61–70 of 185 posts
All of this Uber/Lyft stuff has me wondering... Instead of making it harder to be an Uber/Lyft to match Taxis, why not make it easier to be a taxi? Driving someone around shouldn't be so complicated. Regulation, when necessary, is good... but most of what I see around taxi regulation is just money gouging on the part of the state.
Personal safety gets involved, big time, when driving someone around.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Uber drivers are not employees. They are independent contractors. Uber, as part of their service, collects money from riders, giving both the rider and the driver a comfort factor as they don't have to deal with cash. As "hobby" businesses they each individually were enjoying the exemption. Now they will not - because we can't have "hobby" businesses causing discomfort to the well connected.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ironically, this is something cab companies probably don't want. It'd be cutting off their nose to spite their face. Most cabbies are also contractors and in fact pay to use the cabs they drive on a daily basis. It would wreck the cab industry if dispatch companies (to which cabs are exclusively tied) had to make all their drivers employees.
And good riddance, the cab industry has long been problematic in its own way, with its own worker abuse issues and non-competition problems. Disliking uber doesn't mean supporting cab medallion owners.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Uber drivers are not employees. They are independent contractors. Uber, as part of their service, collects money from riders, giving both the rider and the driver a comfort factor as they don't have to deal with cash. As "hobby" businesses they each individually were enjoying the exemption. Now they will not - because we can't have "hobby" businesses causing discomfort to the well connected.
Naa, that's bullshit. I download the Uber app, Uber finds me a ride, Uber sets the price, Uber charges me, and I pay Uber. Uber should be collecting GST/sales tax. I don't understand how else you could look at it! Uber is essentially doing the same thing here in Australia and the courts are getting involved to make a ruling.
The consumer is paying Uber. Whether Uber uses employees, contractors, clockwork automatons or aliens to provide their service is irrelevant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Stripe, Square? What makes Uber different from payment processors with built in fraud protection layers?
Consumers never buy anything from Stripe or Square. Consumer buy ride services from Uber.
All of this Uber/Lyft stuff has me wondering... Instead of making it harder to be an Uber/Lyft to match Taxis, why not make it easier to be a taxi? Driving someone around shouldn't be so complicated. Regulation, when necessary, is good... but most of what I see around taxi regulation is just money gouging on the part of the state.
> Driving someone around shouldn't be so complicated. Personal safety gets involved, big time, when driving someone around.
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 pragmatic standpoint, what is different about the experience that requires all the extra crap?
For example, in many cities where they were losing the legal fight, Uber offered free rides... and were legally allowed to do so, because they weren't charging the customer. Explain to me what was different in that scenario that made it any safer for the passengers?
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…
Yes, in fact that is how it works. If multiple independent contractors work for some firm, they each get their 30,000 exemption (if eligible) as individual sole proprietors of their individual businesses. They have their own business numbers and GST accounts which are considered individually. Contractors are considered employees in some ways and not in others. This is mainly under labor ("labour", here in Canada) law…
Consumers contract with Uber, and pay Uber. So from what I can see, Uber should be collecting, for itself.
Why not just cut GST for everybody? Instead of taxing Uber more, tax taxis less. Drivers and Uber still pay income taxes, fuel taxes, relevant tolls right? If they want to simplify taxes -- as they claim, the best way to simplify is simply to eliminate. Lower fares mean more revenue for drivers and Uber and thus more income taxes collected. Removing taxes from goods, means lower prices which means you sell more and t…
Because consumption taxes are the most efficient form of taxation. You want a private chauffeur? Pay up.
>Lower fares mean more revenue for drivers and Uber
Huh? Only if the driver is working a lot harder.