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

71–80 of 185 posts

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

#71

Post by briandear »

kazinator wrote: post #56
stormbrew wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Source on the CRA not allowing cabbies to be contractors? Because as far as I know they almost universally are. Either to the owner of the cab they drive or to the dispatcher.

If cabbies are contractors, there is still the question of who handles the rider's money. I'm a software development contractor myself. But I don't handle the revenue of the company or companies I work for, from their customers. So the GST on that revenue is none of my business at all. Similarly, a cab company could operate such that cabbies are contractors, but the company collects the fares, and then pays the cabbi…

Taxi drivers (at least in many places,) must use taxi company provided credit card machines and taxi payment processors and then pay the taxi company a fee for that processing. So the taxi company gets the money first and the statement charge is "Yellow Cab" not "Ricky Smith Taxi"

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

#72

Post by prolly_a_moron »

problems wrote: post #45
MattRix wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now imagine that Microsoft Word was being used to do the selling and payment processing of those documents and it starts to make more sense...

Uber is essentially just a matcher and payment processor that takes a cut, they don't own vehicles or employ drivers - will they only have to pay taxes on their cut?

>Uber is essentially just a matcher and payment processor that takes a cut, they don't own vehicles or employ drivers

That's the story their PR spins. Luckily they don't make the laws.

You think this idea of, "He's not my employee, he's a contractor!" as a way to avoid employer obligations is new? That's a laugh, and it's the reason these laws exist.

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

#73

Post by run4yourlives2 »

jmcdiesel wrote: post #52

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.

Until someone gets driven 60 miles out of town on the way to the airport and left there unless they have a "special" fee...

It's almost as if these regulations were put in place for a reason.

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

#74

Post by pyrale »

thrill wrote: post #15
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…

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.

> because we can't have "hobby" businesses causing discomfort to the well connected.

When this sentence is used by the well-connected elite of the best-funded region in the world, somewhere, the world's tiniest orchestra plays a sad tune on the world's tiniest instruments.

Seriously, guys ~~

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

#75

Post by johnrob »

jmcdiesel wrote: post #68
chx wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Driving someone around shouldn't be so complicated. Personal safety gets involved, big time, when driving someone around.

Does the safety somehow diminish when you pay for the ride? 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 pr…

Yes. In the ride business, speed = money. Bad incentive.

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

#76

Post by thaumasiotes »

ribosometronome wrote: post #35
Svexark wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I buy a book from Amazon, I pay Amazon, not the seller. Therefore, the seller is an employee of Amazon.

When you buy a book from a seller on Amazon, who sets the price?

Just as you'd expect if Amazon was a physical bookstore - the store sets the price. Did you think authors were employees of Barnes and Noble?

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

#77

Post by ghostly_s »

tensor wrote: post #27
flamedoge wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We need a Canadian Taxi hailing app. We can make it.

You mean like this? http://www.itbusiness.ca/news/canadian-alternative-to-uber-l... Sadly it doesn't address any of the problems with cabs in Toronto. 1. Cabs won't take credit cards by claiming "the machine is broken" when it's not, presumably so that they can avoid reporting tips or fees, or they might just skim your card. 2. Cabs are too expensive. 3. Cabs might not even take you if they figure the ride isn't wort…

You may be shocked to learn these exact problems exist with cab companies everywhere in the US, too.

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

#78

Post by run4yourlives2 »

problems wrote: post #45
MattRix wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now imagine that Microsoft Word was being used to do the selling and payment processing of those documents and it starts to make more sense...

Uber is essentially just a matcher and payment processor that takes a cut, they don't own vehicles or employ drivers - will they only have to pay taxes on their cut?

The consumer pays Uber. That is the point of sale. That is where the sales tax is collected. This isn't rocket science.

To your - bad - analogy: If MS was selling templates created in word by you to a marketplace, you can bet that GST would be paid on them by the consumer to MS.

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

#79

Post by ghostly_s »

tn13 wrote: post #65

What I would have preferred is that Canada removing the burden off the taxi companies and let them give competition to Uber in innovation space instead of trying to bribe politicians to act as gatekeepers.

Would you like to point to any precedents for 'unburdened' cab markets which have resulted in better service?

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

#80

Post by narrowrail »

peeters wrote: post #33
thrill wrote: post #15

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.

I used to work for Landstar[0], which operates in a very similar way to Uber, but in the trucking industry. The company has been around for almost 30 years and the drivers are considered Owner-Operators[1] (i.e. contractors). I was under the impression that an Uber driver could choose not to take any given fare(just like our truckers could). There seems to be some irrationality when it comes to Uber among my fellow engineers, and I can't figure out why.

[To be clear: I've never used Uber nor would I generally consider it over my local 'trolley' in the ~35K population town in which I live.]

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landstar_System

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owner-operator

Post reply on HN