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

151–160 of 185 posts

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

#151

Post by rdiddly »

jimmywanger wrote: post #110
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.

You're missing the main point of the argument. It's not a loophole. There are a certain number of criteria for employees vs contractors, based on whether training/equipment is provided, price setting, ability to turn down jobs, etc etc. If you're classified as an employee, there are a bunch of things you have to do, such as collect GST, deal with health care, sick days, paternity leave, taxes, etc. Uber is making the…

They need to collect GST because a Good or Service is being provided and that's what the Tax covers.

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

#152

Post by brandon272 »

onion2k wrote: post #93
brandon272 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where I live, Uber charges less than half of what cab companies charge. But there are other ancillary benefits. Uber could be at parity with the cab companies but I would still prefer it because of: 1) Their app 2) The reliability of getting car with them vs. waiting for a cab. 3) Their vehicles are much, much, much nicer than cabs in my area. 4) The purchase experience.

Where I live, Uber charges less than half of what cab companies charge. Have you ever asked yourself how they do that? It's not like taxi drivers are fabulously wealthy.

I don't like to assume anything about the wealth of professions when I do not know the economics of their industry. I have seen a lot of businesses over the years that I assumed were barely scraping by that were actually making a killing.

Aren't cab drivers in major cities dealing with the purchase or lease of million dollar cab medallions? I believe that could factor into higher prices for consumers.

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

#153

Post by jmcdiesel »

Broken_Hippo wrote: post #121
jmcdiesel wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does the safety somehow diminish when you pay for the ride? If I give you a ride to work, for free --- then give you a ride to work, but you pay me, what is the functional difference requiring more regulation on the second part? Is your safety affected any different? Aside from the basic protections built in to any business when it comes to collecting money, etc, what extra rules need to be in place. From a purely pr…

If I give you a ride to work, for free --- then give you a ride to work, but you pay me, what is the functional difference requiring more regulation on the second part? Is your safety affected any different? Aside from the basic protections built in to any business when it comes to collecting money, etc, what extra rules need to be in place. In the first instance, both parties can refuse, and can drive in any way the…

While the more you drive would statistically make you more likely to get in an accident, that still doesn't affect passenger safety. You can argue that the more you drive, the safer you drive, as well. The more experience you have driving, the more inbuilt habit/reaction you have as body memory.

The more you ride would be what affected passenger safety.

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

#155

Post by Broken_Hippo »

jmcdiesel wrote: post #153
Broken_Hippo wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I give you a ride to work, for free --- then give you a ride to work, but you pay me, what is the functional difference requiring more regulation on the second part? Is your safety affected any different? Aside from the basic protections built in to any business when it comes to collecting money, etc, what extra rules need to be in place. In the first instance, both parties can refuse, and can drive in any way the…

While the more you drive would statistically make you more likely to get in an accident, that still doesn't affect passenger safety. You can argue that the more you drive, the safer you drive, as well. The more experience you have driving, the more inbuilt habit/reaction you have as body memory. The more you ride would be what affected passenger safety.

"You can argue that the more you drive, the safer you drive, as well. THe more experience you have driving, the more inbuilt habit/reaction you have as body memory"

I used to think something similar, but the truth is that the problem with professional driving isn't one of experience, but things like driver fatigue [1]. All things being equal in driving skill, the "normal" driver generally drives safer than the professional.

[1]https://www.transportation.gov/fastlane/why-we-care-about-tr...

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

#158

Post by wastedhours »

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…

Isn't it technically incorrect it's their fiduciary duty to minimise expenses? As long as a company has a rationale for their decision (with negative PR from tax issues being a legitimate one), there's no onus on them to hunt loopholes out.

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

#159

Post by andruc »

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.

You could say confounded confounded you.

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

#160

Post by andruc »

unit91 wrote: post #135

TL;DR: The Canadian government realized it could increase​ taxes by appealing to moral outrage, with terms lime "tax advantage" and "loophole". End the tax advantage by lowering taxes and reducing the size of government? Out of the question.

Reducing the size of the government's tax income does not reduce the size of the government.
Post reply on HN