Uber Hit with $650M Employment Tax Bill in New Jersey • Hacker News Board

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

#251

Post by novok » Fri, Nov 15, 2019, 7:13 AM UTC

Keverw wrote: post #107

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…

Yep, I think the census next year is going to hit some states hard, losing both residents, federal funds and seats. United Van Lines did a study and NJ was the top moved out state. Not sure how you can compete with Florida though, when your state has high taxes and it's cold. If they make infomercials for both Florida and NJ or even OH... Obviously Florida would be the better choice. Warmer, less taxes, friendlier to…

I could forsee an outgoing pension tax. If you live in an income tax state, then you get a state tax credit for the amount, otherwise NJ collects the NJ state tax rate on pensions coming out of the state of NJ.

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

#252

Post by azinman2 » Fri, Nov 15, 2019, 7:14 AM UTC

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.

Don't forget insurance minimums, accessibility issues, the general ability to block someone forever ultimately denying them a mode of transit....

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

#253

Post by bandrami » Fri, Nov 15, 2019, 7:28 AM UTC

memmcgee wrote: post #244

manigandham wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

What? How are you arriving at that conclusion?

"Sorry, I don't go east of the river"

"Sorry, the meter is broken"

"Sorry, the card reader is broken, cash only"

"No, don't worry, this is really the fastest way"

Also your Uber driver doesn't know your race when he accepts your ride or not. Which is probably why I find it a lot easier to get an Uber than a taxi.

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

#254

Post by gpderetta » Fri, Nov 15, 2019, 7:32 AM UTC

RestlessMind wrote: post #202

maximente wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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. Please refrain from ad hominem attacks. GP has a valid point. > ride sharing became so economical that bus riders, pedestrians and cyclists changed their behavior to make use of it. If that is your concern, what explains popularity of…

>what explains popularity of Uber in London / Paris, which have excellent public transport

That's entirely consistent with parents point though.

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

#255

Post by manigandham » Fri, Nov 15, 2019, 7:55 AM UTC

PaulRobinson wrote: post #248

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.

Perhaps government would invest in proper public transport if so many businesses weren't trying to figure out ways to avoid taxes by, say, insisting a huge number of people who contract full-time and long-term for them aren't really employees?

What taxes are being avoided? Contractors pay just as much, if not more tax. There's no magical loophole.

Also the govt is not lacking for funds. The problem is poor spending and that will never get solved by giving up even more money. I'd rather have private businesses that actually produce valuable services then wait on crappy transportation delivered a decade late by the state.

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

#256

Post by mav3rick » Fri, Nov 15, 2019, 8:02 AM UTC

mav3rick wrote: post #205

akdor1154 wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What you're basically saying is people wouldn't have driven their cars and stayed at Home if Uber wasn't a thing He didn't say that at all, read his post again. He says that uber takes pedestrians and cyclists and PT users and turns them into car (Uber) users.

Go back to pre-Uber. No one called expensive taxis and used private cars, including the cyclists for non trivial distances. Uber came and solved the first step. Maybe some cyclists even take it for trivial distances. But that's blaming Uber for a good product and promoting a protectionsist scheme. Rather if you want more pedestrians and cycling, have more infrastructure and incentives to promote that rather than ban…

For all those downvoting ...what's the solution ? Go to phone call expensive taxis ? Uber is such a useful utility, most people won't let it go away. Too big to fail

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

#257

Post by IanCal » Fri, Nov 15, 2019, 11:33 AM UTC

Retric wrote: post #90

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…

This must mostly be penalties for not paying any taxes for 4 years. Unemployment in New Jersey is taxed at 0.3825% of the first 34,400$ of income so it cap’s at 132$/employee per year. The other tax is uncapped but at ~1/9th the rate. Nationwide Walmart has 2,300,000 US employees. If they are paying an average of 150$ each nation wide on similar taxes that’s 345 million per year. However, I doubt even 20 million of t…

> Uber and subsidiary Rasier LLC were assessed $523 million in past-due taxes over the last four years, the state Department of Labor and Workforce Development said in a pair of letters to the companies. The rideshare businesses also are on the hook for as much as $119 million in interest and penalties on the unpaid amounts, according to other internal department documents.

Also it's unemployment + disability insurance they're being charged for.

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

#258

Post by IanCal » Fri, Nov 15, 2019, 11:34 AM UTC

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.

I'm not sure how things work in America, but in the UK employment does not mean or require full time work or even fixed hours. We also have a lower status of "worker" which has fewer rights / fewer responsibilities.

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

#259

Post by IanCal » Fri, Nov 15, 2019, 11:37 AM UTC

jeffdavis wrote: post #134

turc1656 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my book, if you can't determine the price for your service, you aren't a contractor, pure and simple. Uber determines the rates, sets their fees, supplies the clients, and has rules about how many times you can skip/pass on choosing to accept a fare. Uber basically controls every aspect of the entire process but let's people choose when they want to work. That "benefit" is thrown out to drivers so that Uber can tr…

Maybe the answer is that they are neither contractors nor employees in the traditionally-understood form. But the criteria have to make sense in the context of the law. For instance, "unemployment" doesn't make much sense in the context of a driver who works for Uber and Lyft. And "minimum wage" doesn't make sense if the drivers are able to decline or cancel a request. So can you be more specific about what aspects o…

In the UK we have "employee", "worker" and "self employed" basically. They define different rights for the worker, if the company wants more control it moves things towards employee. If they want fewer responsibilities then they have to give up some control (e.g. disciplinary procedures, setting the price, etc)

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

#260

Post by onlyrealcuzzo » Fri, Nov 15, 2019, 12:57 PM UTC

rsj_hn wrote: post #233

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 p…

Thanks!

So does that mean the average retired Japanese person is living on less than $1k per month?? How are they doing that? Isn't Japan pretty Urban and the cities relatively expensive to live in?