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

161–170 of 185 posts

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

#161

Post by Cakez0r »

acveilleux wrote: post #6

Using the small supplier exemption seems really doubtful to me. That pushes the tax collection liability on the driver (who can't collect taxes, since payment is through Uber app) and the limit for that is 30k$ so a lot of drivers should probably have charged taxes since they may have earned more. In addition, my understanding (not a tax/law person) is that the 30k$ would be for the whole fare, not the driver's cut.…

Someone mentioned in an above comment that the uber app already supports the driver collecting GST.

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

#162

Post by wavefunction »

cstejerean wrote: post #130
frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The important part is this: market power is the ability of a firm to profitably raise the market price of a good or service over marginal cost The driver does not raise the price, Uber does. Uber has the market power here. >I'm pretty sure I don't have the exact facts on what Uber's operating agreement with drivers is, but I always thought a given driver could choose to only drive during surge pricing, no? Perhaps, I…

If they were employees then Uber would also get to set their hours and they wouldn't have the option to decline any fares. They also couldn't use any other services concurrently (many drive for both Uber and Lyft at the same time). Uber also doesn't control the market. There is also Lyft and any other competitor is welcome to start and offer better rates for the driver. Or even offer variable pricing where every driv…

Uber doesn't meet its responsibilities as a direct employer because those responsibilities would increase their costs, like scheduling drivers for shifts. And Uber has tried in the past to prevent its drivers from working for competitors. They pick and choose, oh our drivers are independent contractors but we're also going to just take their individual tax exemptions and apply them to ourself. Come on...

Just because Uber doesn't adhere to our common social contract doesn't mean they don't have to. Unethical behavior is not justification for that same behavior.

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

#163

Post by wavefunction »

AndyNemmity wrote: post #146
charlesdm wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. No problem. They've used loopholes for the last 4+ years, which is fine. Given they still have a massively superior service to taxi's, now let them compete.

They used to have a massively superior service to taxis, until taxi drivers started to work for Uber. The quality has dropped dramatically.

Maybe working for Uber became more like driving a taxi... dun dun dun

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

#164

Post by unit91 »

andruc wrote: post #160
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.

I didn't claim it does. Reducing the size of government decreases the amount of money the government needs to operate without incurring additional debt. If the government were less expensive to run, officials wouldn't need to invent new ways of taking money from the people.

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

#165

Post by danielhooper »

branchless wrote: post #24
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…

21st century capitalism: gaming the system rather than actual productivity improvements that make lives better.

Speak for yourself. Uber has for me been a service superior to what taxi companies offer in literally every way possible.

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

#166

Post by sten »

_jal wrote: post #137
boona wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

That the maximum is a loss doesn't negate it's place as the maximum. They could do worse for themselves. A house could burn down faster.

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

#167

Post by jmcdiesel »

Broken_Hippo wrote: post #155
jmcdiesel wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 profes…

In that document, it states over and over that the vast majority does not have a problem and is responsible.

Laws will not weed out irresponsible people.

The key points here arent that there is a potential for danger. The point is that the extra laws (which just so happen to come with a price and generate revenue for the state) don't prevent those problems.

They could pass a law requiring that drivers drive less than 40 hours a week. Does that really fix anything? Is there any way to determine that the driver who drove 10 hours this week didnt do so after staying awake for 3 days straight?

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

#168

Post by aianus »

geoka9 wrote: post #143
aianus wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you ever been to Bangkok? I can just pay $1, hop on the back of a moto idling outside the skytrain station, and off we go lanesplitting through traffic straight to my office 2km away. It's amazing and would be so illegal on so many levels in Canada (where I spend $1000/mo on transportation).

Why not get a moto then which would pay for itself within a month or two?

I don't follow. It only cost $2 a day to take the moto taxi between the office and the Skytrain. What kind of moto can you buy for $60-$120? And that's not taking into consideration parking requirements and the extra time it takes to drive all the way from home instead of doing most of the distance on the Skytrain.

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

#169

Post by jimmywanger »

rdiddly wrote: post #151
jimmywanger wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're missing the point, and begging the question.

If the good or service is being provided by a non-taxi contractor who makes less than 30k a year, then you don't have to collect the GST and the tax doesn't cover that.

If the good or service is being provided by Uber, a non-contractor who makes over 30k a year, then you have to pay the tax.

What we're debating here is who provides the service and their legal status.

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

#170

Post by run4yourlives2 »

qeternity wrote: post #109
run4yourlives2 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except for the fact that the GST gets remitted to the government, instead of to Uber. Your suggesting is an 5-17% reduction in margin, dependent on province. Either way, collecting GST on a sale is the norm in Canada, regardless of what happens on the back end.

Read the parent: > So from what I can see, Uber should be collecting, for itself. My comment is not about remitting, it's about collection. Jesus.

I don't think you understand how this works. I can charge you $10 for a candy bar with GST included and make $.95, or I can charge $10 + 5 cents gst and make $10.

It's not at all the same thing as you previously suggested.

The entire point of this conversation here is that $10 + 5 cents gst is a price increase if you weren't bothering to charge a tax at all.

Post reply on HN