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

Uber Hit with $650M Employment Tax Bill in New Jersey

news.bloomberglaw.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 288 posts

Re: Uber Hit with $650M Employment Tax Bill in New Jersey

#161

Post by AnimalMuppet »

chrisseaton wrote: post #154
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can walk out of LAX? Safely? I didn't think the entry road had sidewalks. Or is there some other route? And, given that those hotels have shuttles, why would you walk? Just take the hotel's bus. (Or are you feeling that that's not cool, because you're going there not to stay there, but just to take an Uber?)

Why are you so incredulous that anyone might choose to walk?

Because, in my limited memory, I didn't remember there being a sidewalk from LAX to, say, Century outside the airport. I don't have a problem with walking that far. I have a problem with walking that far, in traffic, when I don't remember there being a sidewalk. I had assumed that there wasn't one.

For example, walking into SLC airport is not trivial to do. It's designed to be driven to, and that only (or, now you can take the train). I mean, you can walk along the bike trail from the southeast corner of the airport, then work your way through the parking lots of the air cargo places, but I don't think there's a sidewalk from the bike trail to the terminal. And that's the best walking option at SLC.

[Edit: A bit of time in Google Maps shows a sidewalk the majority of the way in SLC, but not all of it.]

Re: Uber Hit with $650M Employment Tax Bill in New Jersey

#162

Post by username90 »

miohtama wrote: post #149
kapuasuite wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are the same elected officials who let taxi companies rip off passengers for the better part of a century by limiting competition through the medallion system, and protect hotel interests because they’ve been able to tack a ton of extra taxes onto every hotel bill?

We can have both Uber's app experience and drivers being classified as employees. They are not mutually exclusive.

But we can't classify them as employees and have Uber's current driver experience, they would have to regulate their drivers more like a normal taxi service due to minimum wage laws and fixed overhead per employee.

Re: Uber Hit with $650M Employment Tax Bill in New Jersey

#163

Post by wnevets »

username90 wrote: post #143
wnevets wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

or they could just follow the law?

In 2015 Uber made 9 million rides in New Jersey, and the article said they were ordered to pay $50M in employment taxes in that year, so drivers would be forced to give up $6 per ride extra in taxes. I don't think the drivers would want this. In order to make the taxes not ridiculous Uber would be forced to start declining people who want to start riding, you'd have job interviews with an application process ensuring…

> so drivers would be forced to give up $6 per ride extra in taxes.

how is this different than anyone else who has to work in the state? You can replace drivers with almost any other job. Why should uber drivers get special treatment when its comes to paying taxes?

Re: Uber Hit with $650M Employment Tax Bill in New Jersey

#164

Post by drstewart »

listenallyall wrote: post #66
kapuasuite wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are the same elected officials who let taxi companies rip off passengers for the better part of a century by limiting competition through the medallion system, and protect hotel interests because they’ve been able to tack a ton of extra taxes onto every hotel bill?

Before the smartphone era, the only possible way to ensure availability of personal transportation was to have a functioning taxi & livery industry. The use of medallions was actually to protect the public, ensuring all drivers were at least accountable and traceable and thus somewhat safe, just like today's Uber riders expect the company to perform background checks on drivers. Yes it benefitted embedded interests,…

>The use of medallions was actually to protect the public

Imagine believing this.

https://slate.com/business/2012/06/taxi-medallions-how-new-y...

>The public hasn’t fared much better. Deep-pocketed medallion owners have hijacked public policy through lobbying and legal challenges. Just last week medallion owners won a legal victory blocking Mayor Bloomberg’s plan to create a fleet of “green cabs” to serve New York’s outer boroughs, and last year medallion owners successfully stymied New York’s attempt to shift to hybrid taxis.

Just one example in the article of the great protection medallions offered.

Re: Uber Hit with $650M Employment Tax Bill in New Jersey

#165

Post by ChuckMcM »

Ok, is it just cynical of me to say "Ok, here is their 'one time expense' for this quarter to show why they aren't profitable yet?

That said, the company has so much regulatory risk associated with it. It has the feel that the "system" is working very hard to punish the "disrupter" in a fatal way to discourage other such disrupters.

Re: Uber Hit with $650M Employment Tax Bill in New Jersey

#166

Post by manigandham »

xenocyon wrote: post #109
Shivetya wrote: post #40

I am really curious how they arrived at any of the numbers in this article. Seriously, what other large employers make it to hundred plus million per year? Are they just up and deciding that anyone who did one trip is now an employee? Is there a source that shows how much each company pays per year in this state? who else is equivalent? this isn't about protecting the drivers, this is about protecting the taxi indust…

You make reference to protecting mass transit as well as to the cost to consumers. These arguments make sense if there are zero externalities, but unfortunately there are: carbon footprint, both directly as well as second order effects from increased congestion, commercial exploitation of subsidized infrastructure, increased collision risk to cyclists and vulnerable road users, abuse of contract law by preventing ind…

Regulation is what made taxis so terrible. We don't need the government to control everything. Many of the externalities you describe would be the same if people just drove their own cars.

If ridesharing is so bad then govt should invest in proper public transport to create more choice, not try and crush a valuable service used by millions.

Re: Uber Hit with $650M Employment Tax Bill in New Jersey

#167

Post by jdkee »

rsclient wrote: post #93
toomuchtodo wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Illinois: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-illinois-pensions/illinoi... (Illinois' unfunded pension liability climbs to $133.5 billion) https://www.policyed.org/pension-pursuit/pension-liability-s... (PolicyEd: Interactive Map of Pension Liability by State and City) Illinois is an outlier, and is seriously in trouble, but most other states will be fine.

Total pension liability (from your numbers): 133.5 billion There are 12.80 million people in Illinois, so the per-person liability is $10429 A typical pension is paid out over the course of about 20 years. The liability per person per year is $521 Put differently: the pension liability per year is 6.675 billion. Illinois rakes in about $45 billion per year in taxes. That's at most "awkward" to handle and at best "eas…

It is almost double the amount cited above, estimated to be $241,000,000,000.

https://www.illinoispolicy.org/illinois-241b-pension-debt-st...

Re: Uber Hit with $650M Employment Tax Bill in New Jersey

#168

Post by heavyset_go »

mamon wrote: post #157
username90 wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment doesn't make sense, are you saying that all independent contractors are tax avoiders and leech from society? Either the taxes independent contractors pay are fine and Uber paid a fair amount, or we need to raise the rates for all independent contractors.

Don't know how that works in US, but here in Europe the answer is yes, the main reason people become contractors is because taxes for contractors are lower than for employees, which means more take-home pay for the same cost for the employer.

In the US, contractors have a higher effective tax rate than employees, and are responsible for FICA withholdings that are usually part of an employer's payroll tax.

Re: Uber Hit with $650M Employment Tax Bill in New Jersey

#169

Post by manigandham »

mirimir wrote: post #115
lost_access wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also the acid test is whether the drivers are qualified for unemployment benefits.

If they're not considered employees, I don't see how they could claim unemployment. And if that's the case, this statement from TFA makes no sense: > The money that they’re not paying into the unemployment and disability systems is being picked up by the states and the taxpayers. Because there's nothing to be "picked up" if those workers don't qualify for unemployment and job-related disability. I get the argument ab…

How are they getting screwed? Drivers do it by choice, and many of them do have a full-time job or other commitment and like Uber for the flexibility. They specifically don't want a full-time driving job.

Re: Uber Hit with $650M Employment Tax Bill in New Jersey

#170

Post by alistairSH »

subsaharancoder wrote: post #99
IanCal wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taxation is, broadly, spent on citizens and citizens benefit from that. I pay taxes that cover the police as well as the schooling that lowers the chance of people around me having to resort to crime.

In the context of Uber vs NJ, the drivers are already remitting taxes as contractors. The $650M demand from the state isn't a driver initiative with them demanding "Uber needs to pay more taxes.." it's the state saying "What we've collected from drivers isn't enough and we want more from Uber.."

You are assuming that the Uber drivers are actually paying their unemployment insurance and disability insurance taxes. Chances are they are not doing so, because independent contractors typically don’t pay into those system and are not eligible to receive benefits.
Post reply on HN