Slashdot Mirror
Canada To Tax Ride-Sharing Providers Like Uber (www.cbc.ca)
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his government announced plans to tax ride-sharing providers like Uber for the first time. According to CBC, the latest consumer tax changes included in Wednesday's federal budget "will add to the cost of Uber rides while ending a public-transit credit." The idea behind the decision is to "help level the playing field and create tax fairness." From the report: The proposed levy on Uber and other ride-hailing services would for the first time impose GST/HST on fares, in the same way they are charged on traditional taxi services. The change will broaden the definition of a taxi business to ensure Uber and other web-based ride-hailing services are required to charge and remit GST/HST, adding to the cost of each trip. The effect on federal revenues will be modest, just $3 million in additional revenue in 2017-18, but the budget suggests the measure is to help level the playing field and create tax fairness. The non-refundable public transit tax credit -- a so-called boutique tax credit introduced by the previous Conservative government -- will be phased out on July 1. The credit enabled public transit users to apply 15 per cent of their eligible expenses on monthly passes and other fares toward reducing the amount of tax they owe. Ending that tax break is expected to save Ottawa more than $200 million a year. Of course, Uber Canada isn't so fond of the idea, calling it a "tax on innovation" that would hurt Uber drivers and users. The company said in a statement: "At a time when Canadians spend far too much time stuck in traffic -- and people should be encouraged to leave their cars at home, take public transit, and share rides -- we should be supporting policies that make sustainable transportation more affordable, not more expensive. Federal tax laws already offer small business owners a break on collecting sales tax, but unfairly exclude taxi drivers. The best way to support taxi drivers and level the playing field is to extend the same exemption to them."
There is no "ride sharing", it's ride selling. If you want one of my cookies and I sell it to you, am I sharing it? No.
the bottom line for most monetary exchanges resolves itself once taxes are applied
>Federal tax laws already offer small business owners a break on collecting sales tax, but unfairly exclude taxi drivers. The best way to support taxi drivers and level the playing field is to extend the same exemption to them."
This is because the taxi driver's an employee everywhere but on paper. Uber's model is to exploit the system (which is good for cracking the cab licencing scheme but no better for tax collection and worse for the drivers).
If those drivers had resources (and at their wages they'll never save up enough to do anything), they could get together and pay some other entity to handle dispatching them, pay another entity to handle the money, and a third to vet drivers and vehicles. Keep 'em separate so they can't collude against the drivers.
But what really needs to be done is to reform the cab licencing systems.
A car is not an alternative method of transport to a car.
All that solves is a parking issue.
The tax credit on public transit passes was useless for the majority of people who would even be eligible to claim it. It would have no effect and would be equal to not claiming it at all.
Taxing a taxi service that claims it isn't is a great way to promote alternative methods of transportation.
Tax drivers are hard workers that are typically supporting families while Uber drivers are people wealthy enough to afford a new car in an urban area that want to make even more money.
Taxi drivers are merely minions to Big Taxi Corp who have generally hoarded medallions, and now pressure the system to keep their profitable business profitable.
Do you have evidence of this that you can present?
Table-ized A.I.
Canada, like any other modern society, has a social safety net to ensure that citizens who need help can get it. This requires funding and participation from everyone involved, and ultimately leads to a net benefit for all of Canadian society.
If you don't want to participate in our society, then please, go away. A Canadian company will happily replace you considering how popular Uber is in Canada.
Even taxi companies have finally started to get it. Example: http://teomtl.com/en/ - this is essentially an Uber clone, but is a legitimate taxi service with licensed taxi drivers. It is of course slightly more expensive as the rates are set by the provincial government, but you get everything Uber offers, and then some.
So good luck telling Canadians "fuck you"!
Even worse, using Uber increases congestion. The time an Uber vehicle spends on the road without a client is "congestion overhead" that would not otherwise not occur if the client drove their own car. Uber definitely helps with parking issues but that is about it. One could argue that it helps keep larger vehicles and trucks off the road but I do not know many truck drivers that would use Uber as an alternative to their truck. Some statistics with regards to this would be interesting.
The only innovation is new ways of taking money out of the economy and sticking it in foreign bank accounts. Uber is a bad deal for the drivers and a worse deal for the places where they operate. 'You want to tax us for the wear and tear on your roads? Nonsense. All your money belongs to us and it ain't going to pay for roads we need.' Once they get rid of the drivers they will take even more money out of the system.
Uber's rules. You need to live in an area they service (the urban part), have a car (wealthy part), and the car has to be fairly new (the new part).
> Good. Uber destroys families
Taxi drivers destroyed the families of the horse and carriage industry!
#logicfail
No trees were killed in the making of this post; however, many trillions of electrons were horribly inconvenienced.
No matter how bad you make it sound, it's still better than where we are headed with Uber.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Quite a few of my acquaintances have switched to using Lyft because of Uber's toxicity. But all the Uber drivers around here are also Lyft drivers.
Not that Lyft is allegedly much better. Apparently they're all a bunch of assholes.
uber is does pay airport fees like taxes in usa
If Uber is limiting its customer base, that's good for traditional taxi co's: Uber is leaving many markets untouched.
Table-ized A.I.
There's a lot of money earmarked towards building public transit in the budget.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Fuck off Uber. Pay your fucking taxes like everyone else does.
In theory, taxation takes a percentage of all productivity and redirects it to the common good. That makes Regan's rule "Take a little from everywhere, and if it looks like it's killing something important, use some of the money taken elsewhere and give it to that thing".
Though meant as a joke, that seems like a decent guideline for funding a government... as long as you cap your taxation at 'enough to fund government programs' even if things keep moving briskly despite what you're already taking.
The regulation part is kind of silly. That's part and parcel of the taxation - you have to define something to tax it, then find new definition for the stuff that falls outside the initial ones, etc.
This is a simple extension of existing GST laws. The law in question requires self-employed people or companies to register for a GST number, and to collect GST. Anyone self-employed who makes more than $50,000 MUST do this. Anyone who makes less than this can optionally register and begin charging and remitting GST, but anyone can do it at any income level. So Uber employees have to do this whether they make $50,000 or less, as a self-employed individual within a particular public sector.
This isn't a tax on innovation, this is Uber drivers being forced to charge/remit GST just like any other taxi service. As for the suggestion that Uber somehow saves people from being stuck in traffic or that Uber is somehow a more sustainable traffic option, nice fantasy world they got going there.
Just because Regan governed that way and Americans loved it, doesn't mean other governments act the same. Just looking at how he used capitalization shows how his mind didn't operate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
it's just a typical liberal move that says we know what's good for you better than you do, and now we're going to make you pay for it.
trudeau has to go. he never should have been elected. he's an absolute tard that gets off on spending taxpayer money on selfie trips.
In Canada, there is a value-added tax called the GST (goods and services tax). It is currently 5% https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Most businesses are required to register for GST, charge their customers GST and remit the collected tax to the govt.
If you are a small business (less than $30k annual revenue), you are not obligated to register.
BUT, there are some exceptions: http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/bs...
Taxi drivers authorized by provincial law (which is all of them) always had to register, regardless of sales volume.
Uber drivers, like any other business, always had to register if they had more than $30k annual revenue.
This new law treats uber drivers like taxi drivers and forces them to register, charge and remit GST.
The part that is very interesting (to a tax pro) is that the govt of Quebec legalized uber last year, which meant that Quebec uber drivers were obligated to register, charge and remit GST. Did they? If not, they are in for a world of hurt when they file their taxes...
... and where are we going exactly with Uber ?
this is something that is often controlled for taxi cabs by way of limiting the number of licenses in use to only the number actually needed to provide the service in a given market.
(it's not all about inflating license fees or medallion value)
with uber, they can and do sign up every moron stupid enough to do so, clogging the streets and actually increasing the number of vehicles in use and/or on the road.
I don't think it ever was about inflating the cost of a medallion, if that was the case they would lower the number of cars over time not raise it. The point is always to limit the number of cars to something that is not overburdening the roads and environment. OF course once you have something with value, people are going to want to protect it, that's just necessary evil.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Taxi drivers with only a choice of three companies to run to instead of the hundreds of taxi companies we have now, but making 1/3 the money.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
either public transit was so popular in Canada that the credit was an unnecessary give away or it was misapplied (do limos count as "public transit"?). Either way, something's rotten in Canuck land.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The market price of a taxi medallion tells us whether the commissar deciding how many cabs there should be in your city is doing a good job. If he is, the price of a medallion will not change over time; if it shoots up, he is under-allocating cabs, probably at the behest of cab companies. If the price of a medallion drops, it means his attempt to under-allocate cabs at the bidding of taxi companies is being undercut by Uber.
Thinking like a commissar, that means it's time to legislate the ridesharing companies out of existence before the capitalist termites take his useless little job.
"Hey, a new business....let's tax it!"
Anyone who didn't see this coming must have a head injury or an IQ below room temperature.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Naturally i dislike paying any tax for anything. I suspect that most people feel the same way. But survival of a nation depends upon taxes. So what form of tax is the least obnoxious. A fellow that works a lot of over time dislikes paying more taxes than a worker who works less hours in the same trade. The idea of taxing one's home is hugely offensive to me. It is absurd to be forced to pay taxes on one's home. How can that be just? That guy that works huge over time hours surely has a nicer and more highly taxed home than the worker that works only a few hours a week. Sales taxes are often offensive as well. And taxing the rich and the large companies is a constant chase for hidden money and crooked books. So just what form of tax do most people want to pay? One theory of mine is to tax those that do wrong. For example people that commit crimes, cause accidents, or drop out of school or have lousy grades might be taxed in order to raise behavioral standards. That includes businesses who sell lousy products or play games with their accounting methods.
90% of that money will be thrown at the GTA(Toronto) to try and shore up the Liberal party voting block. The GTA, counts towards nearly 1/3 of the population of Canada. Public transport isn't popular in Canada, you really aren't getting anywhere without a car here...unless you live in a major city. For me, the next major city with a population of over 200k is over an hour away. I live in the most population heavy part of Canada(southwestern ontario).
Om, nomnomnom...
My transit pass is $113/month, x12 that's $1356/year and I got $203.40 back at tax time thanks to that credit. It would take a million people with my situation being the average for the numbers to add up. I don't think that's too far fetched at all, I think you under-estimate how hard the municipal governments of our cities push for public transit.
Ending that tax break is expected to save Ottawa more than $200 million a year.
Ottawa "saving" is an interesting word choice, being that I take advantage of this particular tax break, and will be sending them money for "savings."
Uber wanted to be considered something more than a gypsy cab service; now they get to be taxed like every other cab service.
In other words, public transport cost for regular users just increased 17,6% (1/(1-0.15)). Thanks for helping the planet and the poorest layers of society at the same time, Justin. You're as despicable as your father.
Assuming Ubers drive around and not park when not in use it effectively is a car that is permanently "parked" on the road somewhere. But the thing is an uber will do many trips in a day presumably and those trips might have otherwise been in cars too. There still is inefficiency because the uber guy will spend some time driving to pick up the next person where as the next person could have just gotten in their own car which presumably is parked near by so more road miles will be driven. But: uber guys don't have to just drive around they can park and they have a benefit of not really caring too much where. They can park were it is free rather than where is close to a specific spot like a commuter would. They can also go to the next place over if one parking lot is too full where as that would be a nuisance to a commuter since they'd be further away from where they are going.
I'm a commuter in Canada and affected by this tax change. I don't think it is a matter of "fairness" to start taxing public transit. Driving around in an Uber is nearly as bad as driving your own car, being one of 1500 people on a commuter train isn't. Also since the public is funding the public transit system why should be be taxed? It is already being paid for with tax money. Reduce the amount of the ride that you subsidize or whatever (though I think it might effectively be the same thing because you didn't avoid the tax till you applied a tax credit on your income taxes). How hard are people going to fight any fair hikes for the next few years given the effective cost is jumping 15% already? It still is usually the cheapest alternative though even with the hike so they'll probably get away with it. Sigh.
Sure and they can now afford it since it is 15% more expensive now.
If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it."
Just because Regan governed that way and Americans loved it...
Umm, dude, that's the behavior of government that Reagan railed *against*! It's mainly why I voted for him.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
" free the populous "
"populace", numbnuts. It's hard to take your little screed seriously if you can't spell.
"Maybe its time again?"
it's, dingbat.
Taxis in rural areas are few and far between.
deeeerrrrrrpppppp