Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Massachusetts to tax ride-hailing apps, give the money to taxis

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 539 posts

Re: Massachusetts to tax ride-hailing apps, give the money to taxis

#81

Post by tomp »

ben_jones wrote: post #75
rev_bird wrote: post #2

This is a pretty surreal move: >The law says the money will help taxi businesses to adopt "new technologies and advanced service, safety and operational capabilities" and to support workforce development... [Larry Meister, manager of the Boston area's Independent Taxi Operator's Association] said the money could go toward improving a smartphone app his association has started using, or to other big needs. I'm not an…

The counter point I think is that if the persistence of a fading industry is in the public interest, then it is within the government's rights to give tax payer money to them. The only corollary I can immediately draw is the Detroit auto industry in 2008/2009 which was kept alive by bailouts despite the fact that it was not able to compete in the global market. I don't know if added competition by taxi companies is i…

It definitely is in public iterest. You can't haul Uber when your phone's dead or your bank won't give you a credit card.

Re: Massachusetts to tax ride-hailing apps, give the money to taxis

#82

Post by dsacco »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #55
dsacco wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't make sense to say, "Except for [subset of policy a], I am 100% in favor of [policy a], but for [subset of policy a] I am 100% in favor of [policy b]." That's like saying, "Except for my student loans, I am 100% debt free." It muddles your point. Just a nit.

It makes sense to me. Try something more like "I don't think people should get into debt, except for student loans". They support policy A for some markets, and policy B for other markets. That's not muddled.

This is exactly my point. There is no reason to use an arbitrary percentage. More to the point, if you're "100% for something, except for [whatever]", you're simply not 100% for that thing. Why even use a percentage at that point, let alone 100%? It's just involving numbers with no purpose.

Re: Massachusetts to tax ride-hailing apps, give the money to taxis

#83

Post by jdminhbg »

randyrand wrote: post #65
yohoho22 wrote: post #54

> The 5-cent fee will be collected through the end of 2021. Then the taxi subsidy will disappear and the 20 cents will be split by localities and the state for five years. The whole fee will go away at the end of 2026.

ah the old 'temporary tax' we hear time to time. I remember some story about a few WWII temporary taxes that are still taxing today.

Pennsylvanians still pay a "temporary" 18% tax on alcohol instituted to pay for damage caused by the Johnstown Flood.

... in 1936.

http://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/editorials/2016/03/27/Tr...

Re: Massachusetts to tax ride-hailing apps, give the money to taxis

#84

Post by xauronx »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #69
acidburnNSA wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like it. For self-driving trucks, someone suggested to me once that we could give all the truck drivers promotions to "logistics supervisors." They ride along and do paperwork and the trucking companies stop hiring for that position. I just feel like it's more likely that the trucking companies see that they can save money by firing them and tell them goodbye.

They will always need drivers just to stave off banditry and handle emergencies. What is likely is a single manned truck leading small convoys of automated machines.

What if we did something clever to keep them all in a row, almost like tracks of some sort? /s

Re: Massachusetts to tax ride-hailing apps, give the money to taxis

#85

Post by hueving »

paulcole wrote: post #30
darawk wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are pretty clearly profitable for both of those reasons. They are not at all mutually exclusive.

Are they profitable though?

In the US, yes. They were using that to fund expansion into China/India.

Re: Massachusetts to tax ride-hailing apps, give the money to taxis

#86

Post by toomuchtodo »

yazaddaruvala wrote: post #73
toomuchtodo wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would absolutely love for someone to leak Uber's user demographic data. I find it hard to believe it's working class people regularly using it, and not just upper middle class professionals and above primarily (except on nights out to the bar; in that case I could see the demo skewed).

My bad, I should have tried to clarify. It seems we have different definitions of the working class. I'm an upper middle class professional, but I consider myself in the "working class". Otherwise, I'm not sure why I waste 40-60 hours every week on other people's problems :P

I consider working class the chunk of middle class constantly shrinking, joining the lower class. Tech workers are a minority.

Re: Massachusetts to tax ride-hailing apps, give the money to taxis

#87

Post by jacalata »

yazaddaruvala wrote: post #73
toomuchtodo wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would absolutely love for someone to leak Uber's user demographic data. I find it hard to believe it's working class people regularly using it, and not just upper middle class professionals and above primarily (except on nights out to the bar; in that case I could see the demo skewed).

My bad, I should have tried to clarify. It seems we have different definitions of the working class. I'm an upper middle class professional, but I consider myself in the "working class". Otherwise, I'm not sure why I waste 40-60 hours every week on other people's problems :P

Yes. Your bad. When you are using a term with a common meaning to say something completely different, you should say that up front.

Re: Massachusetts to tax ride-hailing apps, give the money to taxis

#88

Post by edko »

dsacco wrote: post #52
acidburnNSA wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mostly agree with you, and I would have wholeheartedly agreed with you 2 weeks ago, but I just read a book ("Listen, Liberal" by Thomas Frank) that makes some interesting points about how liberals have shifted from representing working people to representing professionals, and to worshiping innovation. While free trade and disruptive technology is good for the professional class, it inherently increases inequality.…

I like your comment as a contribution to discussion, but I'd like to see a dialectic about why income inequality increasing is bad, in of itself. I see this implied quite a bit on Hacker News. Usually something along the lines of, "But doing this will increase income inequality" stated as a counterpoint. If overall quality of life increases, I am personally unconcerned with income inequality. I haven't seen definitiv…

Rather than start a dialectic, let's consider concrete examples: is there any society with a large income inequality that also has a world-class standard of living for all of its members?

Re: Massachusetts to tax ride-hailing apps, give the money to taxis

#89

Post by acidburnNSA »

dsacco wrote: post #52
acidburnNSA wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mostly agree with you, and I would have wholeheartedly agreed with you 2 weeks ago, but I just read a book ("Listen, Liberal" by Thomas Frank) that makes some interesting points about how liberals have shifted from representing working people to representing professionals, and to worshiping innovation. While free trade and disruptive technology is good for the professional class, it inherently increases inequality.…

I like your comment as a contribution to discussion, but I'd like to see a dialectic about why income inequality increasing is bad, in of itself. I see this implied quite a bit on Hacker News. Usually something along the lines of, "But doing this will increase income inequality" stated as a counterpoint. If overall quality of life increases, I am personally unconcerned with income inequality. I haven't seen definitiv…

Good point; "a rising tide lifts all boats". If that were true, then yeah, it'd just be a psychological question of how OK people will be with seeing a rising class of professionals get accelerated wealth while they just rise in quality of life at a 'normal' rate. And how big is the professional class compared to the others? At what point is there social instability? Where's the breaking point, if anywhere? I don't think anyone really has any idea of the answer, so considering a few historical data points, it's just judicious to be concerned about it.

Also, does the rising tide lift all boats? Working class wages remain pretty stagnant, and dissatisfaction in the USA is growing, at least when viewed through the election cycle.

Any sociologists out there? What does the literature say on societal effects of income inequality?

Post reply on HN