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.
>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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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...
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.