Massachusetts Will Tax Ride-Sharing Companies To Subsidize Taxis (reuters.com)

Massachusetts will tax ride-sharing services -- 20 cents for each ride -- with 25% of the money raised going into a special fund for the taxi industry (according to an article shared by schwit1 ). Reuters reports: Ride services are not enthusiastic about the fee. "I don't think we should be in the business of subsidizing potential competitors," said Kirill Evdakov, the chief executive of Fasten, a ride service that launched in Boston last year and also operates in Austin, Texas. Some taxi owners wanted the law to go further, perhaps banning the start-up competitors unless they meet the requirements taxis do, such as regular vehicle inspection by the police...

The fee may raise millions of dollars a year because Lyft and Uber alone have a combined 2.5 million rides per month in Massachusetts... The 5-cent fee will be collected through the end of 2021. Then the taxi subsidy will disappear and the 20 cents will be split by localities and the state for five years. The whole fee will go away at the end of 2026.
Republican Governor Charlie Baker signed the law, which specifically bans ride-sharing services from passing those costs on to their drivers or riders. And the article notes that Taiwan has also hit Uber with a $6.4 million tax bill, while Seattle has passed a new law allowing ride-sharing drivers to unionize.

Comments

What is it that you say?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're not a taxi service but taxis are potential competitors. Are the like of Uber and Lyft starting to drop the veneer that they don't occupy the same service space as taxi companies? Or are they going to continue with the double speak?

Re:What is it that you say?

[tlambert]

You're not a taxi service but taxis are potential competitors. Are the like of Uber and Lyft starting to drop the veneer that they don't occupy the same service space as taxi companies?

I imagine they are saying that if a taxi see someone standing there waiting for an Uber, they might try to "vulch" the customer, and steal it from the Uber driver already en route.

While it is currently illegal for Uber drivers to do the same to taxis, since they would then have to be fully compliant with taxi regulations.

For example, it's also illegal for Town Car operators to pick up people at the San Francisco Airport who are waiting for transport, unless they specifically called the Town Car company, even though both the people and the Town Car are there, the Town Car's fare's flight got delayed or cancelled, and there are not Taxis in sight.

So yes: Taxi's potentially compete with Uber (and Town Cars), but Uber (and Town Cars) does not compete with ad hoc taxi service.

Re:What is it that you say?

[Anonymous Coward]

This just means that Taxi services aren't providing the service that customers want. The solution is for Taxi companies to adapt or to push for any legal changes regarding their operations that will allow them to compete.

Taxing one private company for another's direct subsidy is just un-American.

Subsidizing Businesses....

[iCEBaLM]

This is like taxing car owners to subsidize stage coaches.

Re:Subsidizing Businesses....

[PeeAitchPee]

Go ahead and keep defending pathological douchebags like this guy. Medallion owners are speculative parasites and their chickens are coming home to roost, and they sooooo deserve it. Seriously, fuck them . . . couldn't happen to a more antisocial, greedier bunch of dicks.

Re:And if you believe that...

[Wycliffe]

Instead, the tolls are one way: you pay them, if you are a nasty, low income person coming from Emeryville into San Francisco, but not if you are a wonderful, high income person going from San Francisco to Emeryville.

The tolls are one-way because they know that 99.99% of people travel back to where they came from so instead of making people stop twice to pay the toll, it's more convenient for *everyone* to just collect it once.

Subsidies

[fyngyrz]

LMOL yes moron Uber competes with taxi service.

Sure. Any transport method that is used instead of another is competition. Walking, bicycles, private cars, motorcycles, skateboards, Segways, busses, subways, jitneys, hansoms, taxis, limos, Uber... all competitors that reduce opportunity for the others.

Anyway, the story is that Uber's earnings will be garnished to subsidize taxis. I wonder, would people approve if their bicycles and cars and so on were taxed specifically to subsidize taxis and/or other transportation methods?

It's fascinating to see the "this business has a right to exist, workable business model or not" attitude arise in a new space, and to watch the politicians be bought and sold accordingly.

Re:When it stops moving, subsidize it...

[EndlessNameless]

And all the laws that were designed to prevent banking meltdowns didn't stop the last meltdown

This is specifically not accurate.

The Glass-Steagall Act prevented major banking meltdowns since it was passed in the aftermath of the Great Depression. We're talking a 50-60 year track record of success.

The affiliation provisions were struck in 1999, and within a decade there was a major banking crisis. The seeds of that destruction were sown almost immediately after the law was changed. Because, surprise, banks are still run by short-sighted, overly "clever" assholes who will do anything to turn a quick buck.