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

261–270 of 288 posts

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

#261

Post by Retric »

IanCal wrote: post #257
Retric wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 insuran…

“At the end of each calendar year, any tax, penalties, and interest remaining due (unpaid) will become part of the balance on which interest is charged.” https://www.state.nj.us/treasury/taxation/njit19.shtml”

So, that 119m should be this years penalties. If this thing is growing at over 22% per year and 4 years ago the already had a 54m unpaid tax bill, then I can see this snowballing fast.

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

#262

Post by 77544cec »

77544cec wrote: post #140
privateSFacct wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those talking points are 100% true. Uber started in San Francisco. You could not get a cab on the weekend for any amount of $. You could not get a cab to come to the "tough" neighborhoods. This is 100% fact. I once called 4x and was told one was coming - falsely (I did live in what was then a "bad" neighborhood). My roommate walked across the entire city. Uber started with licensed transit vehicles - now called uber…

I'm more concerned by the divide in status companies like Uber incur among workers than the comfort of the taxi clients, which by the way is a transportation mode only a select few can afford to use frequently.

No need to downvote, this is just a fact.

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

#263

Post by atonse »

kazen44 wrote: post #68
atonse wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's ok. They're welcome to pull out. But they won't. Time and time again we see that business rather just raise their fares and make money than pull out of large markets. They are after all money-driven.

The brussels effect[1] is a good argument for this. People said the same thing with GDPR, labour laws and enviromental laws. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brussels_effect

Wow this (and the similar California effect) are a great name for exactly the "feeling" I was talking about. I'll use this from now on. Thanks.

California's done this with emissions.

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

#264

Post by learc83 »

manigandham wrote: post #221
learc83 wrote: post #219

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 already have the car parked at their house, or the restaurant they were at.

The Uber driver has to drive to pick them up. Then once they drop them off, they have to drive to the next fare. Sometimes they even circle around high traffic areas in heavy traffic in order to get to customers faster.

Basically anytime you see an uber driver without a passenger is likely extra car time on the road compared to what those passengers would have done with private cars.

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

#265

Post by Keverw »

novok wrote: post #251
Keverw wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Looks like states can only tax the pension of people who live in their state. So work all your life in New York, earn a nice pension then move to Florida to retire then New York can no longer tax your pension.

https://finance.zacks.com/pay-taxes-pensions-state-retired-s...

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

#266

Post by nemo44x »

zzzzzzzza wrote: post #213
nemo44x wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That and interest rates. As rates fall property values will rise in proportion. A home’s value is what people that want to live there are willing to pay and can afford each month. So it either goes to the bank, the owner, or the tax collector.

saying low interest rates case high property values is putting the cart before the horse, mortgages cause high home prices. You could have high interest rates, but if they gave high interest loans out like candy to anyone who wanted one, home prices would still rise.

I think it's both. Ultimitly, a home will rise in value due to a few things such as improvements, inflation, or a certain area becoming a hot/cold real estate location. However, the ultimate selling price for a home is going to be greatly affected by interest rates. We've seen it in the last year where rates have gone 1% since a year ago, you've seen houses rise in value quite a bit and in proportion to that. 1% difference on a 30 year term is pretty significant and will be noticeable on the monthly payment.

Even though some people can or do pay cash for a home, they are not a significant population. Very often people that can pay cash will make a cash bid, prove they have it and still get a mortgage because money is cheap and the opportunity cost of trading that money for a house is generally unfavorable. A home is generally a market lagging investment when considering maintenance and taxes. Throw in interest and it's a lousy investment but you can live in it so it's rational depending on your lifestyle.

What people can afford in an area they want to live is what prices homes - taxes, mortgage rates, and price combine to generate a monthly payment that people are willing to pay. That's how the market works. In some areas the price can outpace the other 2 if wages are rising, like we've seen in SV for awhile now. But that's the exception and not the rule.

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

#267

Post by vkou »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #235
rayiner wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Most of them have adjusted the expectations for returns for any new participants.

Reducing expectations for existing participants is the same as defaulting on a loan, and I see no reason for why pensioners should be getting haircuts, while lenders get every penny they are owed.

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

#268

Post by nemo44x »

dantheman wrote: post #224
nemo44x wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I'm not saying I disagree but I think a referendum vote is fine. Everyone has a chance to give their opinion then we count the votes and choose the will of the people. The property owner does have certain privileges as they should but renting is a 2-way relationship and tenants should have a voice in how their community operates.

So although I generally agree with your line of thought, I disagree in this instance.

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

#269

Post by toomuchtodo »

vkou wrote: post #267
toomuchtodo wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Most of them have adjusted the expectations for returns for any new participants. Reducing expectations for existing participants is the same as defaulting on a loan, and I see no reason for why pensioners should be getting haircuts, while lenders get every penny they are owed.

I'm not suggesting pensioners take a haircut, but that pension plans need to be forced to shore up their funds sooner rather than later, with taxes instead of borrowing (kicking the can even further down the road). It's the uncertainty that is the issue IMHO.

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

#270

Post by danans »

manigandham wrote: post #183
danans wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 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?

> The answer to getting cars off the street (whether private or shared) is to build other options that people can use

I think we agree completely on this, and the best other options in cities are all mass transit, not individual cars.

> Taxis are cars too by the way. How did all those taxi regulations improve externalities?

Taxis didn't impose nearly the same congestion externalities as ride shares (or single occupancy cars) simply because there just weren't as many of them, due to the controversial medallion system. They were never a form of mass transit.

And as anyone who waited hours for a taxi before the ride share era knows, the lack of supply was the primary frustration with taxis. Ride share simply multiplies out the taxi technology of low occupancy cars, which while it solves the taxi supply problem increases the existing congestion problem wrought by low occupancy cars in general. Therefore it is not the way to achieve scalable transit in even somewhat dense environments.

But to your question, maybe congestion taxes on single passenger ride sharing pushes us toward a form of dispatchable mass transit which shares many of the conveniences of ride-share with the social benefits of mass transit i.e. a fleet of dispatchable municipal minibuses that work like a larger Uber Pool.

That would be especially helpful for last-mile connectivity for mass transit like commuter trains, whose parking lots are today overwhelmed by single occupancy cars.

Post reply on HN