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

171–180 of 288 posts

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

#171

Post by mirimir »

manigandham wrote: post #169
mirimir wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

From what I've read, they often don't make enough to even cover their increased vehicle expenses. And then there's insurance exposure.

Also, TFA notes that classification of drivers as employees would increase costs by over 20%. If that's true, someone here is getting screwed. Drivers, governments, or both.

But still, I value freedom highly. So I do get the argument that people ought to have the right to work how they want. Even if they're getting screwed.

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

#172

Post by 1MoreThing »

bmm6o wrote: post #127
jdhn wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure why people think that drivers for Uber & Lyft shouldn't be treated as "contractors". I know I'm in the minority on this, but to me it seems that you can jump in and out of employment with Uber & Lyft quite easily, to the point that it does seem more like contract work. As an anecdote, I took a Lyft to the airport with someone who had stopped driving for 6 months in order to get started with a new full ti…

> but to me it seems that you can jump in and out of employment with Uber & Lyft quite easily, to the point that it does seem more like contract work You can't really look at one aspect of it and make a determination, it's based on several factors. The main ones that come up in this scenario are if the contractor/employee can set their own rates, and how closely management monitors how they do their job. Flexibility…

What's the difference between setting your own rate and being offered a rate that you can choose to accept or decline? Is it the marketplace function of Uber (determining a price point between riders and drivers) that makes it different? Does being a contractor really require the ability to set a rate that no one is willing to pay?

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

#173

Post by cookie_monsta »

jdnenej wrote: post #75
jdhn wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure why people think that drivers for Uber & Lyft shouldn't be treated as "contractors". I know I'm in the minority on this, but to me it seems that you can jump in and out of employment with Uber & Lyft quite easily, to the point that it does seem more like contract work. As an anecdote, I took a Lyft to the airport with someone who had stopped driving for 6 months in order to get started with a new full ti…

At least in Australia I think someone is only a contractor if they earn income from multiple different companies. If it's all from one then they are an employee.

There are a variety of factors that the courts use to determine employment status. Single source of income isn't one

https://www.fairwork.gov.au/how-we-will-help/templates-and-g...

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

#174

Post by kevingadd »

microcolonel wrote: post #159
lost_access wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Do they not require independent contractors to contribute premiums for that? That's how it works here in Canada (same for mandatory pensions/"social security").

If you're an independent contractor here you're expected to pay into the pools yourself, yes.

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

#175

Post by kevingadd »

nemo44x wrote: post #24

There's no escaping this from states like NJ, CA, IL, MA, and NY. These states (of which I am a member of) are broke with pension obligations waiting to bankrupt the government. Taxes are already high both on income and property so there's nowhere to go there. They have old infrastructures and although the citizens are heavily taxed, government can't make improvements in large part because of lifetime pension obligat…

Not sure how taxes are "already high" on property in CA when we have an absurd voter-passed amendment that specifically locks property taxes very low (prop 13).

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

#176

Post by listenallyall »

drstewart wrote: post #164
listenallyall wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This is like the shoe shine boy giving stock tips in 1929, or the stripper with 6 houses in 2008 -- it represents the exact moment of "peak taxicab." Every major point in the story is now invalidated:

Medallions being valued over $1 million is a pipe dream today. Today they are worth about 11% of that. https://www.crainsnewyork.com/transportation/mystery-buyer-s...

The green cabs exist.

Teslas were just approved for NYC taxi fleets. https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/tesla-model-3-taxi-cab-ne...

Taxi emissions have been reduced dramatically: "The scientists report that overall fuel efficiency of the medallion taxi fleet climbed from 15.7 to 33.1 mpg, and corresponding estimates of nitric oxide (NO) and total particulate (PMT) exhaust emissions declined by 82% and 49%, respectively." https://www.greencarcongress.com/2019/05/20190530-taxis.html

Nobody claims the medallion system was perfect, or that owners did not attempt to exploit their value. But it did provide a functioning cab network that was safe and predictable for decades. And despite holdign a lot of power, medallion owners are not immune from government regulations and competition aided by technology.

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

#177

Post by tasogare »

manigandham wrote: post #166
xenocyon wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, taxis are bad because companies try to squeeze the maximum amount of money while providing the least possible service. They could provide a good service within the term of the regulations if it were their focus.

Where I live taxis are regulated yet provide a decent/high quality of service. And it’s true even in cities like mine where the public transportation network is crap (bus based).

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

#178

Post by [deleted] »

nemo44x wrote: post #24

There's no escaping this from states like NJ, CA, IL, MA, and NY. These states (of which I am a member of) are broke with pension obligations waiting to bankrupt the government. Taxes are already high both on income and property so there's nowhere to go there. They have old infrastructures and although the citizens are heavily taxed, government can't make improvements in large part because of lifetime pension obligat…

[deleted]

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

#179

Post by GVIrish »

manigandham wrote: post #166
xenocyon wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The answer to bad regulations is not necessarily no regulations. The taxi medallion system was broken and in need of an overhaul. Replacing a broken system with a ridesharing Wild West is not optimal.

I agree that there needs to be a lot more investment in mass transit but in the meantime governments shouldn't be turning a blind eye to regulating ridesharing.

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

#180

Post by danans »

manigandham wrote: post #166
xenocyon wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> If ridesharing is so bad then govt should invest in proper public transport to create more choice

This is an excellent idea, and is consistent with also taxing any societally borne externalities caused by ride-sharing, the primary being congestion. And taxis should be held to the same regulatory standard.

Post reply on HN