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.
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:
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
...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...
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.
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.