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

221–230 of 288 posts

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

#221

Post by manigandham »

learc83 wrote: post #219
manigandham wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The congestion would be the same if people just drove on their own. You can see this in Los Angeles and New York. The answer to getting cars off the street (whether private or shared) is to build other options that people can use. Taxis are cars too by the way. How did all those taxi regulations improve externalities?

There's studies that show uber increasing congestion. It makes sense when you think about it. Uber drivers are routinely on the road with no passengers. Either waiting or driving to or from picking up a passenger.

Those passengers would be in a car anyway. They don't stop going places. Like I said, ridesharing either reduces cars on the road or decreases the amount of parked cars for the same amount of people.

The biggest study was in SF and was inherently flawed by looking at traffic over years. It's obvious that an increasing population will generate more traffic, and Uber has allowed more people to travel than before. Serving more people isn't a bad thing, it's a natural situation that cities should plan for instead of being constantly surprised by.

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

#222

Post by dantheman »

listenallyall wrote: post #190
lovehashbrowns wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But it did provide a functioning cab network that was safe and predictable for decades. I don't even know what world you're describing right now. With issues like "the credit card machine is down" to a cab never showing up despite how many calls I made.. the last word I'd ever use to describe cabs is "predictable." Even today, post-Uber.

Carry some freaking cash. "For decades" -- like, from the 1940s to the 2000s. Fares were predictable. Still are in fact, they are actually painted on the exterior of the cab itself. Maybe you've noticed?

Taxis have hacked meters forever, take longer routes, and 'forget to turn on the meter' or the 'meter is broken' even today. There's a reason taxis have a fixed fare to manhattan from the airport.

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

#223

Post by manigandham »

jellicle wrote: post #207
mav3rick wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is such a bullshit argument. What you're basically saying is people wouldn't have driven their cars and stayed at Home if Uber wasn't a thing. That's such an inane argument. Ridesharing is good and reduces overall traffic. It doesn't make people go out more than they require. No one says "it's a good day to Uber today ".

I've read a dozen studies so far that indicate Uber increases traffic and congestion in cities it operates in. Quite a lot, actually. Increasing commute times by 40% or more in some of the studies. Venture capital is paying people to idle around the city, clogging the roads. It's a sort of denial of service attack. "Uber and Lyft Admit They're Making Traffic Worse" https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2019/08/uber-…

This is the normal outcome of more people going to more places. Ridesharing definitely increased the total amount of people taking cars that didn't before from a lack of options, but that's minor in terms of general population growth.

Traffic always increases over time, that's a natural thing that cities need to plan for. It's great motivation to build public transportation instead of complaining about Uber helping people get around.

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

#224

Post by dantheman »

nemo44x wrote: post #104
Shivetya wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

well preying on ignorance is the game of politicians and they won. Yes I am saying it was a loss for the rest of us. why? politicians and their allies successfully portrayed the home sharing industry as the reason for rising rents when in fact it has long been because politicians and those using their connections which have been the cause. oh they hide it well but the idea is to keep their investments up and keep "th…

I think it's perfectly reasonable for people to not want their apartment building to become a hotel. I agree more units need to be built and development should be encouraged. Given a referendum I'd vote against allowing short term rentals not because I'm nervous they raise rents but because I don't want my building to be a hotel.

Shouldn't that be up to the resident of the apartment building and the rules they have to abide by?

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

#225

Post by onlyrealcuzzo »

rsj_hn wrote: post #216
rsclient wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

First, what you are doing is taking a net present value of a discounted cash flow, dividing it up into pieces and then population. You cannot do this. Say there is a discount rate of 8% and you owe $100 per year for 20 years. That's a NPV of about $980. Then you say, $980 divided by 20 years is only $49! It's nothing. You just turned an obligation of $100 per year into $49 per year. See, the pensions, when they say t…

You sound like you know a lot about pensions. How have Japanese pension funds survived? Do they just not invest in Japan at all?

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

#226

Post by manigandham »

koolba wrote: post #218
manigandham wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's wild west about it? What needs to be regulated exactly vs having people drive their own cars?

Car safety, accepting multiple payment options, refusing pick ups or drop offs to particular neighborhoods, scam pricing... There’s plenty of reasons to have some regulation. What was missing previously wasn’t regulation, it was competition.

And yet, those are all things where unregulated Uber is far better than regulated taxis ever were. Why is that?

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

#227

Post by manigandham »

maximente wrote: post #191
manigandham wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Many of the externalities you describe would be the same if people just drove their own cars. no, this isn't correct and on its face looks like a straw man, so i'm pretty sure you're arguing in bad faith, but i'll try to give someone of the "market" mindset a market argument. market zealots tell us that as things become cheaper, people do more of them. subsidizing ride sharing, evading regulations, etc. generally m…

I think you're reinforcing my point that existing transportations options suck, but I don't see how Uber is economical enough to compete with buses, bicycles and walking, especially if you're doing that at any regular frequency like commuting.

If you could walk somewhere then you don't need a car, but if you need a car then you weren't a pedestrian or cyclist anyway. There are also many people who didn't have any good option at all before (like kids, disabled, elderly, etc) and it's a good thing that they can get around now.

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

#228

Post by manigandham »

enraged_camel wrote: post #212
manigandham wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Articles are a poor source. The drivers wouldn't be driving if they weren't making any money. I've taken thousands of rides and discussed Uber with about 90% of my drivers. While they all would like to make more money (who wouldn't?), they all make a profit and enjoy the flexibility the most.

>> The drivers wouldn't be driving if they weren't making any money. This might surprise you, but most people are absolutely terrible when it comes to making complex financial decisions involving multiple variable factors over a period of time. The tiny percentage of ride-share drivers who do meticulously keep track of their finances have all said the same thing: at the end of the day, when you factor in everything ,…

Sure people are terrible at decisions but that doesn't mean they're all stupid. I find it hard to believe that all these drivers can't figure out their costs, and everyone I've talked to has been fine with it.

The only time I hear complaints that driving isn't worth it is specific trips with traffic or a long dead leg back home, but that's not their entire driving history.

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

#229

Post by nichos »

iscrewyou wrote: post #195
jacquesm wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, sharing economy companies are breaking the law in interesting and creative ways and it has simply taken the states some time to catch up. That those states also have a pension obligation has nothing to do with them collecting taxes on corporations active in their territory.

Seriously. These corporations come up with all kinds of ways to not pay taxes and then people try to find a fault in the government or the system. Yet, when the government comes back to acquire those taxes, it’s still the government’s fault?

The government has been proven to be irresponsible with my money, I don't object to Ubers position here.

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

#230

Post by ganitarashid »

This is not Uber's real problem. The much bigger problem is that Uber's business model by definition cannot be profitable, and here is why:

Let's start with the costs of the business model.

What are the two costs involved in transporting a customer from point A to point B? They are: - The car’s time - The (human) driver’s time

Operating or leasing a car for a certain amount of time (maintenance/insurance/gasoline) has not become significantly cheaper since Uber was created, so there is no cost reduction here.

Hiring a human's dedicated time (at least minimum wage) has also not become significantly cheaper since Uber, so here too there is no cost reduction.

Therefore the cost to transport something from point A to B has stayed exactly the same, before Uber and after Uber.

To transport something from point A to point B, someone must still carry this unavoidable cost. If the customer is not carrying this cost, then Uber must be carrying it. Uber can do so for now because investor money has subsidized the cost. But Uber can’t do this forever because investors will lose patience and stop the subsidy.

Uber can only be profitable once the unavoidable cost transport is passed on entirely to the customer. At that point, Uber will have to charge the same price as any taxi. Stated differently, Uber can never be more profitable than a taxi company on a per-ride basis.

Given that customers have no loyalty to a ride-share service, because every ride is virtually identical, any taxi company can build a similar service, removing any "walled garden" or "network effect" Uber may have hoped for. In fact, Uber clones are doing well in other countries and are creating significant headwinds for Uber.

Uber therefore has no hope of ever delivering its promises unless it can deliver driverless cars. Even if it can do that, the technology will quickly become commoditized and ubiquitous, meaning that any other ride-share service could offer it as well, once again removing any advantage, and driving margins for all ride-share services to near zero.

Post reply on HN