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

The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

blog.priceonomics.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 219 posts

Re: The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

#51

Post by bcgraham »

argumentum wrote: post #50
seanalltogether wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've brought this up in another thread, but over in the UK, due to a lack of property taxes, its possible to purchase a home, yet stil have to pay a yearly ground rent to a private party. The cost to own land in nothing, so there's little incentive to ever sell it, and instead lease it out. People may complain about property taxes in the USA, but it prevents this very practice from happening. It would be better for e…

I don't understand .. why would you purchase a home without the land it rests on? In a free market, perhaps there is some lower price where you would do this, but there is also a higher price where you could purchase the land as well.

Because that's the only type of home on the market!

Re: The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

#52

Post by vacri »

argumentum wrote: post #43
pg wrote: post #2

Structurally this practice is a lot like the preindustrial precursor of taxation, when governments would sell monopolies on the import or production of things in exchange for a lump sum. When obsolete government practices persist, they tend to be pretty sinister.

When obsolete government practices persist, they tend to be pretty sinister. Why is this true? Perhaps keeping these practices around, despite them being obsolete, implies ulterior motives?

It's something of a meaningless statement. A long-term government practice that is seen as good is not seen as obsolete.

Re: The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

#53

Post by JackFr »

chaz wrote: post #42
NoPiece wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you are saying is fine, but that's not why taxi's were regulated, at least in New York. The regulations go back to the depression and were put in place specifically to limit competition in order to keep prices high and protect employment of existing cab drivers. The history is right on the NYC gov page: http://www.nyc.gov/html/media/totweb/taxioftomorrow_history_... -- quoting from the NYC site: "Widespread pove…

Regardless of origins, I think there's still an important role for city governments to manage the number of cars on the street. NPR Planet Money did a story about the effect of NYC's planned +2,000 cabs (in additional to the existing 13,200) will have on the city: shorter wait times, but longer drive times for everyone. If the story is correct, more deregulation with more cars on the street without other measures (su…

It's far from obvious that demand has outstripped supply. The population of Manhattan was significantly higher in 1937 than it is now 1.9 million vs. 1.6 million. On a population basis it would seem that we would need fewer rather than more cabs.

What drives the demand for cabs is the the price of a ride versus the alternative. If the regulated fare is low relative to subways & buses and the overall price level, cabs will be in high demand. If the fare is high, demand for cabs will decline.

Re: The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

#54

Post by jvm »

chaz wrote: post #42
NoPiece wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you are saying is fine, but that's not why taxi's were regulated, at least in New York. The regulations go back to the depression and were put in place specifically to limit competition in order to keep prices high and protect employment of existing cab drivers. The history is right on the NYC gov page: http://www.nyc.gov/html/media/totweb/taxioftomorrow_history_... -- quoting from the NYC site: "Widespread pove…

Regardless of origins, I think there's still an important role for city governments to manage the number of cars on the street. NPR Planet Money did a story about the effect of NYC's planned +2,000 cabs (in additional to the existing 13,200) will have on the city: shorter wait times, but longer drive times for everyone. If the story is correct, more deregulation with more cars on the street without other measures (su…

This is why it's so annoying that Albany vetoed the congestion pricing plan. Congestion pricing would keep vehicle traffic down to acceptable levels without discriminating based on type of vehicle.

Still though it should be recognized that the medallion system leads to massive returns for a tiny minority of existing medallion holders who are basically just extracting rents. The system could have easily been set up so as to distribute the returns to riders, or drivers, or taxpayers.

Re: The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

#55

Post by argumentum »

vacri wrote: post #52
argumentum wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When obsolete government practices persist, they tend to be pretty sinister. Why is this true? Perhaps keeping these practices around, despite them being obsolete, implies ulterior motives?

It's something of a meaningless statement. A long-term government practice that is seen as good is not seen as obsolete .

long-term government practice that is seen as good

I've never heard of one, asides from the practices that define government itself (laws, courts, police, voting, congress etc), but these are more necessary than good.

Re: The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

#56

Post by JackFr »

macspoofing wrote: post #35
brador wrote: post #25

Taxi drivers significantly under report earnings for tax purposes. They always claim close to minimum wage. You'll find the same in every cash business.

Probably, but I can guarantee you that the vast majority don't make a lot of money.

Presumably they're making more than their next best alternative.

Re: The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

#57

Post by zimbu668 »

seanalltogether wrote: post #49
pg wrote: post #2

Structurally this practice is a lot like the preindustrial precursor of taxation, when governments would sell monopolies on the import or production of things in exchange for a lump sum. When obsolete government practices persist, they tend to be pretty sinister.

I've brought this up in another thread, but over in the UK, due to a lack of property taxes, its possible to purchase a home, yet stil have to pay a yearly ground rent to a private party. The cost to own land in nothing, so there's little incentive to ever sell it, and instead lease it out. People may complain about property taxes in the USA, but it prevents this very practice from happening. It would be better for e…

Ground rent exists in the US as well. Baltimore has a lot of it, maybe Philly as well. A few years ago people were losing their houses over $30/yr bills from someone who found their great-great-grandpa had the ground rent title on whatever property.

Re: The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

#58

Post by vacri »

argumentum wrote: post #55
vacri wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's something of a meaningless statement. A long-term government practice that is seen as good is not seen as obsolete .

long-term government practice that is seen as good I've never heard of one, asides from the practices that define government itself (laws, courts, police, voting, congress etc), but these are more necessary than good .

Separation of Powers isn't necessary for government, but it is a good practice, for example. Would anyone serious call that obsolete?

Re: The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

#59

Post by larrys »

pg wrote: post #2

Structurally this practice is a lot like the preindustrial precursor of taxation, when governments would sell monopolies on the import or production of things in exchange for a lump sum. When obsolete government practices persist, they tend to be pretty sinister.

"When obsolete government practices persist, they tend to be pretty sinister."

How might you propose to compensate people who, in good faith, bought taxi medallions (a legal practice)? (Or do you feel that's not necessary?)

Re: The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

#60

Post by aetherson »

bcgraham wrote: post #51
argumentum wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand .. why would you purchase a home without the land it rests on? In a free market, perhaps there is some lower price where you would do this, but there is also a higher price where you could purchase the land as well.

Because that's the only type of home on the market!

Well, argumentum's point is that presumably there is some cost at which the ground holder would sell the land.

Like, if the ground rental brings in $10,000 per year to the owner of the title, and I came along and said, "I will pay your $1,000,000 for the title," well... I'm offering you one century's worth of ground-use fees up-front. Presumably all but the most irrational actors would sell their ground.

Post reply on HN