> Deutsche Bank placed number one in money laundering.
How does that ad hominem refute or support the claim that remote workers should be taxed to subsidize vulnerable jobs?
How does that ad hominem refute or support the claim that remote workers should be taxed to subsidize vulnerable jobs?
Again, that makes zero sense and is another blatant red herring. If the discussion is about taxing WFH to support vulnerable jobs, it makes absolutely no sense to waste time playing the whole whack-a-mole whataboutism game.
If you don't want to discuss the topic under discussion, please refrain from commenting at all. You'll only end up adding noise to an otherwise interesting discussion.
Don't tell me when or when I shouldn't comment because this proposal is a ridiculous proposal and I'm going to say it so.