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

#451

Post by guptaneil » Sun, Aug 21, 2016, 3:26 PM UTC

na85 wrote: post #398

deanCommie wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look, I hate cabs too. I hate having to tell the driver where to drop me off because they never use GPS. I hate feeling like a lowlife for wanting to pay by credit card because I never have cash. And I hate how expensive cabs are. But let's not forget that most taxi drivers are themselves far from well off. It is a working class gig, with a heavy representation from new immigrants. It's long hours, it's physically dr…

So we should prop up the robber barons running the shitty industry just to save the little guys who don't want to do something else?

I'm against propping up a dying industry by taxing the disrupters because it sets a terrible precedent. (Will Tesla be taxed to prop up oil companies in 10 years?) But to say taxi drivers don't want to do something else is unfair. Many drivers sunk all of their savings into buying a taxi medallion, assuming it would hold its value, and now live day to day on their earnings. Uber/Lyft have destroyed the value of the medallion, essentially wiping out the "little guy's" investment over night. Yes, life's unfair but as a compassionate society, can we do something to help them?

I'm more ok with the taxi businesses themselves going out of business for failing to innovate and getting themselves disrupted. That's on them. However, it does leave another problem... Taxi companies are heavily regulated for a reason. For example, they are required to offer services for disabled people at no extra charge. As far as I know, Uber/Lyft are under no such obligation and do nothing to accommodate the disabled. When taxi companies go away, what happens to that entire group of people?

One solution might be to classify ride-hailing apps as taxi companies as well and apply the same regulations. This also allows taxi companies to compete on a level playing field.

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

#452

Post by vidarh » Sun, Aug 21, 2016, 3:39 PM UTC

150latefees wrote: post #422

vidarh wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you're smart enough to get into an elite university, you don't have to worry about the cost. Full stop. This presupposes that you are already in a social position that allows your intelligence to be recognised and that puts you in a position to even apply, or know that applying is an option.

I cannot emphasize enough how true this is. Growing up as rural poor, it was an alien concept to me that there were tiers of colleges with different academic specializations. College was just a single monolithic concept to my people. If you were learned real good, and pass that big test, you could be admitted to college just like all those kids who lived closer to town. There was no difference in our minds between th…

As one of the "hordes of whites", who grew up in a family of academics - 3 professors amongst my aunts and uncles; and pretty much "everyone" with at least a bachelor and often masters - even then it is not a given that you will consider an elite university.

I never thought about it. I considered ETH Zurich for a while because Niklaus Wirth is a legend in language development, but without any real idea of how it measured up as a school. In the end I stayed in Norway for university. I don't regret it, per se, but understanding the difference more later was a very strong eye opener for me when it comes to how much of social stratification is not really down to money but more broadly background and expectations.

It takes a very specific background before elite universities will even be on your radar, and a subset of that for you to believe it to be possible, and a subset of that for you to see it as the norm and what is expected of you. And then that needs to intersect with the understanding of your family to either pay or put in the effort to look for other ways of getting in.

Some portion of those will not be rich, sure. There are lots of options. Most top universities are good about grants and bursaries. But proportionally, a far larger proportion of children of wealthy families will go to top universities.

And this is a large part (but not all) of what "privilege" is really about: To grow up in an environment that teaches you to expect certain things that is not even on the radar of others.

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

#453

Post by acidburnNSA » Sun, Aug 21, 2016, 3:55 PM UTC

aidenn0 wrote: post #446

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.…

We are never bringing manufacturing jobs back without becoming completely isolationist. A lot of manufacturing has started to move back to the US in the last decade, but it hasn't created very many jobs, because the product lines that get moved back to the US are the ones that can be automated; i.e. those products for which the cost of labor is very small relative to the margins for the product. We would have to drop…

Also, if you consider inequality from a global perspective, it's good for people to be sending domestic money overseas.

But (as the author Thomas Frank writes) we didn't have to enter NAFTA or the TPP. There might be somewhere between pure isolationism and pure free trade that makes a bit more sense and can ease the worries of the millions whose jobs are becoming ephemeral.

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

#454

Post by ajosh » Sun, Aug 21, 2016, 3:57 PM UTC

102310201 wrote: post #391

jwallaceparker wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The analogy most certainly does not fail at closer inspection. Do you disavow all innovation? Does innovation render people who don't have degrees useless? Certainly not. Quite the contrary, innovation makes them more productive and increases their wage earning ability.

Your premise is wrong: There hardly is any innovation. At least in Europe I've never had any kind of trouble just picking up the phone and, you know, getting a competent cab driver very quickly. But The U.S. seems to be some third world country that can manufacture nukes and computers but is unable to get the most basic things right. This apparently applies to banking, the electricity grid, health care and lots of ot…

First of all, calling the US a third world country us a but much. It has its problems but so does everywhere else.

In the US, I've never had trouble calling to get a taxi. Radio dispatched taxis have been available as long as I can remember everywhere I've lived. Uber is somewhat more convenient because GPS gives my exact location and it lets the driver contact me easily. It's not something crazy innovation but it is easier.

I'm not sure what you're talking about with electricity. The grid is generally reliable though it could stand to be put underground in many areas.

We are behind in banking to be sure but a lot of that has to do with demand and consumer protection laws. No one is screaming for a more secure card when fraud liability is limited to $50 by law and is $0 in practice at most banks.

Healthcare could use an overhaul to be sure. Outcomes and costs are not in line with where they should be. That isn't to say that it us terrible, just that the system needs improvement.

Most of these companies aren't truing to overcome bad. They are trying to overcome good enough.

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

#455

Post by infinite8s » Sun, Aug 21, 2016, 4:10 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #448

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well said. Its part of the 'enclosure' trend going on for 300 years. When folks can't live independent of capitalist job-seeking, they are essentially wage-slaves. Used to be you could just trap a brace of rabbits for the pot, weave your own cloth, wait for a better paying job. Society changed. This is why I favor a GBI - its reinstating the idea of the 'commons' where folks could say no to low-paying jobs.

Why can't you still do that? From what I can tell, land in Detroit or Appalachia is pretty cheap - nothing prevents you from trapping rabbits or weaving your own cloth there. The reason people don't do this is that as wealth has increased, being a wage slave or welfare queen (the modern equivalent seems to be disability fraud king) has become vastly more attractive.

You can't pay taxes with rabbits and hand made clothes.

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

#456

Post by canjobear » Sun, Aug 21, 2016, 4:12 PM UTC

function_seven wrote: post #77

maverick_iceman wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One Bus Away was developed by University of Washington students, not government bureaucrats.

That's not really relevant to the GGP comment, though. The government can take the tax money and contract out the development work on an app. Or use cheap student labor.

But they can't contract the work out to anyone they want. There are strong regulations on how the government can contract work, which are often a proximate cause of poor quality.

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

#457

Post by JoeAltmaier » Sun, Aug 21, 2016, 4:14 PM UTC

infinite8s wrote: post #455

yummyfajitas wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why can't you still do that? From what I can tell, land in Detroit or Appalachia is pretty cheap - nothing prevents you from trapping rabbits or weaving your own cloth there. The reason people don't do this is that as wealth has increased, being a wage slave or welfare queen (the modern equivalent seems to be disability fraud king) has become vastly more attractive.

You can't pay taxes with rabbits and hand made clothes.

There are neither income taxes nor property taxes to be paid on rabbits or handmade items.

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

#458

Post by maverick_iceman » Sun, Aug 21, 2016, 4:26 PM UTC

angry-hacker wrote: post #343

fastball wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The app changes. That's what is so great about the fluidity of Uber, without medallions and regulation and such. If Uber starts to increase prices because they have a monopoly, a lone person can build an app that's cheaper.

In theory, yes, but you need to convince all the drivers and customers to install and use that app. A lone person can create a new twitter and facebook too, it doesn't mean anyone is using it. I'm sure there are lone builders popping up every day. Is anyone using it, is there competition? - no.

Why not? In Austin after the exit of Uber and Lyft there are still multiple ride sharing options.

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

#459

Post by maverick_iceman » Sun, Aug 21, 2016, 4:32 PM UTC

stephenr wrote: post #181

Malician wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except this doesn't actually happen. I have always had much better cars riding in Uber, much better service, and felt safer, too. There is nothing good about cabs. I have a list of cab horror stories long as my arm.

So your argument is basically: the law says X must happen. X doesn't happen, so laws are inherently bad. Why are Americans so uniquely able to have terrible implementations of things and just treat the idea in general as the fault, not the implementation.

“One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.” ― Milton Friedman

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

#460

Post by JamesBarney » Sun, Aug 21, 2016, 4:34 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.…

First I doubt all of this money is going to the actual taxi drivers themselves. I would bet a large portion of it is going to taxi cab owners, and taxi companies.

Second, of all the poor people in the U.S. that need money why select "taxi drivers" as the category to advantage?

I identify as a liberal. But of all the ways to help people, writing checks to taxi companies and hoping it filters down to taxi drivers is the silliest and most inefficient way I can think of to accomplish this goal. Instead just write checks to poor people. Who cares if they can't work because they used to be a manufacturer, a taxi driver, or just because they don't have the emotional/intellectual/social ability to compete in a 21st century workforce.