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

Uber Hit with $650M Employment Tax Bill in New Jersey

news.bloomberglaw.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 288 posts

Re: Uber Hit with $650M Employment Tax Bill in New Jersey

#201

Post by akdor1154 »

mav3rick wrote: post #196
maximente wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Many of the externalities you describe would be the same if people just drove their own cars. no, this isn't correct and on its face looks like a straw man, so i'm pretty sure you're arguing in bad faith, but i'll try to give someone of the "market" mindset a market argument. market zealots tell us that as things become cheaper, people do more of them. subsidizing ride sharing, evading regulations, etc. generally m…

This is such a bullshit argument. What you're basically saying is people wouldn't have driven their cars and stayed at Home if Uber wasn't a thing. That's such an inane argument. Ridesharing is good and reduces overall traffic. It doesn't make people go out more than they require. No one says "it's a good day to Uber today ".

> What you're basically saying is people wouldn't have driven their cars and stayed at Home if Uber wasn't a thing

He didn't say that at all, read his post again. He says that uber takes pedestrians and cyclists and PT users and turns them into car (Uber) users.

Re: Uber Hit with $650M Employment Tax Bill in New Jersey

#202

Post by RestlessMind »

maximente wrote: post #191
manigandham wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regulation is what made taxis so terrible. We don't need the government to control everything. Many of the externalities you describe would be the same if people just drove their own cars. If ridesharing is so bad then govt should invest in proper public transport to create more choice, not try and crush a valuable service used by millions.

> Many of the externalities you describe would be the same if people just drove their own cars. no, this isn't correct and on its face looks like a straw man, so i'm pretty sure you're arguing in bad faith, but i'll try to give someone of the "market" mindset a market argument. market zealots tell us that as things become cheaper, people do more of them. subsidizing ride sharing, evading regulations, etc. generally m…

> no, this isn't correct and on its face looks like a straw man, so i'm pretty sure you're arguing in bad faith, but i'll try to give someone of the "market" mindset a market argument.

Please refrain from ad hominem attacks. GP has a valid point.

> ride sharing became so economical that bus riders, pedestrians and cyclists changed their behavior to make use of it.

If that is your concern, what explains popularity of Uber in London / Paris, which have excellent public transport as well as massive customer base for that public transport? Clearly, Uber is providing good value there.

Re: Uber Hit with $650M Employment Tax Bill in New Jersey

#203

Post by randyrand »

fungiblecog wrote: post #59
jdhn wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure why people think that drivers for Uber & Lyft shouldn't be treated as "contractors". I know I'm in the minority on this, but to me it seems that you can jump in and out of employment with Uber & Lyft quite easily, to the point that it does seem more like contract work. As an anecdote, I took a Lyft to the airport with someone who had stopped driving for 6 months in order to get started with a new full ti…

Contractors can set their own rates. These drivers are employees.

Im not sure how this distinction matters.

In practice contractors still have to charge market prices. I’m not going to pay 20% more for the same quality of service.

Re: Uber Hit with $650M Employment Tax Bill in New Jersey

#204

Post by erikpukinskis »

pitaj wrote: post #53

Please don't quote with code blocks. It breaks formatting by forcing horizontal scrolling, and is especially bad on mobile. Requoted: > Employee and employer state Unemployment Insurance tax rates will apply to the first $34,400 of an employee’s earnings in 2019 (up from $33,700 in 2018). For 2019, employees are subject to a 0.0425% (.000425) Workforce Development Partnership Fund tax rate. The employee Unemployment…

It looks fine on my mobile device (iPhone). Maybe file a bug with your device maker?

Re: Uber Hit with $650M Employment Tax Bill in New Jersey

#205

Post by mav3rick »

akdor1154 wrote: post #201
mav3rick wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is such a bullshit argument. What you're basically saying is people wouldn't have driven their cars and stayed at Home if Uber wasn't a thing. That's such an inane argument. Ridesharing is good and reduces overall traffic. It doesn't make people go out more than they require. No one says "it's a good day to Uber today ".

> What you're basically saying is people wouldn't have driven their cars and stayed at Home if Uber wasn't a thing He didn't say that at all, read his post again. He says that uber takes pedestrians and cyclists and PT users and turns them into car (Uber) users.

Go back to pre-Uber. No one called expensive taxis and used private cars, including the cyclists for non trivial distances. Uber came and solved the first step. Maybe some cyclists even take it for trivial distances. But that's blaming Uber for a good product and promoting a protectionsist scheme. Rather if you want more pedestrians and cycling, have more infrastructure and incentives to promote that rather than ban Uber.

Re: Uber Hit with $650M Employment Tax Bill in New Jersey

#206

Post by derangedHorse »

thelock85 wrote: post #189
manigandham wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's wild west about it? What needs to be regulated exactly vs having people drive their own cars?

I’m no fan of unnecessary regulation, but you cannot compare externalities of driving your own car for your own purposes vs. ride share, accept in cases where people are ride share driving in the same capacity/frequency as personal driving. My opinion is that people who drive their own cars don’t do so at the same clip as people driving for money. In the former, people do so out of convenience or routine. In the latt…

That still doesn’t answer the question of why it’s different in way that we should care

Re: Uber Hit with $650M Employment Tax Bill in New Jersey

#207

Post by jellicle »

mav3rick wrote: post #196
maximente wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Many of the externalities you describe would be the same if people just drove their own cars. no, this isn't correct and on its face looks like a straw man, so i'm pretty sure you're arguing in bad faith, but i'll try to give someone of the "market" mindset a market argument. market zealots tell us that as things become cheaper, people do more of them. subsidizing ride sharing, evading regulations, etc. generally m…

This is such a bullshit argument. What you're basically saying is people wouldn't have driven their cars and stayed at Home if Uber wasn't a thing. That's such an inane argument. Ridesharing is good and reduces overall traffic. It doesn't make people go out more than they require. No one says "it's a good day to Uber today ".

I've read a dozen studies so far that indicate Uber increases traffic and congestion in cities it operates in. Quite a lot, actually. Increasing commute times by 40% or more in some of the studies. Venture capital is paying people to idle around the city, clogging the roads. It's a sort of denial of service attack.

"Uber and Lyft Admit They're Making Traffic Worse"

https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2019/08/uber-lyft-tra...

Re: Uber Hit with $650M Employment Tax Bill in New Jersey

#208

Post by nemo44x »

microcolonel wrote: post #160
bcrosby95 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When compared to other states, CA has a middle of the road per capita budget. It's not much more than Washington - which actually has zero income tax. CA has a high income tax rate, but property taxes aren't that high - they're pretty average for the nation. And the effective property tax rate is even lower due to prop 13. You can actually search this on many property tax websites - on average the effective tax rate…

Property taxes turn out to be a better way for states to do the bulk of tax collection. The focus on income taxes is probably a big part of why the property values in some of Cali are so insane.

That and interest rates. As rates fall property values will rise in proportion. A home’s value is what people that want to live there are willing to pay and can afford each month. So it either goes to the bank, the owner, or the tax collector.

Re: Uber Hit with $650M Employment Tax Bill in New Jersey

#209

Post by mav3rick »

jellicle wrote: post #207
mav3rick wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is such a bullshit argument. What you're basically saying is people wouldn't have driven their cars and stayed at Home if Uber wasn't a thing. That's such an inane argument. Ridesharing is good and reduces overall traffic. It doesn't make people go out more than they require. No one says "it's a good day to Uber today ".

I've read a dozen studies so far that indicate Uber increases traffic and congestion in cities it operates in. Quite a lot, actually. Increasing commute times by 40% or more in some of the studies. Venture capital is paying people to idle around the city, clogging the roads. It's a sort of denial of service attack. "Uber and Lyft Admit They're Making Traffic Worse" https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2019/08/uber-…

You didn't answer the core point. People don't sit at home if there are no taxis. That's never happened. And if cyclists take cars now, it's probably because it's safer to do so than riding around traffic. These aren't bad things.

Re: Uber Hit with $650M Employment Tax Bill in New Jersey

#210

Post by jdkee »

colinmhayes wrote: post #186
jdkee wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is almost double the amount cited above, estimated to be $241,000,000,000. https://www.illinoispolicy.org/illinois-241b-pension-debt-st...

IPI is the Cato institute of Illinois. Consistent track record of putting conservative talking points above facts.

I've actually researched them a fair amount for a course I teach on Fake News at a local college. They have a bit of hyperbole in their pronouncements but are generally factually quite spot on. They do not generally misuse statistics or engage in misleading presentations of data sources. To date, I have not been able to not find a reputable original source or citation for what they claim.
Post reply on HN