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

Canada seeks to end Uber's tax advantage over taxi companies

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 185 posts

Re: Canada seeks to end Uber's tax advantage over taxi companies

#131

Post by enraged_camel »

briandear wrote: post #62
peeters wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it quacks like a duck, it gets taxed like a duck. Uber has made a business out of exploiting legal loopholes. They know it, their users know it, the politicians know it. It's just been a race to close them. I have no sympathy for Uber in this. They obviously provide a valuable service to people, so I'm sure they'll survive. Now they'll just be competing on an even playing field.

There is no such thing as a loophole. The law is the law. Isn't every tax deduction really just a loophole? It's every company's fiduciary duty to minimize expenses using any legal means at their disposal. It's idiotic to criticize a company for using the law to their advantage. There is nothing stopping a competitor from doing the exact same thing. The law applies equally to everyone. It isn't Uber's fault taxi comp…

>>There is no such thing as a loophole. The law is the law. Isn't every tax deduction really just a loophole?

No. A loophole is when a given law is exploited in a way that was not intended by the people who wrote it, usually by resorting to small technicalities in the law itself, or by referring to other, related laws.

In this particular case, a law that was intended to benefit small businesses is being exploited by a mega corp. Hence, loophole.

Re: Canada seeks to end Uber's tax advantage over taxi companies

#132

Post by Steko »

jmcdiesel wrote: post #106
run4yourlives2 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Driving someone around shouldn't be so complicated. Until someone gets driven 60 miles out of town on the way to the airport and left there unless they have a "special" fee... It's almost as if these regulations were put in place for a reason.

Ok, how do these regulations help that? Taking someone somewhere against their will is already illegal, which of these extra laws (and taxes) prevent that? The result would be the same in either case - the driver would be held accountable for, basically, kidnapping and extortion, and you'll be left either short more money or stranded 60 miles out of town. A regulation in place isnt going to prevent someone from doing…

Molesting children is already illegal but it turns out not letting convicted child molesters run day care is also a good idea.

Re: Canada seeks to end Uber's tax advantage over taxi companies

#133

Post by bhouston »

CountSessine wrote: post #83
chollida1 wrote: post #9

Uber's response. http://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/statement-from-uber-can... One interesting note about the press release to the Canadian newswire service, it highlights that Uber was confounded by Canadian Garret Camp. This is set to go live on July 1st so I guess you can watch the data from that point on to see if it has any effect. > The budget statement estimates the change will raise C$3 million in new reven…

it highlights that Uber was confounded by Canadian Garret Camp s/confounded/co-founded/cg Sorry for the nit-pick, but in this case the word confounded had me genuinely confused about what this special interest group, Canadian Garret Camp, is (are they angel investors? some sort of VC incubator? a front-group for taxi companies?), and why they were lobbying for removing Uber's GST exemption.

Previously a co-founder of Stumble Upon as well.

Re: Canada seeks to end Uber's tax advantage over taxi companies

#134

Post by lazyasciiart »

ubernostrum wrote: post #118
narrowrail wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to work for Landstar[0], which operates in a very similar way to Uber, but in the trucking industry. The company has been around for almost 30 years and the drivers are considered Owner-Operators[1] (i.e. contractors). I was under the impression that an Uber driver could choose not to take any given fare(just like our truckers could). There seems to be some irrationality when it comes to Uber among my fellow e…

In the US, at least, the employee/contractor difference is based on a number of factors, but one important factor is the level of control over the person doing the work. If you're setting their working hours, or deciding which jobs they'll take or how they'll do them, or setting their wage/pricing for them, etc., those are things which point toward the "they are an employee" side of the spectrum.

But it isn't that straightforward, because your can have a 10x ninja developer who works whenever they want and picks their own projects, but is still an employee.

Re: Canada seeks to end Uber's tax advantage over taxi companies

#136

Post by pfarnsworth »

madeofpalk wrote: post #105
briandear wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So Etsy should be charging GST and every other marketplace app out there. Uber is a broker not a transportation company. Other than their self driving experiments, they don't operate a single car.

No, Uber is not a marketplace. Uber is a consumer product. Uber designs the product and sets prices. Driver's can't compete with each other and I can't 'shop around' on Uber to find a different deal. If Uber switches to (self driving) cars that Uber owns itself, how does that change the sales tax model? The product is still essentially the same, the consumer still pays Uber, tax shouldn't change here. The backend sho…

Of course Uber is a marketplace. A marketplace doesn't need the ability to set prices individually. Abiding to pricing standards are the conditions to offer your services on their particular marketplace. Don't make up rules that don't exist.

Re: Canada seeks to end Uber's tax advantage over taxi companies

#137

Post by _jal »

boona wrote: post #46
peeters wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it quacks like a duck, it gets taxed like a duck. Uber has made a business out of exploiting legal loopholes. They know it, their users know it, the politicians know it. It's just been a race to close them. I have no sympathy for Uber in this. They obviously provide a valuable service to people, so I'm sure they'll survive. Now they'll just be competing on an even playing field.

>Uber has made a business out of exploiting legal loopholes. I find that kind of argumentation silly. They brought to the taxi industry, what is common in other industries, like construction, tech, etc. Stated differently, Uber has been able to provide a competitive service by legally structuring themselves in a way maximizes return for the themselves, for the driver, but still keeps costs low client due to say struc…

> Uber has been able to provide a competitive service by legally structuring themselves in a way maximizes return for the themselves, for the driver, but still keeps costs low client due to say structuring.

In fact, they haven't. They're taking a huge loss on subsidies to the fares.

Re: Canada seeks to end Uber's tax advantage over taxi companies

#138

Post by madeofpalk »

pfarnsworth wrote: post #136
madeofpalk wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, Uber is not a marketplace. Uber is a consumer product. Uber designs the product and sets prices. Driver's can't compete with each other and I can't 'shop around' on Uber to find a different deal. If Uber switches to (self driving) cars that Uber owns itself, how does that change the sales tax model? The product is still essentially the same, the consumer still pays Uber, tax shouldn't change here. The backend sho…

Of course Uber is a marketplace. A marketplace doesn't need the ability to set prices individually. Abiding to pricing standards are the conditions to offer your services on their particular marketplace. Don't make up rules that don't exist.

but I can't "shop around" on Uber. I don't get a choice of who provides me a service.

The concept of Uber being a marketplace is utterly ridiculous.

Re: Canada seeks to end Uber's tax advantage over taxi companies

#139

Post by tholmes »

lazyasciiart wrote: post #134
ubernostrum wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US, at least, the employee/contractor difference is based on a number of factors, but one important factor is the level of control over the person doing the work. If you're setting their working hours, or deciding which jobs they'll take or how they'll do them, or setting their wage/pricing for them, etc., those are things which point toward the "they are an employee" side of the spectrum.

But it isn't that straightforward, because your can have a 10x ninja developer who works whenever they want and picks their own projects, but is still an employee.

That's not a problem. The point in the tax code is to prevent offloading the tax liability by classifying people who are rightfully employees as contractors instead.

I'm reasonably certain the tax code has no regulation that says you must be classed a contractor if you meet certain criteria.

Re: Canada seeks to end Uber's tax advantage over taxi companies

#140

Post by milesrout »

thrill wrote: post #15
vkou wrote: post #7

The fact that they weren't paying GST is mind-boggling. The purpose of the exemption is to let someone running a tiny hobby business sell their products without having to deal with tax headaches. The purpose of the exemption was never to let a mega-corporation take the exemption of each employee, multiply it by the number of employees, and pretend that they don't need to pay tax. What next? A grocery store taking the…

Uber drivers are not employees. They are independent contractors. Uber, as part of their service, collects money from riders, giving both the rider and the driver a comfort factor as they don't have to deal with cash. As "hobby" businesses they each individually were enjoying the exemption. Now they will not - because we can't have "hobby" businesses causing discomfort to the well connected.

Uber drivers are absolutely employees. They might claim that they are independent contractors, but they are not independent contractors. The law doesn't just say 'you can decide that your employees are contractors if you want to'.
Post reply on HN