Massachusetts to tax ride-hailing apps, give the money to taxis • Hacker News Board

Re: Massachusetts to tax ride-hailing apps, give the money to taxis

#431

Post by shitgoose » Sun, Aug 21, 2016, 2:08 PM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #331

Trundle wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many of them don't want to go back to school or get technical training... What do we tell the taxi and truck drivers when Uber shows up with self-drivers, etc.? Uhhh, how about "suck it up and do it anyway"? I know plenty of people on hn are all about the "making the world a better place" shtick and would work anyway/for the sake of it but for the vast majority of people work straight up means doing things you otherw…

> Uhhh, how about "suck it up and do it anyway"? You have it backwards. Humans have always had to suck it up because this is the default, natural state. But one would think in XXI century we could do better. That we can show some civilization, some compassion, instead of telling the unfortunate among us that they should suck it up. They're not our slaves to be forced into productive jobs, or resources to be used up a…

"They're not our slaves"

They are slaves, but not ours. Look at taxi drivers - they belong to unions and license owners. Those, in turn, have local governments as their masters - government protects their monopoly in exchange for fee/favours. The whole arrangement looks like old good slavery - drivers do not starve, accept current order and have no incentive to change anything. Now, here comes Uber! You would imagine that taxi drivers would jump at the opportunity to become their own boss, but ironically they became the most vicious defenders of current corrupt system, where their place is strictly at the bottom.

Re: Massachusetts to tax ride-hailing apps, give the money to taxis

#432

Post by tremendo » Sun, Aug 21, 2016, 2:12 PM UTC

Kodak and Polaroid should have thought of that. Get governments to tax digital photography, cameras and memory cards, in order to save their business and all those jobs they provided (as opposed those newly created, because pfft!). Never mind any benefit to the paying public.

Re: Massachusetts to tax ride-hailing apps, give the money to taxis

#433

Post by CydeWeys » Sun, Aug 21, 2016, 2:13 PM UTC

morgante wrote: post #117

HillRat wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I'd like to see a dialectic about why income inequality increasing is bad, in of itself. One main issue is that income inequality decreases socioeconomic mobility by inflating the cost of scarce goods that improve earnings capabilities. So 4K TVs are cheaper but college tuition becomes unaffordable, because good universities and grad programs are valuable, scarce goods that the wealthy can outbid everyone else on. P…

> So 4K TVs are cheaper but college tuition becomes unaffordable, because good universities and grad programs are valuable, scarce goods that the wealthy can outbid everyone else on. Except that such goods are increasingly not priced via the market. If you're smart enough to get into an elite university, you don't have to worry about the cost. Full stop. That being said, I do think we have a societal responsibility t…

> If you're smart enough to get into an elite university, you don't have to worry about the cost. Full stop.

Absolutely not. Financial aid is dependent on parents' income and wealth, regardless of parents' willingness to actually bankroll said school. The cost is significant, rivaling the average annual gross household income, but worse because you pay high interest rates on top. Don't kid yourself, worrying about the cost dissuades lots of people.

Re: Massachusetts to tax ride-hailing apps, give the money to taxis

#434

Post by CydeWeys » Sun, Aug 21, 2016, 2:19 PM UTC

stale2002 wrote: post #178

Trundle wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll bite although this isn't the most researched of my opinions that's for sure. Humans happiness isn't concerned with absolute standard of living but more comparative standard of living. I don't mean just conscious comparison in a competitive manner, I mean in setting what counts as normal to our brains. Consider the standard of living we've obtained compared to what humans had for the vast majority of our 200 000…

No matter how much money you have, you can't buy a better coke. Income inequality is a misleading metric. I would argue that equality has vastly increased over the years. The rich don't really live much better lives than the middle class. Rich or poor we all have roofs over our heads, we all have access to relatively affordable methods of travel to get anywhere in the world in a day, we all use the same IPhones, watc…

> No matter how much money you have, you can't buy a better coke.

You absolutely can though. There are lots of premium soda brands out there on the market that cost significantly more than Coca-Cola that are made with better ingredients (such as real sugar, not HFCS), that are healthier for you, that use better artificial sugars, that have real flavoring so they don't need as much sugar to taste good (see GuS), etc. Or compare the homogenized product of "Simply Orange" (a Coca-Cola brand) to real non-additive orange juice that costs several times as much but is way more delicious. Or hell, look at how insanely expensive kombucha is ...

My point is that you are introducing a completely artificial rule by limiting things to Coca-Cola, when in fact there is an entire spectrum of drinks out there, and you can spend significantly more money to get a significantly better product. The very rich do not drink nearly as much Coca-Cola as the poor; they have the money to afford better options, and so they do.

Re: Massachusetts to tax ride-hailing apps, give the money to taxis

#435

Post by Houshalter » Sun, Aug 21, 2016, 2:23 PM UTC

acidburnNSA wrote: post #14

rev_bird wrote: post #2

This is a pretty surreal move: >The law says the money will help taxi businesses to adopt "new technologies and advanced service, safety and operational capabilities" and to support workforce development... [Larry Meister, manager of the Boston area's Independent Taxi Operator's Association] said the money could go toward improving a smartphone app his association has started using, or to other big needs. I'm not an…

I mostly agree with you, and I would have wholeheartedly agreed with you 2 weeks ago, but I just read a book ("Listen, Liberal" by Thomas Frank) that makes some interesting points about how liberals have shifted from representing working people to representing professionals, and to worshiping innovation. While free trade and disruptive technology is good for the professional class, it inherently increases inequality.…

The solution is a basic income, paid for by taking the rich and middle class. Not a basic income limited to taxi owners, paid for by taxing their competitors. Perhaps subsidies for schools and technical training so people can get better jobs easier.

This doesn't benefit poor people. Maybe a small handful of them. But it just raises the cost of transportation, a service the poor depend on as well.

Re: Massachusetts to tax ride-hailing apps, give the money to taxis

#436

Post by rubidium » Sun, Aug 21, 2016, 2:35 PM UTC

Houshalter wrote: post #435

acidburnNSA wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mostly agree with you, and I would have wholeheartedly agreed with you 2 weeks ago, but I just read a book ("Listen, Liberal" by Thomas Frank) that makes some interesting points about how liberals have shifted from representing working people to representing professionals, and to worshiping innovation. While free trade and disruptive technology is good for the professional class, it inherently increases inequality.…

The solution is a basic income, paid for by taking the rich and middle class. Not a basic income limited to taxi owners, paid for by taxing their competitors. Perhaps subsidies for schools and technical training so people can get better jobs easier. This doesn't benefit poor people. Maybe a small handful of them. But it just raises the cost of transportation, a service the poor depend on as well.

Universal basic income is just communism 2.0. It's adapted for the sensitivities of the American middle and upper classes, who want to help the poor but only by giving money to make the problem go away.

Fundamental premise of UBI is everything is justly the property of the state. The state determines who should get what. Throw in a little capitalism and a little "I want to keep my upper-middle class life" and you get UBI. Everyone gets something, but those who make more get to keep some of that.

UBI in practice would likely lead to massive exploitation of the poor.

Re: Massachusetts to tax ride-hailing apps, give the money to taxis

#437

Post by FT_intern » Sun, Aug 21, 2016, 2:38 PM UTC

CydeWeys wrote: post #433

morgante wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So 4K TVs are cheaper but college tuition becomes unaffordable, because good universities and grad programs are valuable, scarce goods that the wealthy can outbid everyone else on. Except that such goods are increasingly not priced via the market. If you're smart enough to get into an elite university, you don't have to worry about the cost. Full stop. That being said, I do think we have a societal responsibility t…

> If you're smart enough to get into an elite university, you don't have to worry about the cost. Full stop. Absolutely not. Financial aid is dependent on parents' income and wealth, regardless of parents' willingness to actually bankroll said school. The cost is significant, rivaling the average annual gross household income, but worse because you pay high interest rates on top. Don't kid yourself, worrying about th…

if you're smart enough to get into an elite university, you're smart enough to get a full ride at an upper tier but not elite university.

And if your parents had a high enough income where you had to pay full tuition, then you already enjoyed an upper middle class upbringing.

It's a slight disadvantage and not the difference between going to Harvard and not going to college at all.

Re: Massachusetts to tax ride-hailing apps, give the money to taxis

#438

Post by Houshalter » Sun, Aug 21, 2016, 2:46 PM UTC

rubidium wrote: post #436

Houshalter wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The solution is a basic income, paid for by taking the rich and middle class. Not a basic income limited to taxi owners, paid for by taxing their competitors. Perhaps subsidies for schools and technical training so people can get better jobs easier. This doesn't benefit poor people. Maybe a small handful of them. But it just raises the cost of transportation, a service the poor depend on as well.

Universal basic income is just communism 2.0. It's adapted for the sensitivities of the American middle and upper classes, who want to help the poor but only by giving money to make the problem go away. Fundamental premise of UBI is everything is justly the property of the state. The state determines who should get what. Throw in a little capitalism and a little "I want to keep my upper-middle class life" and you get…

It is socialism, and that's great. The problem with communism was that central planning sucks, a lot. Basic income keeps efficient free markets, it just distributes the benefits to everyone, instead of just the rich.

>UBI in practice would likely lead to massive exploitation of the poor.

What a bunch of nonsense. The poor massively benefit from UBI. What are you even talking about.

Re: Massachusetts to tax ride-hailing apps, give the money to taxis

#439

Post by brianwawok » Sun, Aug 21, 2016, 2:46 PM UTC

morgante wrote: post #186

civilian wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's one thing when a billionaire gives away their money and are able to direct it at the charities they want. It's another thing when it's taxed and coordinated by the government. The United States government has the bias just as you showed-- to help the american people. But most of these tech billionaires recognize that it's imperative that we help all people, regardless of where they were born. It's why I'd rather…

Yes, I personally would prefer to redistribute internationally (and hence that's where all my personal donations go) but from conversations I've recognized that it's politically unpalatable to the vast majority of Americans. The vast majority of people somehow think that their fellow Americans are more deserving than the international poor (and will quite strenuously argue that things like having toys for local kids…

Except say you can donate to a nonprofit, write it off, and that non profit can pay your kid an inflated salary to sit on the board. Happening right now to a presidential candidate.

Re: Massachusetts to tax ride-hailing apps, give the money to taxis

#440

Post by mannykannot » Sun, Aug 21, 2016, 2:46 PM UTC

shitgoose wrote: post #431

TeMPOraL wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Uhhh, how about "suck it up and do it anyway"? You have it backwards. Humans have always had to suck it up because this is the default, natural state. But one would think in XXI century we could do better. That we can show some civilization, some compassion, instead of telling the unfortunate among us that they should suck it up. They're not our slaves to be forced into productive jobs, or resources to be used up a…

"They're not our slaves" They are slaves, but not ours. Look at taxi drivers - they belong to unions and license owners. Those, in turn, have local governments as their masters - government protects their monopoly in exchange for fee/favours. The whole arrangement looks like old good slavery - drivers do not starve, accept current order and have no incentive to change anything. Now, here comes Uber! You would imagine…

Uber drivers are not, in any meaningful sense, their own bosses. Whether working for Uber or for a medallion holder, their place is, unfortunately, strictly at the bottom (maybe not so much in London.)