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

Uber London loses licence to operate

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 609 posts

Re: Uber London loses licence to operate

#431

Post by walshemj »

harryh wrote: post #222
adventured wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, you're arguing the majority of companies over, say, a $50 billion market valuation in the US are hiding all their profit in the Caribbean and none or very little of it is reaching the US tax system. Conveniently, a few minutes going through public financial statements disproves that outlandish, comical premise. 3M, McDonald's, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, Bank of America, AT&T, Delta, UPS, Disney, Pepsi, Coca Cola, Ho…

Not all their profits. Just the profits that occur outside of the US. The US corporate tax system is relatively unusual in that it attempts to tax not just profits earned within it's borders but worldwide profits for any company incorporated within the US. So what US companies tend to do is incorporate subsidiaries in tax friendly locales like the Caribbean (Ireland is also popular) to avoid paying US corporate taxes…

Its why apple has that massive cash pile off shore

Re: Uber London loses licence to operate

#432

Post by mining »

gjjrfcbugxbhf wrote: post #398
Nursie wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Presumably a background check might catch priors?

Except that in UK approx 95% of such offences are carried out be people with no prior convictions - so you don't weed out that many attackers this way.

If that 95% assumes that people undergo background checks, my assumption is that number might decrease.

Re: Uber London loses licence to operate

#433

Post by Nursie »

kodablah wrote: post #420
Nursie wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I presume it's available somewhere, if one looks hard enough. london.gov.uk has a lot of detailed info, including minutes of transport committee meetings, various FOI requests (including an Uber one from earlier in the year - https://www.london.gov.uk/foi-disclosure-log/foi-uber-meetin... ) If there isn't enough already published then you could consider submitting an FOI yourself. --edit-- This may be interesting and…

Thanks! Digging now, but only finding a couple-statement motion and some congestion info by uber and separately by inrix. If anyone has a link to the actual investigation/details, I'd appreciate it. Otherwise, I'll keep digging and if I find it I'll post it.

Please do, I would be interested to have a look too!

Re: Uber London loses licence to operate

#434

Post by jsjohnst »

UK-AL wrote: post #404
lmm wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I've had black cab drivers insist that I can't use my card, and that I must get out. > I've had cab drivers refuse to drive me to certain parts of London because it's inconvenient for them. Report them, by taxi license number (displayed on a plate in the passenger area). Both those things are rare and taken seriously, but the authorities can't do anything if they aren't told.

Defiantly not rare. And I don't want to spend my evening complaining to tfl.

Then just accept the fact you’re part of the problem. If everyone was like you and only in it for themselves, quality service would be rare, if not ever.

Re: Uber London loses licence to operate

#435

Post by UK-AL »

jsjohnst wrote: post #434
UK-AL wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Defiantly not rare. And I don't want to spend my evening complaining to tfl.

Then just accept the fact you’re part of the problem. If everyone was like you and only in it for themselves, quality service would be rare, if not ever.

I'm PAYING money in order to get a service to reduce the stress in my life.

I'm not paying money to increase it.

I improve services by voting with my wallet, which black cabs are trying to take away from the consumer.

Re: Uber London loses licence to operate

#436

Post by walshemj »

alexasmyths wrote: post #306
Nursie wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> The Taxi business in every city is a 'monopoly'. Shares in this 'rent seeking entity' are bought by owning 'medallions'. This is just not true, and the medallion system doesn't seem to exist outside of the US. The rest of your post is just as much nonsense. There's a whole list of reasons Uber are having this happen, and none of it's political. Oh, and according to Uber, they aren't jobs - or else they'd have to c…

" they aren't jobs" Just 'let them eat cake' then? This is really quite insulting to the 20 000 - 40 000 people who are about to lose their source of income - most of them at the lower end of the economic scale - and the millions of users of Uber for whom Black cabs are just too expensive, because medallions or not - the system is de-facto a controlled economy. I highly doubt that a fairly operationally competent ent…

Well tough - by your argument companies that adulterate food should be protected because "think of the workers" - though in China they have put people in front of a firing squad for food adulteration scandals.

Re: Uber London loses licence to operate

#437

Post by gadders »

tomblomfield wrote: post #372

I don't think the Mayor of London or TfL really expect to shut down Uber. It would be a deeply unpopular move. There's an acceptance that Uber has improved things for riders, albeit at the expense of the Black Cab industry, and London wants to welcome innovative technology firms. However, I also suspect that Uber hasn't been as co-operative as TfL would like on several issues mentioned, and so this feels like a warni…

Not only would it be an unpopular move, it would throw approximately 30,000 drivers out of work.

Re: Uber London loses licence to operate

#438

Post by astura »

cjsuk wrote: post #417
astura wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, "mugging" is not a colloquial term for "overcharged" or anything else for that matter.

I’ve lived in London for over 35 years. It’s common parlance. That kebab shop was a mugging. You were mugged in the apple store. Etc etc.

I consulted three dictionaries, including a British one, before writing that comment.

Your use very fringe at best and is very inappropriate anywhere else, as it was pointed out to you.

Re: Uber London loses licence to operate

#439

Post by 2T1Qka0rEiPr »

TomK32 wrote: post #62
2T1Qka0rEiPr wrote: post #48

Thinking it through - Uber (indirectly) leads to 40,000 drivers being employed (if I read correctly). I suspect this is just TfL flexing their muscles and Uber will use these 21 days to find a compromise...

I think they are self-employed, and not employed by Uber.

That's why I said indirectly. There are other platforms, sure - but I'm not sure there's any with less friction / the size of network to accommodate

Re: Uber London loses licence to operate

#440

Post by boothead »

tomblomfield wrote: post #372

I don't think the Mayor of London or TfL really expect to shut down Uber. It would be a deeply unpopular move. There's an acceptance that Uber has improved things for riders, albeit at the expense of the Black Cab industry, and London wants to welcome innovative technology firms. However, I also suspect that Uber hasn't been as co-operative as TfL would like on several issues mentioned, and so this feels like a warni…

I already got the begging email asking me to sign the petition. You're right that this feels like the wrong tone!
Post reply on HN