WFH has positive externalities due to less transportation demand, if your goal is to provide assistance to low income people this is a much worse way to do it than a simple progressive tax/redistribution scheme.
This idea is getting a lot more visibility than it warrants. The positive social benefits from WFH suggest you should be giving tax breaks for WFH, not assessing tax penalties.<p>It is almost as if those pushing this idea have an incentive to prod people back into the most densely populated city in the US, expensive, dirty, inconvenient to the point of abuse...oh wait, it’s Bloomberg.
repost: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25059505" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25059505</a><p>Leave it to the bankers and the .01% to figure out how to stick it to the middle class.