcohol or cigarettes, this is just general income, not earmarked for road maintenance. So no matter how many days you WFH, road maintenance is covered by your vehicle tax. Fuel tax isn't earmarked in the UK either. I highly doubt that the vehicle tax fully pays for road upkeep though, in pretty much every developed nation roads are heavily subsidised by general taxation from non-vehicle sources. So if you WFH you still contribute to road upkeep but contribute much less to road wear. Also, a tax that only penalises weight not distance means that you are incentivesed to use the vehicle as much as possible to maximise return on investment. We will need distance taxation to encourage reduced car travel and modal shift. Weight is definitely an issue and should be included though. It is also massively non-linear. Someone on a bike does trivial wear compared to a typical 1-1.5 ton car, which does something like 300 times less wear than a 40 ton lorry... Lorries are by far the biggest driver of road wear and disproportionately benefit from existing tax systems. Difficult to change that without increasing rail freight capacity though. |
|
|
|
Post by Haighus on Aug 13, 2024 4:54:17 GMT -5
I'm not sure if the system is similar in the UK, but to explain: We have a tax on ownership, this tax is measured by weight of the car (for the wear and tear as you say). This is used for upkeep of the road system, as it is dictated by the amount of existing cars, regardless of how often or far people drive each month. The fuel tax is similar to that on alcohol or cigarettes, this is just general income, not earmarked for road maintenance. So no matter how many days you WFH, road maintenance is covered by your vehicle tax. In the UK the road tax (or Vehicle Excise Duty) goes into general revenue for the Treasury, it's not earmarked specifically for road maintenance. It's a fixed amount not based on car size, but there are discounts for greener cars and also 'classic' cars. As more people switch to electric that discount will disappear at some point, to make up for the lost revenue. Technically UK vehicle tax isn't supposed to be a road tax at all, it is supposed to cover environmental externalities from more polluting engines. This is why diesel engines are typically more heavily penalised than equivalent petrol engines despite being more energy efficient and producing less carbon for the same distance- they produce more particulate matter and air pollution for the same distance and have a greater impact on local air quality. They really undermined this with the change to flat rates for most cars though. They might reduce the discount for electric vehicles, but really they should just introduce a different tax for road wear and keep the emissions tax to continue to incentivise the switch to lower pollution. Reduced air pollution should result in lower bills for health and social care anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Aug 13, 2024 5:10:22 GMT -5
I'm not sure if the system is similar in the UK, but to explain: We have a tax on ownership, this tax is measured by weight of the car (for the wear and tear as you say). This is used for upkeep of the road system, as it is dictated by the amount of existing cars, regardless of how often or far people drive each month. The fuel tax is similar to that on alcohol or cigarettes, this is just general income, not earmarked for road maintenance. So no matter how many days you WFH, road maintenance is covered by your vehicle tax. Fuel tax isn't earmarked in the UK either. I highly doubt that the vehicle tax fully pays for road upkeep though, in pretty much every developed nation roads are heavily subsidised by general taxation from non-vehicle sources. So if you WFH you still contribute to road upkeep but contribute much less to road wear. Also, a tax that only penalises weight not distance means that you are incentivesed to use the vehicle as much as possible to maximise return on investment. We will need distance taxation to encourage reduced car travel and modal shift. Weight is definitely an issue and should be included though. It is also massively non-linear. Someone on a bike does trivial wear compared to a typical 1-1.5 ton car, which does something like 300 times less wear than a 40 ton lorry... Lorries are by far the biggest driver of road wear and disproportionately benefit from existing tax systems. Difficult to change that without increasing rail freight capacity though. Not here, our vehicle tax income exceeds maintainance cost. So WFH home/using your car less only leads to more 'leftover' money for that tax, but is not as profitable as having them drive around 5 days a week. Distance taxation over weight taxation has been a political topic for decades, but the political will to do it differently is lacking. Distance taxation will be new to voters, but weight taxation is old and voters are numb to it. Unfortunately, distance taxation is also less fraud proof than "do you have a car: yes/no". |
|
|
|
Post by herzlos on Aug 13, 2024 5:17:49 GMT -5
So currently in the UK there's a tax on buying the car, owning the car and on fuel. All of it goes in the general pot.
I've never understood why they don't move the bulk of the tax onto the fuel, because it catches everything - heavier cars pay more tax, faster cars pay more, badly maintained cars pay more - and it's hard to avoid because you need fuel.
It's sort of stopped making sense now EV's are becoming popular so I think a mileage tax is the fairest way we'll end up. It'll cause outrage from the same folk who are upset about 15 minute cities though.
WFH would reduce the fuel tax, but the driver would still pay the same sales and ownership tax EXCEPT in cases where families have less cars. I've heard of a lot of people who WFH dropping to a single family car, though pure WFH is pretty rare here so a lot of people seem to have gone for 1 EV and one ICE car since the 2nd car doesn't do anything like the mileage it did before (I went from about 25k to <10k miles/year)
Even then, I reckon the advantages would be worth the reduced tax take. Plus I reckon that the tax take wouldn't go down much because most people would spent their saved fuel bill on something else which will almost certainly attract VAT or generate income in the economy. It's not as if everyone is sitting on a surplus going into savings.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Aug 13, 2024 5:32:38 GMT -5
But VAT in general is lower than fuel tax, so from a government perspective tax income decreases if you spend 'fuel money' on other matters.
The difficulty nowadays with the fuel tax is that it is an extra burden on those poorer. Either the more wealthy people can easily bear it or buy an electric vehicle. I think this just ties into the fact that most taxation systems beyond income/wealth taxes are just inherently less fair to those with less.
|
|
|
|
Post by Haighus on Aug 13, 2024 6:25:24 GMT -5
Fuel tax isn't earmarked in the UK either. I highly doubt that the vehicle tax fully pays for road upkeep though, in pretty much every developed nation roads are heavily subsidised by general taxation from non-vehicle sources. So if you WFH you still contribute to road upkeep but contribute much less to road wear. Also, a tax that only penalises weight not distance means that you are incentivesed to use the vehicle as much as possible to maximise return on investment. We will need distance taxation to encourage reduced car travel and modal shift. Weight is definitely an issue and should be included though. It is also massively non-linear. Someone on a bike does trivial wear compared to a typical 1-1.5 ton car, which does something like 300 times less wear than a 40 ton lorry... Lorries are by far the biggest driver of road wear and disproportionately benefit from existing tax systems. Difficult to change that without increasing rail freight capacity though. Not here, our vehicle tax income exceeds maintainance cost. So WFH home/using your car less only leads to more 'leftover' money for that tax, but is not as profitable as having them drive around 5 days a week. Distance taxation over weight taxation has been a political topic for decades, but the political will to do it differently is lacking. Distance taxation will be new to voters, but weight taxation is old and voters are numb to it. Unfortunately, distance taxation is also less fraud proof than "do you have a car: yes/no". Well, I take back what I said before, that is impressive on the Netherlands part. I think that is probably testament to the canny transportation policy of the Netherlands for the last few decades. Re. fraud, within the UK it would just be linked to the MOT. This has to be done annually by an accredited garage and reports the mileage already. I'd also see the taxes being linked- i.e. a heavier vehicle gets charged more per kilometre than a lighter one for the increased wear. |
|
