Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
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?
This is like taxing car owners to subsidize stage coaches.
> The whole fee will go away at the end of 2026.
If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.
Real lawyers write in C++
How do they ban the passing of the costs to drivers or passengers? Or is the point just to prevent it being a line item like the taxes and fees on a phone bill so that voters don't get mad about seeing it?
This tax is a very small bone that was thrown to the taxi industry who wanted far more crippling regulation of their competition. The ride sharing companies won big in this law.
Uber is simply not engaged in "ride sharing". Ride sharing is when a driver is going to make a journey, and takes one or more people with them, in return for covering their costs on the way. No money is made, and the journey happens regardless of the extra people along for the ride.
Welcome to socialism.
"....bans ride-sharing services from passing those costs on to their drivers or riders."
What a bunch of bullshit. The government wants to tax them on a ride-by-ride basis, and the government also demands that the company eat the entire cost?
Taxes are bad enough without Big Brother sticking its fat nose into your business and telling you exactly how to pay them.
Indeed, and it is virtually unenforceable since the legislation involves no provision for the local governments to regulate ride-sharing fees. These smells more like an attempt to quell a legitimate objection by the ride share companies. "See, we stuck it to the evil upstart, and without raising the taxpayer burden a dime, we added a revenue stream!" Back-patting all around.
This has become a disheartening trend, both in your more socialist American and European States, as there become fewer pockets to pick to fund programs.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
In fact, if they levied a 50% per fare tax instead, then the Taxi company could just call an Uber for you.
:T:R:A:N:S:
To me it seems easier for Uber just to do the work required to fulfill a cities needs like the taxi services do. Contract some drivers to wait around like the taxis do, force them to go anywhere the fares need to go, have some cars that are up to taxi standards and regulation, and have a certain number of cars for the physically disabled. Then the whole issue goes away.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Perhaps you'd enjoy learning more about Massachusetts, starting with the composition of its legislative bodies. Hint: they are overwhelmingly populated by Democrats. Please feel free to contribute more disingenuous soundbites to the discussion. -PCP
It's bullshit. Of course they can't prevent it. They can prohibit passing on the tax as an enumerated line item, and maybe make that stick,but there's no way in hell they can stop uber from just raising its rates by ... gee ... just HAPPENS to be the same amount as the tax.
They do this with gas stations. Gas stations are prohibited from enumerating on their signage the taxes which the corrupt statist pigs are saddling you with.
...I am biased, but there is logic behind my bias.
Municipalities require licensing for taxi services because the taxi drivers are conducting the actual business transaction -- agreeing to transport the customer for a price, whether pre-agreed or subject to a meter reading, at the point of pickup within the municipality.
Most municipalities also require background checks for the drivers and company owners, and have safety requirements for the vehicles, as [a means to ensure customer safety | a revenue generator].
Passengers, however, are unscreened and unknown. They might come in from a phone call, or they might hail a taxi on the street.
Most of the risk, both financial and otherwise, falls on the drivers.
So, along come Uber, Lyft and their ilk, conducting the transactions online (thus, outside the municipality) and essentially reversing the standard cabbie/passenger dynamic: the passengers are pre-identified (to sign up, they needed a cell phone, a credit card and a valid address to go with it), and the drivers are unknown (except to the companies, which do little or no effective screening). The vehicles used are unlikely to meet the requirements for taxi use, and are often flat-out unsafe for drivers, passengers, or bystanders.
The companies start doing business anywhere they like, and fight against the requirements -- only if challenged -- with funds from their financial backers.
Municipalities are not happy about this, for both safety and financial reasons. Taxi owners and drivers, most of whom have invested considerable time and money to clear regulatory hurdles, are understandably upset at this end run around the law.
Imagine if Internet gun sellers showed up doing business in NYC or Washington, D.C. and claimed similar exemption from the local (highly restrictive) laws...
That provision is in there to prevent the ride sharing companies from putting the line "Charlie Baker Tax $0.20" on the receipts. It is obvious to everyone that these $0.20 will be coming from the customer, because Lyft doesn't actually print money, but the moment they expllicitly admit in writing that this is the case they are in vioation of the law.
Charlie Baker protecting his own ass in other words, making sure it's illegal to tell the voter why Lyft prices have gone up ever so slightly.
sigs are hazardous to your health
They can't really ban them from passing on this cost. Unregulated taxi companies like Uber are free to set their price, which is part of what make them different from actual taxis.
What they don't want is the tax to appear anywhere in the bill or driver contract. It is a form of consumer and driver protection, they don't want the ride to become a confusing "$10 + tax", but I don't see how they can't prevent the price from being "$10.20". And for the drivers, Uber can't just add 0.20$ per trip to the commission without first renegotiating the contracts, something that the drivers can probably refuse to do since "because taxes" cannot be used as a reason.
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.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
I would postulate that ANY law that is technologically, or business specific is bad legislation, because the regulated entities will simply find a way to route around the inefficiencies created by "there ought to be a law" proponents.
California just recently passed a law regarding "bullet buttons" on rifles. It accomplished NOTHING, because the way the law was written, it was easily routed around. So, while the Specifics of the law made those SPECIFIC modifications to the weapon illegal, the industry quickly made changes to bypass the law, and now, we have new and improved "bullet button" solutions that get around the specifics of the law. The law solved NOTHING, while making law abiding citizens criminals for no other reason than "There ought to be a law" that was passed.
And all the laws that were designed to prevent banking meltdowns didn't stop the last meltdown, and now we have more laws that won't stop the next one. Instead of creating new laws, how about tossing people in jail for actual criminal behavior. I am sure we could toss a few Bankers in jail for committing fraud for their schemes to rip people off.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
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.
---
According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
I'd love to know how this was enforced or failed to be enforced.
I can see something like:
"Clause 69: The Telecommunications Widget Freedom Tax may not be identified or listed as a line item on any telecommunications bill."
Telecom Bill: Government Freedom Tax For Widgets...$1.97
Regulator: You can't list that on the bill.
Telco: We don't list the tax by its actual name, just a tax of a similar sounding name. Oh, and First Amendment protects our speech to our customers.