Taxation discussion

[Hadders]

Whilst I sympathise, I cannot see why this is a matter for taxation by the state. If an employer wants to rethink the balance of remuneration and expenses between those who are required to travel for work and those who are not, that's a separate question.

Maybe. It might be that Government needs to incentivise employers to bring people into work places as this also has a wider benefit to the wider economy.

 

[87 027]

Yes and no. As I said upthread, I'm still buying coffees, lunches, shopping and eating. It's just that the spending is with establishments closer to where I live rather than in central London. The only expense I am avoiding entirely is paying SouthEastern a rather large sum of money for my daily commute. The magnitude of that expense is determined entirely by how close or distant I choose to live from the office. Government has previously made the political choice to make railways reliant on income more from the farebox and less from public subsidy, and those pigeons are now coming home to roost.

 

[Hadders]

It's not just about the railways though. Someone making a short commute to a town centre location will save on a bit of petrol and parking costs.

I agree that the magnitude of saving is determined by how close or distant someone chooses to live from their work, but the difference is that if employers are making the decision to require employees to work from home it is understandable if this introduces some resentment into some of the workforce.

 

[87 027]

I wonder if in the longer term we will see the end of the "London weighting" and instead something closer to a more basic salary which is then supplemented by additional allowances depending on the extent to which people are required to travel to one or more designated places of work. But this could introduce its own perceived iniquities, e.g. rewarding people who deliberately choose to live further away and travel longer distances as and when required

 

[OuterDistant]

Maybe. It might be that Government needs to incentivise employers to bring people into work places as this also has a wider benefit to the wider economy.

So, after years of telling us we need to cut carbon emissions and congestion, they'd be encouraging us to increase carbon emissions and congestion?

 

[westv]

So, after years of telling us we need to cut carbon emissions and congestion, they'd be encouraging us to increase carbon emissions and congestion?

The idea does appear to be slightly driven by envy.