W2 tax rate is the WORST in the country because regulations make it costly for both, employee and employer. At least as a contractor you can write things off fairly.
Uber Drivers Are Contractors, Not Employees, Labor Board Says
341–350 of 357 posts
Re: Uber Drivers Are Contractors, Not Employees, Labor Board Says
#342Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A public policy of forced "sharing" of wealth has an absolutely abysmal track record. A public policy of forced sharing of wealth is what distinguishes the developed societies of the modern world from those of the late 19th and early 20th centuries (that is, it distinguished modern mixed economies from true capitalism), and it's what has made possible anything but a miserable existence for the bulk of society, the…
20th and 21st century societies are largely better off because capitalism has drastically increased quality of life by making many goods and services faster, cheaper and better. Saying that this progress is due to government redistribution policies is a huge stretch. Many places few or no such policies have seen an massive increase in quality of life in the past 120 years that can only be attributed to something othe…
All government policies are redistributive. Capping payroll taxes is redistributive. A lower income tax rate for capital gains is redistributive. Limiting recovery for wrongdoing is redistributive. Limiting "lemon laws" to a small number of days and only for brand new cars is redistributive. Corporate liability shields are redistributive. Establishing slavery was redistributive, and abolishing it was redistributive. Every single economic policy choice, from protecting private property to subsidizing beachfront property insurance, changes wealth distribution. So it's interesting to me that those who espouse unfettered capitalism seem to oppose only those redistributive policies that help poor people.
Re: Uber Drivers Are Contractors, Not Employees, Labor Board Says
#343Earlier quoted context omitted.
No one would, uber would be forced to either pay higher or go out of business due to a lack of supply in drivers. As it stands though, supply of drivers way outweighs demand for drivers, so they get paid less. A "liveable wage", whatever that is, isn't a workable solution for a lot of businesses, simply because the actual value of their work may be lower than the liveable wage. Now instead of getting some money for f…
Everybody knows how offer and demand works if left unchecked. That's why it's almost never left unchecked... I mean this is what the whole discussion about gigging is: why should we allow such crappy working conditions? "simply because the actual value of their work may be lower than the liveable wage." That is not a job then and the entity assigning such tasks is not a company. A company has a responsibility to offe…
I am in agreeance that if they can't sustain their business without VC or underpaid workers then it isn't a viable business model and the market should let them go bankrupt. I kind of hope they do so that a more reasonable business can fill the void.
Re: Uber Drivers Are Contractors, Not Employees, Labor Board Says
#344Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is likely the core of our disagreement; Healthcare is not essential, it's a luxury that has been afforded to us by those who were willing to study and learn how to do it in an advanced manner. No one has a 'right' to a healthcare professionals time and effort, same as no one has a right to my programming ability or an uber drivers driving capabilities. To phrase that in the positive light, everyone has the right…
While I agree in part, somehow society has deemed it so that I have a right to have electricity provided to my house and a number of other services (to the point that it is illegal to cut off heat in the winter, etc). Arguably, healthcare has existed longer than electricity, so how do you reconcile the seemingly arbitrary distinction? In truth, I have a right to the power company supplying me power, and the governmen…
I don't reconcile that distinction, it's based on the false premise that you do have the right to the provision of electricity. I don't agree with that on the same premise as healthcare, even if 'society' has agreed.
I think we may have a different conception of what is determined as a right: I tend to conceptualise rights as inherent, things required to allow a human to live to the best of their ability. When we think of rights in this way, they aren't things that can be given; they can only be taken away or protected. If I build a hut when I'm stranded on a desert island, that's my hut and I shouldn't be forced out of it and no one else stranded on the island has a "right" to the product of my labour. If I spend time and effort gathering food, the other people on the island who haven't put that effort in don't deserve some of that food just because they're hungry. Now if I give them some out of pity or for the benefits of keeping a group around me, that's a different story than if they take it by force. If they take it by force, they've committed a moral wrong and violated the right required to live for me.
My approach is unforgiving but its from the perspective of individuals and their property rights. It doesnt exclude empathy and willing charity, just excludes forced empathy and charity.
Re: Uber Drivers Are Contractors, Not Employees, Labor Board Says
#345Earlier quoted context omitted.
Surely they "dance to the tune" because in reality their work just isn't worth enough to allow them that freedom of choice? That's hardly Ubers fault and I don't see why Uber should have to suffer to make up for that.
The state sets lower limits to what work should be worth, in order to avoid unpleasant social outcomes, such as worker abuse. It also sets a minimum of benefits companies should offer, in order to fulfil their side of the social contract - being allowed to safely do business and have access to capital, workers, etc. If Uber, or any other company invents a type of work which cannot be compensated according to those ru…
Its abhorrent to me that you think the "social good" is a good enough reason to violate the rights of the individual. Access to food is a social good, but we don't say we should have the state provide universal access to food. We don't say that in housing. You could argue that access to technology is a social good, should the state be providing universal technology? Some people believe anyone with a skin colour that isn't white is adding to "unpleasant social outcomes.
My point really isn't that these things are or aren't social goods, but that the limits to social good and what it can be used to justify are far too vague and far reaching, ending up with the line being drawn only by the person who happens to be in charge at the time. Social good is the justifying call of tyrants.
I advocate for individual rights and property rights for everyone, allowing them to be free from the state using force. That includes the business men making decisions over their companies which is their property and their employees who choose whether or not they want to sell their labour to them.
Re: Uber Drivers Are Contractors, Not Employees, Labor Board Says
#346Earlier quoted context omitted.
The American system is basically set up to be paralyzed. FPTP voting leads to two parties, voting for both an executive president and two legislative leaders leads to no single popular outcome, and the Senate exists to stop anyone from doing anything. Having Mitch be majority leader makes it worse, but you can't solve it by getting rid of him. He's not blocking things because he feels like it; it's his job.
Conservation of status quo is a presidential republic's normal modus operandi. Do you want change back and forth like in Turkey?
I would like the level of change of any Commonwealth country with a working healthcare system.
Re: Uber Drivers Are Contractors, Not Employees, Labor Board Says
#347Earlier quoted context omitted.
>It would be great until there was a hard year and the insurance companies would have the be bailed out by the taxpayers. Surely that wouldn't be the case? They wouldn't have to be bailed out; If a company hadn't planned ahead well enough to survive a bad year then they deserve to go under. In an unregulated economy, bailing out failed companies shouldn't be an option.
> If a company hadn't planned ahead well enough to survive a bad year then they deserve to go under. Maybe, but we don't deserve to have them take the rest of the economy with them. It's hard to overstate how much of the economy depends on insurance. If an insurance company becomes insolvent and can no longer cover it's long term liabilities, elderly people who were counting on life insurance or annuities will starve…
The idea that all the insurance companies would go bust at the same time is laughable, it's a hypothetical with no basis. Even taking your hypothetical though, my opinion remains unchanged, people reaping the rewards, or in this case punishments, of their reliance on others is just. Granted, I'm not saying you shouldn't be relying on others, just that you understand exactly who you're relying on and the consequences of that should they let you down.
The pragmatic argument you're making saying the economy would freeze up isn't really relevant. You can only be pragmatic within a moral framework, with a value that you're aiming at and I'm speaking to that underlying moral framework. I would rather live in a moral, failing world than an immoral and thriving one.
That's all accepting your premise that regulation helps the economy though, I think the reality is that an unregulated (and therefore more moral by my estimation) economy would come back and be stronger having learnt not to rely on insurance so much.
Re: Uber Drivers Are Contractors, Not Employees, Labor Board Says
#348Earlier quoted context omitted.
20th and 21st century societies are largely better off because capitalism has drastically increased quality of life by making many goods and services faster, cheaper and better. Saying that this progress is due to government redistribution policies is a huge stretch. Many places few or no such policies have seen an massive increase in quality of life in the past 120 years that can only be attributed to something othe…
All government policies are redistributive. Capping payroll taxes is redistributive. A lower income tax rate for capital gains is redistributive. Limiting recovery for wrongdoing is redistributive. Limiting "lemon laws" to a small number of days and only for brand new cars is redistributive. Corporate liability shields are redistributive. Establishing slavery was redistributive, and abolishing it was redistributive.…
I'm having a hard time parsing your comment.
You seem to be equating "redistributing wealth" with "any government action". It is certainly true that almost any government action changes something and thus can affect the economy in general but that doesn't mean those two phrases are interchangeable. For me, your formulation is just confusing.
You are also throwing up a straw-man argument of "unfettered capitalism". Advocating for a limited government with proscribed powers that don't involve a primary goal of "redistributing wealth" is not a statement about "capitalism" or advocating for "unfettered capitalism". It is a statement about the role of government.
Re: Uber Drivers Are Contractors, Not Employees, Labor Board Says
#349Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you’re an employee then you’ll be driving at least 8 hours a day with a shift start and end time and no choice on rides or location. That’s not very flexible.
Where does it say an employee has to have fixed 8 hour day? It's a false dicotomy.
Why wouldn't they? There's a minimum of 30 hours per week and overtime starts at over 40 hours, and sometimes after 8 hours in a day. Therefore the outcome will be 40 hours worked, but with shift times matched to predicted driver demand. Either way, there is no flexibility.
Having a driving job is the opposite of what the vast majority of drivers actually want.
Re: Uber Drivers Are Contractors, Not Employees, Labor Board Says
#350Earlier quoted context omitted.
20th and 21st century societies are largely better off because capitalism has drastically increased quality of life by making many goods and services faster, cheaper and better. Saying that this progress is due to government redistribution policies is a huge stretch. Many places few or no such policies have seen an massive increase in quality of life in the past 120 years that can only be attributed to something othe…
All government policies are redistributive. Capping payroll taxes is redistributive. A lower income tax rate for capital gains is redistributive. Limiting recovery for wrongdoing is redistributive. Limiting "lemon laws" to a small number of days and only for brand new cars is redistributive. Corporate liability shields are redistributive. Establishing slavery was redistributive, and abolishing it was redistributive.…
> All government policies are redistributive.
Doing nothing is not redistributive. No policy at all means accepting the distribution that occurs naturally (i.e. without interference) between two or more parties to a transaction.