Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lyft, SideCar, and Uber all slapped with $20K fines from CA regulator

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 100 posts

Re: Lyft, SideCar, and Uber all slapped with $20K fines from CA regulator

#71

Post by glomph »

Zak wrote: post #68
stevewilhelm wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So cities, counties, and states are supposed to build and maintain roads, keep them safe, and allow businesses like Uber that use these roads and services to do so without paying for them? How is that sustainable?

Uber's drivers pay tax on the fuel they use and there's sales tax on the transaction itself. They are, in fact paying for the use of the roads. Why should there be a special additional tax on that particular type of business?

Because everyone else in the business is still paying a special additional tax? If you disagree with that, you have to fight to change it for everyone. You don't just start competing without paying the same taxes as everyone else.

Re: Lyft, SideCar, and Uber all slapped with $20K fines from CA regulator

#72

Post by eli »

Zak wrote: post #28
eli wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uber claims their drivers already meet the requirements, but if Uber doesn't register with CPUC how can they know if it's true? Are they supposed to take Uber's word for it?

If you don't take Uber's word for it, don't use Uber. Given that there are alternatives available, I don't see the need for regulation here.

Neat! How do I get in on that? It would be super convenient if my business could opt out of regulations I find inconvenient.

Re: Lyft, SideCar, and Uber all slapped with $20K fines from CA regulator

#73

Post by Zak »

glomph wrote: post #71
Zak wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uber's drivers pay tax on the fuel they use and there's sales tax on the transaction itself. They are, in fact paying for the use of the roads. Why should there be a special additional tax on that particular type of business?

Because everyone else in the business is still paying a special additional tax? If you disagree with that, you have to fight to change it for everyone. You don't just start competing without paying the same taxes as everyone else.

At first, that sounds more fair, but in practice it means a lot fewer people would start doing useful things.

Re: Lyft, SideCar, and Uber all slapped with $20K fines from CA regulator

#74

Post by Zak »

eli wrote: post #72
Zak wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't take Uber's word for it, don't use Uber. Given that there are alternatives available, I don't see the need for regulation here.

Neat! How do I get in on that? It would be super convenient if my business could opt out of regulations I find inconvenient.

You do something that isn't quite covered under a strict reading of the regulations that are in place, then you hire a good lawyer.

Re: Lyft, SideCar, and Uber all slapped with $20K fines from CA regulator

#75

Post by ALee »

If I were them, they should just get users to use real names and addresses to send e-mail, faxes, and paper mail to the offices of the public utilities commission and to other officials who will pressure them.

Fundamentally, these guys just need to increase social capital with regulators and invest in legal infrastructure. The government is just like another giant company with dependencies and old architecture. Trust me, it's just like investing in weird ERP integration to get access to all of those clients. It's not something that is necessary to the evolution of your product, but it's something you just have to do because the market is just shaped that way.

Also, any press is good press, and once these three get large enough, it'll be widely unpopular to not support them.

Re: Lyft, SideCar, and Uber all slapped with $20K fines from CA regulator

#76

Post by rprasad »

Zak wrote: post #69
yardie wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think so. The VRBO market has existed for years (decades even) AirBnB just made it marketable and easy to enter. The controversy with them is some of the property owners are really taking the piss and treating their residential property as hotels and not paying the hotel taxes (BTW, Florida is 20%). All the reports I've read have been spot on (though the AirBnB founders disagree). The hotels are paying this t…

It might be reasonable in this case to ask why the hotels have to pay a special tax. Why shouldn't they just collect sales tax like every other business?

Because renting out a hotel room is not a sale. Ergo, a sales tax does not apply. An occupancy tax is the tax levied on short-term leases (i.e.,, hotels).

Re: Lyft, SideCar, and Uber all slapped with $20K fines from CA regulator

#77

Post by rprasad »

Zak wrote: post #70
whyenot wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the people of SF want more medallions, they can always create a proposition and vote at the ballot box. Proposition A in 2007 is the reason the MTA regulates taxis in the first place, and previous propositions ("Transit First") have shaped the number of medallions that are issued. If Uber is operating as a taxi, they should have to get medallions just like every other taxi company. If they, or anyone else doesn't…

Why should there be medallions at all? How do they benefit society as a whole or serve any legitimate government function, as opposed to shall-issue licencing for anyone who meets the safety/training/testing/insurance requirements?

Why should there be medallions at all?

It would seem that the good people of San Francisco voted to require medallions and to impose regulation on taxi services.

Re: Lyft, SideCar, and Uber all slapped with $20K fines from CA regulator

#78

Post by Zak »

rprasad wrote: post #76
Zak wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might be reasonable in this case to ask why the hotels have to pay a special tax. Why shouldn't they just collect sales tax like every other business?

Because renting out a hotel room is not a sale. Ergo, a sales tax does not apply. An occupancy tax is the tax levied on short-term leases (i.e.,, hotels).

There's sales tax on renting a car most places - why not a room? Why should there be a different tax at a different rate for renting a room?

Re: Lyft, SideCar, and Uber all slapped with $20K fines from CA regulator

#79

Post by tptacek »

Zak wrote: post #70
whyenot wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the people of SF want more medallions, they can always create a proposition and vote at the ballot box. Proposition A in 2007 is the reason the MTA regulates taxis in the first place, and previous propositions ("Transit First") have shaped the number of medallions that are issued. If Uber is operating as a taxi, they should have to get medallions just like every other taxi company. If they, or anyone else doesn't…

Why should there be medallions at all? How do they benefit society as a whole or serve any legitimate government function, as opposed to shall-issue licencing for anyone who meets the safety/training/testing/insurance requirements?

Medallions increase the cost to taxi operators of violations by threatening a difficult-to-recover license. Talk to Uber drivers, like friends of mine have, and you quickly learn that many Uber drivers like the service principally because no other licensed operator would allow them to drive; it's too risky for a cab or black car operator to hire on a driver with a suspension.

Re: Lyft, SideCar, and Uber all slapped with $20K fines from CA regulator

#80

Post by Zak »

rprasad wrote: post #77
Zak wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should there be medallions at all? How do they benefit society as a whole or serve any legitimate government function, as opposed to shall-issue licencing for anyone who meets the safety/training/testing/insurance requirements?

Why should there be medallions at all? It would seem that the good people of San Francisco voted to require medallions and to impose regulation on taxi services.

I couldn't find the origin of the permitting system in a couple minutes of googling, but I did find that there was a medallion system at least as early as 1950. It therefore seems unlikely that many of the people who currently live in San Francisco voted to impose one. It does not appear that there has been any serious effort to eliminate the system.
Post reply on HN