Second time I've seen this headline this week (didn't read the first time, but it's possible it may also be based on the same DB report).
While my knee-jerk reaction is obviously 'uh, no,' I can appreciate the considerations it raises after actually reading DB's argumentation as it's been presented in the article. In a nutshell, the idea is that if (when?) large numbers of people shift away from the centralized commute-to-office way of life, then there will be negative economic impacts to all the surrounding infrastructure set up around this. As such, this idea (it's important to emphasize the report is just an idea/thought exercise) would be to levy a "remote" tax per employee, ideally charged to the employer which would then be distributed to those who cannot work remotely. See below snippet for a proposed breakdown:
“If we assume the average salary of a person who chooses to work from home in the US is $55,000, a tax of five per cent works out to just over $10 per working day. That is roughly the amount an office worker might spend on commuting, lunch, and laundry etc. A tax at this rate, then, will leave them no worse off than if they had chosen to go into the office.”
According to Templeman’s calculations, it would raise $48 billion per year. He proposes it be used for a very specific purpose – to give grants of $1,500 to the 29 million workers who cannot do their jobs from home and who make less than $30,000 a year: “Many of these people are those who assumed the health risks of working during the pandemic and are far more ‘essential’ than their wage level suggests.”
Thoughts from the RC community?