Brazil's Biggest City Wants To Charge Fees For Uber Rides (engadget.com)

An anonymous reader sends word that Sao Paulo's city hall has proposed levying fees on Uber to operate in the city. Engadget reports: "Many cities try to limit or ban ridesharing services like Uber, but Sao Paulo is trying an uncommon strategy to keep the companies in check: skimming a little off the top. The major Brazilian city has proposed a requirement these services have to buy government credits to cover their distance traveled, with rates changing based on when and where the trip takes place. App makers would also have to support a service that picks up multiple passengers headed in the same direction, although that won't be hard when options like UberPool already exist."

Comments

Sounds like a good idea

[WillAffleckUW]

And if Uber doesn't pay the fees, jail the executives.

Re:Sounds like a good idea

[amiga3D]

They tax everyone else, why should Uber get a free ride?

Re:Sounds like a good idea

[vivian]

The Uber drivers are already paying registration fees, and fuel taxes, which are proportional to mileage, not to mention income tax just like everyone else on the revenue they earn - and that revenue is 100% trackable because it's all electronic - unlike cash - so there's no tax dodging, which can happen with directly negotiated taxi rides. (eg. I'll give you $30 bucks to take me down town - no meter)

In addition Uber (and taxis) helps support the entertainment and tourism industry - the main reason to get a taxi is because you can't drive - either because you are cashed up but don't have a car (eg tourist) or because you want to enjoy a few drinks at the bar / restaurant / friend's party, and are responsibly choosing not to drink and drive.
  In the latter two cases, if you drove yourself you would be spending less on alcohol resulting in overall lower income collected by the restaurant and lower tax revenue collected by the state. Taxi services and Uber actually allow the state to collect greater revenue just by existing, than if they didn't - and the restaurant / bar / entertainment industry should be rallying behind them to make it more affordable for people to get to their businesses for a nig

Sharing?

[Anonymous Coward]

ridesharing services like Uber

What's being shared exactly? There is no sharing. People pay money for the services rendered by taxi companies like Uber.

Re:That word...

[rmdingler]

Legalization of a thing previously deemed unsavory or immoral is made proportionately more likely by the ability it has to fill government coffers.

Can we get rid of the "ridesharing" falsehood?

[dbIII]

One very creepy business practice of Uber is to use the word "ridesharing" to pretend it is casual hitch-hiking of people already going in a direction instead of the taxi service done as piecework that it really is. There are political reasons for this falsehood to evade laws and fees, perhaps unjust laws and fees, but even if they are that is no reason for us to pretend that they are "ridesharing" instead of how it actually operates. Why should we be propagating PR bullshit instead of discussing it in terms of reality? It's like calling a mail order scam a religion.

Re:Don't existing taxes cover the things uber does

[drinkypoo]

If you operate your personal car as a commercial vehicle or taxi then you do a LOT more distance and pollute and break down roads accordingly.

Bullshit. Virtually all road damage is done by heavy trucks, or by nature (weather, tree roots, inadequate road beds) and practically none of it is done by passenger vehicles. The only time passenger vehicles cause perceptible damage is when they hit a pothole, but they don't make potholes. Inadequate road beds do that. Tree roots and animals in the inadequate road beds do that. If you think cars are damaging a road, what's actually happening is that you paid for a shitty road. You were robbed by your city, which probably knowingly paid for inferior roads while someone got a kickback.

You also set up a number of risks therefore taxing the first responder and similar infrastructure harder.

But that's true whether you collect money or not. By that logic, anyone who transports passengers and drives a lot of miles should have to pay more. It should not matter whether they are collecting money for the privilege.

It also voids most extended warranties as they do not want to cover the maintenance for the 100,000km/year a taxi vehicle may do.

Warranties already run out in a number of years or units of distance, whichever is shorter. Just like all the other "problems" which are allegedly "caused" by taxi service in particular (which are actually caused more by people driving themselves) this is another non-problem that is already covered by existing systems, and nothing special need be done for hire vehicles.