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

81–90 of 100 posts

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

#81

Post by eli »

viscanti wrote: post #37
eli wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the drivers already have the required paperwork and insurance then why doesn't Uber just register as a taxi provider and submit it as CPUC requested? Is that really so onerous (honest question)?

What does the licensing accomplish? Are drivers double drug tested? Are they double insured? They're using all licensed drivers, which means any arguments of "unfairness" are baseless. They aren't benefiting from lower labor costs because they're using unregulated drivers who might be able to compete at lower costs. I don't think it's a degree of how onerous the requirement is. It's more a matter of what does it acco…

The licensing proves to the agency that the drivers are drug tested and insured instead of simply taking Uber's word for it. I think it is unreasonable to expect that regulatory paperwork doesn't apply to you just because you're probably in compliance anyway.

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

#82

Post by ajays »

stevewilhelm wrote: post #50
ajays wrote: post #44

The deck is stacked against Uber, Lyft and Sidecar. You have to realize that the taxi industry is a government-cab collaboration, with the customer getting fleeced. It is not as simple as "government grants license to cab operator, cab operator runs his cab and makes money". No. The government takes a cut from the daily action too. Use a credit card in the cab? The government takes a cut. Want to rent your medallion…

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?

Do UPS, FedEx, etc. pay separately for the privilege to use these roads? No. The money to pay for these facilities comes from gas taxes (mostly), sales taxes, income taxes, etc., all of which are paid by the Uber/Lyft/Sidecar people too. Their cars don't run on air, you know. In fact, Uber's limos use much more gas than the Priuses that the cabs drive, so in fact at least Uber people are paying more for the use of these roads.

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

#83

Post by ajays »

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).

It's mainly because (a) sales taxes are much less than these occupancy taxes, and (b) socking it to the visitor has no political repercussions; they're not going to vote in the elections anyways.

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

#84

Post by [deleted] »

tvladeck wrote: post #19
smsm42 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We managed to transition from horsepower to cars without economy breaking down and I'm sure some people investing in horses lost some money on that. If some people investing in taxi business being shielded from competition will lose some money - sucks for them, but definite benefit for everybody else. And also would teach people not to invest in schemes that rely on government coercion and anti-competitiveness. It'd…

I'm not sure I was clear. In the cases I'm discussing, society has made an explicit deal with a group of providers within an industry. Essentially that deal is: purchase a license, run your business this way, charge these prices, etc., and we'll protect your market. NB this does not apply in equal degrees across all industries, and your horses -> cars example doesn't qualify. In addition, note that I was agreeing wit…

[deleted]

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

#85

Post by smsm42 »

tvladeck wrote: post #19
smsm42 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We managed to transition from horsepower to cars without economy breaking down and I'm sure some people investing in horses lost some money on that. If some people investing in taxi business being shielded from competition will lose some money - sucks for them, but definite benefit for everybody else. And also would teach people not to invest in schemes that rely on government coercion and anti-competitiveness. It'd…

I'm not sure I was clear. In the cases I'm discussing, society has made an explicit deal with a group of providers within an industry. Essentially that deal is: purchase a license, run your business this way, charge these prices, etc., and we'll protect your market. NB this does not apply in equal degrees across all industries, and your horses -> cars example doesn't qualify. In addition, note that I was agreeing wit…

So? Let's say a corrupt mayor makes a deal with a building contractor - you pay me a million dollars and I'll give you all the building contracts. Then it was discovered and the corrupt mayor went to jail. Is there any reason the society has to keep the building contracts part of the deal? I see none.

The only difference in this case is that the corrupt officials that betrayed the public interest in exchange for votes and support of a group of special interests are not in jail yet.

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

#86

Post by smsm42 »

stevewilhelm wrote: post #50
ajays wrote: post #44

The deck is stacked against Uber, Lyft and Sidecar. You have to realize that the taxi industry is a government-cab collaboration, with the customer getting fleeced. It is not as simple as "government grants license to cab operator, cab operator runs his cab and makes money". No. The government takes a cut from the daily action too. Use a credit card in the cab? The government takes a cut. Want to rent your medallion…

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?

Businesses like Uber pay a lot for them. Corporate taxes, payroll taxes, sales taxes, gasoline taxes, business licenses, registration fees, etc. etc. Trying to justify every runaway regulation and fee with "oh, but we have to build the roads!" is only going to convince somebody who is too lazy to think about how many taxes business like Uber has to pay in any case.

And if by the "services" you mean blocking competition and being the enforcement arm of the unions - then I could do without these "services", thank you very much.

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

#87

Post by smsm42 »

polemic wrote: post #29
smsm42 wrote: post #13

It just reeks of special interests protecting their turf. Of course when you are operating in highly regulated environment and have a well-oiled connections with local politicians it is annoying when somebody new comes around and tries to take part of your customer share. However for me as a consumer it is annoying that government yet again tries to take away my choice under the guise of protecting me from imaginary…

Oh please. Regulation doesn't exist in a vacuum, and acting as if you're exempt from the law in the noble pursuit of lower prices is bollocks.

Nobody said anything about being noble or exempt from the law. The fact is the local laws are written by politicians that are in the pocket of the unions. And one doesn't have to be a noble knight to be opposed to this injustice and to realize it's just a legal extortion scheme.

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

#88

Post by jasonhancock »

penrod wrote: post #59
jasonhancock wrote: post #21

In practice these behave exactly like a taxi service. I don't think it matters much who owns the cars. No one would argue that a cab company from, say, LA, should be able to just bring a portion of its fleet to SF and start picking up passengers without complying with the laws that govern taxis here. If these start-ups affect the market in essentially the same way, we and they all know they are trying to enter a mark…

I'll take the bait: Yes an external cab company should be able to come into SF and compete with the local firms. The SF regulations have expressly been rigged to support a local cartel and are morally illegitimate.

You may think that an external cab company (or Lyft) should be able to come into SF and complete with local firms but you also apparently agree it is illegal. I personally consider it equally morally illegitimate for individual actors in a society governed by the rule of law to decide which laws and regulations "work" for them and which ones don't, then to disregard those they don't like. And in practical terms I think it is irresponsible for a group of people with one goal -to make money- to set up a company which they know is breaking the law, and to convince a lot of people to join them in breaking the law (their drivers) and creating ridiculous contortions that allow them to pretend not to be governed by the rules ("the donation thing" e.g.) when everyone knows they are a taxi service, plain and simple.

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

#89

Post by smsm42 »

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.

Most of the good people of San Francisco have no idea and couldn't care less until they need a taxi. Then they get ripped off, but then they forget about it in the next half an hour.

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

#90

Post by Zak »

tptacek wrote: post #79
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?

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.

I can imagine a simple solution to this problem that doesn't require a complex regulatory framework or artificial restrictions on supply: require a large amount of insurance coverage. The insurance companies would do the rest.
Post reply on HN