Massachusetts to tax ride-hailing apps, give the money to taxis • Hacker News Board

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

#281

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Aug 21, 2016, 9:33 AM UTC

dsacco wrote: post #179

hx87 wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Low socioeconomic mobility is a problem because the potential for any individual to contribute to the good of society is at best loosely correlated with their previous socioeconomic status. If people who could have been top-notch scientists, engineers, civil servants and entrepreneurs were prevented from doing so because they couldn't move up the ladder (and inversely, rich rent-seekers couldn't move down), society i…

Where did I conflate socioeconomic mobility and income equality? I didn't intend to do that. More to your point - I respond by asking whether or not the socioeconomic standing of a scientist matters for the societal impact of their work. I don't see an easy conclusion here. The scientists driving innovation in industry are generally paid very well (this is relative, but we can probably agree they are paid higher than…

[deleted]

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

#282

Post by eropple » Sun, Aug 21, 2016, 9:33 AM UTC

wooter wrote: post #243

dagss wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You write like your political view is a force of nature. Surely what the government's job is is what the people decide it is through democratic processes?

so mob rule? no. we are a constitutional republic

That's not particularly relevant. Constitutions change to reflect the will of the people; that's why the Constitution of the United States has an amendment process (and many, many countries update and change their constitutions much more often than the United States does!). Further, while arguments exist that try to push the notion that social welfare is somehow unconstitutional, none that I am aware of have ever stood up in court.

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

#283

Post by Jach » Sun, Aug 21, 2016, 9:34 AM UTC

ilostmykeys wrote: post #144

When Uber switches to a fleet of self-driving cars (with lower paid drivers, since they'll just sit and watch 98% of the time), this tax would be absolutely nothing short of taxing innovation to save an inefficient business model. Wow. I thought Capitalism was evil. Now I don't know what to think.

"The only thing worse than being exploited by capitalism is not being exploited by capitalism." --Joan Violet Robinson

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

#284

Post by eropple » Sun, Aug 21, 2016, 9:35 AM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #143

gaius wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, anyone can do equality as a side effect of a race to the bottom. But that's not a great outcome nor one a country should aim for.

There is no bottom. The less things cost the less difference there is between having money and not.

Oh, there most certainly is a bottom. Uber being cheaper for more people doesn't make rent cheaper for the person who's had their income slashed--or for everyone else that you would blithely reduce.

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

#285

Post by xorcist » Sun, Aug 21, 2016, 9:36 AM UTC

dzhiurgis wrote: post #271

visarga wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> putting a burden on something productive just because it is better What aspect of Uber is better than a regular taxi? I can hail taxis from my phone just as well. They take me to the destination. I think Uber found a way to subsidize their fleet with drivers own cars and not pay some taxes to the state which the regular taxi drivers have to pay. Maybe I am missing something...

Works globally, processes payments, eliminates bad drivers.

The last bit is problematic, as one of the criticisms against them is that they don't eliminate the bad drivers. People drive with all sorts of criminal records which they tried to spin as something positive.

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

#286

Post by angry-hacker » Sun, Aug 21, 2016, 9:38 AM UTC

bmon wrote: post #260

bsder wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They are profitable We have no evidence of this, and this is scary to me, for various reasons. Uber/Lyft/et al are all about trying to gain a "lock" on the industry. If they succeed, they're going to hose me, badly. If they fail, they're going to leave a big crater behind from all the taxis they drove out of business. Not friendly.

What makes you think that cab companies aren't ripping you off already? In my area, you pay over twice the amount for a cab compared to uber.

And what do you think happens when they have the monopoly and/or VC's start wanting their money back?

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

#287

Post by mbrock » Sun, Aug 21, 2016, 9:40 AM UTC

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…

Aside from the huge problems correlated with income inequality for which evidence and reasoning are readily available if you look, there's a basic problem with the idea that something like inequality could be a net good despite what people tend to think... it's that because the majority of people, who are on the losing side of inequality, despise inequality and that is already leading to huge political ruptures, populism, depression, demoralizing feelings of injustice, etc etc etc. (There are related basic problems with focusing only on "metrics".)

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

#288

Post by lgieron » Sun, Aug 21, 2016, 9:41 AM UTC

visarga wrote: post #250

ptaipale wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's good to care about taxi drivers, but not because they are taxi drivers. Go back >200 years. In England, Spinning Jennies replaced weavers, and there were luddites who tried to resist, but the solution was not to start subsidizing weavers; and not even a specific tax to weaving machines to provide for the weavers specifically; the solution was to slowly build a social security system, and not just for master weav…

> putting a burden on something productive just because it is better What aspect of Uber is better than a regular taxi? I can hail taxis from my phone just as well. They take me to the destination. I think Uber found a way to subsidize their fleet with drivers own cars and not pay some taxes to the state which the regular taxi drivers have to pay. Maybe I am missing something...

The fare is computed by the central system, so you can't be scammed by a cabbie who secretly puts on the night fare etc. Although, I was once scammed out of a couple pounds by an Uber driver who said I need to reimburse him the entrance fee on the airport (a couple pounds paid at the gate), and it turns out Uber charged me that fee as well.

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

#289

Post by emodendroket » Sun, Aug 21, 2016, 9:45 AM UTC

Trundle wrote: post #36

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.…

Many of them don't want to go back to school or get technical training... What do we tell the taxi and truck drivers when Uber shows up with self-drivers, etc.? Uhhh, how about "suck it up and do it anyway"? I know plenty of people on hn are all about the "making the world a better place" shtick and would work anyway/for the sake of it but for the vast majority of people work straight up means doing things you otherw…

> Uhhh, how about "suck it up and do it anyway"?

Why don't these dummies just forego income for months or years to get training for new careers that they may or may not even be able to enter?

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

#290

Post by Broken_Hippo » Sun, Aug 21, 2016, 9:45 AM UTC

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…

Income inequality in itself isn't bad. I can argue that a certain amount of it is desirable even.

The problem is more the difference in quality of life and opportunity. This is a problem even if the base quality of life is generally improving. If the folks at the bottom are continually stressed about money, if they have shelter, food, power, etc, it is bad. If the folks at the bottom cannot get access to the things that basic society thinks they should have - internet, cell phone, transportation and decent clothing, it is bad.

If one simply cannot afford education, regardless of intelligence, because of simple money or knowing they'd not be able to ever pay off the loan with a teacher's salary, it is pretty bad.

And those are the things that really matter - if one can have a comfortable (though sparse) life at the bottom, and if one can actually work or try to improve their situation. Unfortunately in the US, a lot of folks are bound by circumstance. Their circumstances - such as bad health, whether or not they have children, not making enough to afford transportation, or even their parents' circumstance - determines their opportunity. Yet if they don't have the opportunity, or circumstances tend to be unlucky for years, they might never climb out. They are stuck at a miserable bottom.

And it seems that countries that have transcended this also tend to have less income inequality. And the bottom isn't nearly as horrible as it is in the US - and you still have some opportunity. It can likely be solved without reducing the inequality, but I'm not sure exactly How do do this.