Live data from Hacker News

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

news.bloomberglaw.com

231–240 of 288 posts

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

#231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>> a fixed fare

like I said originally, "predictable." thx 4 confirming

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

#232
post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is almost double the amount cited above, estimated to be $241,000,000,000. https://www.illinoispolicy.org/illinois-241b-pension-debt-st...

IPI is the Cato institute of Illinois. Consistent track record of putting conservative talking points above facts.

Conservative talking points flow pretty directly from the facts when it comes to Illinois, and public pensions in general.

It's widely acknowledged that most states' assessments of their own unfunded liabilities are borderline fabrications, because they assume unrealistic rates of return. Illinois assumes 6.75-7.25% rates of return on pension investments. The average discount rate for corporate pension plans is under 4% (and even with that low discount rate, they're 90% funded on average): https://www.pionline.com/article/20180430/PRINT/180439976/20....

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

#233
post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Japan has a completely different pension system which is extremely conservative.

It's a two tier system, the first government funded, and of course the Japanese government is in enormous debt, but not because of pensions. The government funded pension is like welfare, it's very small, is fixed in amount for everyone, and funded by contributions. It would be what social security is if the amount was tiny -- say $200 per month -- and fixed for everyone regardless of how much they pay in, even though everyone pays in a bit less than 1% of their salary. It is a system not dependent on positive rates of return.

The second system is the main source of pensions for people and is employer/employee funded. It is also quite austere -- you pay in 18% of your income in year 1 and that amount increases by 0.25% each year. Of course only half is deducted from your paycheck, the rest from the employer, but it is effectively taken out of the worker's paycheck.

What you get when you retire is ~0.55% of your total lifetime wages each year. This amount is fixed in nominal terms -- there is no inflation, cost of living adjustment, etc. You get this fixed amount every year. That means that by design the system is solvent because even if nothing is invested and the money earns 0%, if you work for 30 years and never get a raise, you will have paid in an average of ~22% of your lifetime wages which will fund 32 years of retirement pension after 30 years of working. But a normal person will get raises, and as they get raises over time, they earn more later in life when their percentage contribution goes up, so pensions are well funded even for a population with long lifespans and low interest rates. Then of course people have private savings in addition to pensions.

Needless to say, Americans would riot if you told them they need to increase their social security contribution from 15% to 18%, with no cap, and that this amount goes up every year, and then what they get would be only 0.55% of their lifetime earnings with no COLA. That means someone earning the median per-capita income of about 31K for 40 years of work would get $570 per month in social security benefits after paying in an average of $594 per month over 40 years. But again, our system is designed for people who die younger and work in an economy with decent rates of return.

But if we adopted a Japanese style system, social security would be permanently in the black regardless of interest rates.

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

#234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When compared to other states, CA has a middle of the road per capita budget. It's not much more than Washington - which actually has zero income tax. CA has a high income tax rate, but property taxes aren't that high - they're pretty average for the nation. And the effective property tax rate is even lower due to prop 13. You can actually search this on many property tax websites - on average the effective tax rate…

Property taxes turn out to be a better way for states to do the bulk of tax collection. The focus on income taxes is probably a big part of why the property values in some of Cali are so insane.

Proposition 13 is actually what causes this. The government has no choice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_California_Proposition_13

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

#235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IPI is the Cato institute of Illinois. Consistent track record of putting conservative talking points above facts.

Conservative talking points flow pretty directly from the facts when it comes to Illinois, and public pensions in general. It's widely acknowledged that most states' assessments of their own unfunded liabilities are borderline fabrications, because they assume unrealistic rates of return. Illinois assumes 6.75-7.25% rates of return on pension investments. The average discount rate for corporate pension plans is under…

Is it possible to sue pension plans to force them to assume a more realistic rate of return? To do otherwise is to allow a fraud to continue (overinflated return estimates, causing even further insolvency in the future when those returns don't materialize).

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

#236

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…

In my country the most common uber vehicle is a Toyota Prius which uses about 4 L per 100 kms. As our buses are poorly run and empty the majority of the time, Ubers are the optimum environmental option to get from A to B.

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

#237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Servi…

> Those passengers would be in a car anyway. They don't stop going places.

Are you sure?

100% of riders, for all rides they take, would choose to use a car if they could not use ride sharing?

Absolutely none would walk, ride a bike, take a bus, take a train, choose not to go?

I have a hard time believing that it's purely a "car I have access to or a ride share," 100% of the time. So I believe some amount of rides are happening that would not have people driving.

Of the drivers for ride sharing, there is some amount of time between trips that they are simply waiting for the next customer. This is time they wouldn't be on the road if they were not driving, and time the person who is using the ride sharing wouldn't be on the road either. So, I also believe that drivers must be on the road more often than the sum of the time they've kept other people from driving.

If drivers are on the road more with ride sharing, and if less than 100% of people using the ride sharing service would choose a method of transport other than a car, I cannot see how ride sharing wouldn't strictly require an increase in traffic?

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

#238
post #180

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.

> 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.

The externalities of driving should be and largely are paid for by fuel and plate taxes, and also tolls. If those things need to be adjusted, then adjust them. But it doesn't make sense to me to particularly punish rideshare miles driven compared to commuter miles driven.

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

#239

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…

We need some Pigovian taxes.

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

#240

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…

You can blame some conspiracy theory involving politicians colluding to trick their constituents, or you can listen to the lived experiences of residents in Jersey City that have to live next to nuisance short-term rentals. Parties all night during the week, drunk people trying to enter the wrong apartments at 3AM, arguments between loud tourists in your once quiet building, and somehow sleeping 10 people in a two be…

I think there already are laws against these kind of actions. Punish directly the ones that are wrong. The whole planet should not have to suffer because someone made a scandal at 3AM.
Post reply on HN