Slashdot Mirror
Bay Area Cities Consider Rideshare Tax On Uber, Lyft (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: A local city council member is beginning to float the idea of taxing ridehailing companies like Uber and Lyft as a possible way to raise millions of dollars and help pay for local public transportation and infrastructure improvements. If the effort is successful, Oakland could become the first city in California -- Uber and Lyft's home state -- to impose such a tax. However, it's not clear whether Oakland or any other city in the Golden State has the authority to do so under current state rules. Councilwoman Rebecca Kaplan told the East Bay Express that she wants the city council to put forward a ballot measure that would tax such rides. A similar proposal in nearby San Francisco, projecting a fee of $0.20 to $1 per ride, would allow the city to collect an estimated $12.5 to $62.5 million annually. However, an October 2017 city analysis noted that San Francisco "cannot initiate locally without state authorizing legislation" and that the fee "may disproportionately impact lower-income households."
Why not just regulate and tax them as taxi services... since they *are* taxi services? I understand times change, but Uber and Lyft are really no different than taxis, other than the drivers get paid shit.
I don't respond to AC's.
"Mass transit should be able to pay for itself via the trolls..."
I don't respond to AC's.
If you could strip out all the bureaucracy and fat cats dipping into the rent seeking regulated taxis...then sure. Someone has come along with a more efficient model so let's just impose a predatory tax on that new business to "level the playing field." All just to fatten up the state slush fund.
No.
Which means you have to book in advance - no street hailing - but totally matches the Uber ride style. It seems to work for us.
This is nuts; unless you are proposing to tax all private car usage, this is encouraging people to stay in THEIR cars.
Taxi drivers are paid less than uber drivers, especially in San Francisco, the area in question (Uber drivers make about $23.87/hour, compared to $12.96 for taxi drivers).
Part of that is the regulations, so I guess you want poor people to earn even less money by making sure Uber drivers are paid as poorly. Please justify your inherently asshole position to the rest of the world.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Mandatory GPS monitors so they can institute a per mile tax on top of the gas and DMV taxes. Making car pool lanes toll lanes. Raising parking prices. It goes on and on.
minimum wage & employment laws. People died for the 40 hour work week. The 'gig' economy chips away at those protections with a pickaxe. Also, what good does it do to tax them if the money goes right out the door in low income benefits? I'm not saying we pull the benefits, I'm saying we don't let them pay like crap.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Mass transit should be able to pay for itself via the tolls paid by its users;
NEVER going to happen... Mass transit is absolutely not self supporting, never has been, never will. It will ALWAYS require taxpayer support. Even the best financial option, the City Bus, simply cannot charge enough to cover it's operating costs. Don't get me started on light rail and subways... IF we charged enough to cover costs, nobody who actually uses mass transit could afford it, and those who could afford it don't use it anyway.
But... To be fare (pun intended) that's not the point of mass transit now is it...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Lets make ridesharing less profitable to drivers who aren't even clearing minimum wage while destroying the capital value of the most expensive thing they own, while making those rides more expensive for people who ride in them. So the government has more money to blow.
Woo hoo!
And somehow we manage to grow half the food you eat, the wine you drink, provide most of your tech and entertainment...and weed is only taxed at 15% plus local taxes.
Worst I've seen is in the mid 20% range.
Medical pot loses the 15% excise tax.
And they'll even bring it right to your house.
There are many reasonable cost of living areas, the weather is nice, our population is growing, and most of us are very happy to live here. Oh and > 4% GDP growth per year is hit every year.
you shouldn't have to tax people who choose not to use mass transit to pay costs for people that do.
Sure. Now, substitute members from the following list for "mass transit" in that statement, and see how it works out.
You *want* another Civil War? Not me...
I know not many of them are armed but some are. I'd rather not have another Civil War. The last one took a huge toll on this country.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Just what the Bay Area needs, more cars on the road.
"The road"? LOL, maybe if they built another one it wouldn't be as bad....
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
[ X ] If it moves, tax it, O Voracious Spenders To Buy Votes
If you have a better explanation, let me know. I used a poetic O because srius stuff.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Then we should be taxing gas to cover the cost of maintenance and construction of new roads. Oh, you did not realize that is not the case already?
People don't like when others skirt the law for profit. It's not being an asshole to the uber drivers so much as empathy for the taxi drivers.
You have to cite your reference if you're going to claim Uber drivers make $23.87 an hour. Unless you mean before insurance, wear and tear and maintenance to the vehicle that only comes after a few years.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
If public transit can't support itself it deserves to fail? So screw the poor people when fares get unaffordable and screw the poor people when the service goes away. Jackass.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Instead of finding ways to support the hiring of locals by helping Uber/Lyft expand, they'd rather tax them out of existence in an effort to spend millions on mass transit systems which nobody will use even if, by some miracle, they're ever actually built.
The world would be much better off if people weren't forced to pay for shit they don't use or want.
Yep, and the service is door-to-door, and you're not stuck waiting on a bus, or riding one sitting to some smelly bum.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Err....and where is it written that anyone has to be their brothers' keepers?
What exactly obligates me to support or at least subsidize someone for their bad choices or bad luck?
I mean, I don't mind giving to charity or helping people voluntarily...I do, but I don't see that anyone should be forced to do so, certainly not under threat by our own governmental bodies.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
You have to cite your reference if you're going to claim Uber drivers make $23.87 an hour.
You mean like the fucking LINK THAT I POSTED that links to the study that provides that number?
You mean THAT reference? Oh! Do you even internet bro?
Retard.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
People don't like when others skirt the law for profit.
Wow, what world do YOU live in? People kind of LOVE THAT.
It's not being an asshole to the uber drivers so much as empathy for the taxi drivers.
Why would you have sympathy for assholes?
It's not like taxi drivers own the license they are working under. Some rich dude who never has to drive anywhere owns that. He just hires surly cheap drivers to operate the license..
I do not feel sorry for any of them - not the rich guy with the license, not the exploited taxi drivers. Why? Because now those poor taxi drivers can drive for Uber, it's given them a real option for mobility in a way they did not have before when you had to work for a taxi company. I've met MANY Uber drivers who either were also taxi drivers or still drove them but added income with Uber.
The horrific taxis drivers that are horrible human beings might find that hard. But may I suggest, they should find some line of work that keeps them away from people. It used to be as a customer for transportation you had no way to avoid such losers because you took what the taxi company gave you. Now they have to provide actual customer service, and damned if we are not all better off for that.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
They aren't driving against their will because they haven't quit yet. Only 4% of Uber drivers stay with the program over a year. Mostly they quit as they realize the pay isn't enough.
In actually poor countries with actual poor people, some of them don't have tax-funded mass transportation at all. And yet they manage to do it as private enterprise and make money doing it.
Some guy buys an old truck, fixes it up, drives it around the city with people hanging off the sides while his cousin collects fees or kicks them off the truck.
This doesn't require air conditioning, union drivers and union maintenance technicians. All it needs is free enterprise and an appalling lack of safety regulations.
Those 40 people on the bus or 200 on the train could be packed in bumper to bumper in front of your car during your commute and then taking every parking space near your destination. If you use a car in an urban area you definitely benefit from other people using public transportation. And if you live in a rural area - urbanites are subsidizing your roads a lot more than you are subsidizing their public transportation.
Gas taxes, vehicle registration, etc., don't come anywhere near covering the cost of construction and maintenance of roads. Humongous state and federal subsidies are what cover those costs.
OK. Lets tax ride sharing to cover road construction and maintenance.
If the aim is to reduce traffic you want to get those who can afford to drive by cars to use mass transit. The only way to do that is make sure mass transit is not crowded with the poor. The market economy solution for that is to charge more so the poor dont use mass transit.
You solve your traffic issues as well as make mass transit self funding.
Once mass transit is self funding it can expand. As it expands it will become more and more cheaper due to economies of scale till at some point the poor can afford to use it and the price will still be a profit making one.
What about the poor's transportation needs during the transition phase. Thats what Uber is for. Let the poor use Uber. After all their the subsidy is being paid by VCs not the general taxpayer.
**Life is too short to be serious**
Before they rush to raise funds...
The should run a pilot program with highly experimental, 20-years-down-the-road technology.
Implementing public transportation Which Does Not Suck(tm).
You know: something new, and never seen before.
Assuming they are successful, then they should come to us (the public) for funding.
P.S.: How's that whole "high speed rail" thing working out for you? You got your funding; where's our results?
They aren't driving against their will because they haven't quit yet. Only 4% of Uber drivers stay with the program over a year. Mostly they quit as they realize the pay isn't enough.
Or maybe because of the entire premise of driving for Uber/Lyft being that it's a temporary at-will job specifically designed for those who do not want, need, or cannot currently find full time employment. It was never meant to be a full-time job capable of supporting a family or even a single individual. It's a way to make some extra cash if you've got a decent car and spare time.
The preteen paperboy on his part-time Sunday bike route doesn't get employee benefits, full medical, 401k, or full time union wages either. Should we demonize and attack newspapers like is being done with Uber/Lyft?
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Uh, no they didn't, they said that the $3 figure was incorrect and that, when they corrected it, they found that the median profit was $8.55 per hour, rather than $3.37, and only 8% of drivers lose money on on-demand platforms. Using another methodology, he added, the median rises to $10 per hour and only 4% of drivers lose money. Oh, and Uber's initial complaint argued that their drivers average hour earnings were $15.68, not the $23/hr that you claim.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Of course, we're not going to do that because one of the few things that all economists agree on is that subsidised efficient transportation infrastructure causes economic growth and if you actually did pass on the costs of transport directly to users then you'd quickly see a recession.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
So they plan to become the worlds biggest taxi company and monopolise the world's markets without using full time labour? I see your opinions often and it's amazing how frequently they parrot the company line.
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
And if you live in a rural area - urbanites are subsidizing your roads a lot more than you are subsidizing their public transportation.
That really depends on how roads and public transit are funded. Roads are generally funded through taxes on fuel, so public transit-using urbanites aren't contributing much to that (but car-using urbanites are, of course). Public transit funding varies, but may be through general tax revenue, which means everybody contributes.
Remember all of those bonds and taxes you voted to approve previously to cover road and infrastructure improvements? Sorry, the politicians needed new carpeting in their offices and wanted to plant some palm trees along the route they drive to work. Be sure to re-elect them as you always do!
-==- Buy a Mac and leave me alone!
And the counsel shot it down. And Cleveland is as liberal as any city. Myself, I pay taxes(local/state/federal) to support Mass transportation. Have no problem with it either. Do NOT double tax me because I want to use an Uber or Lyft because the Mass Transportation sucks. If the mass transportation can not compete, then let it die. Or fix it so it can compete.
Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
That really depends on how roads and public transit are funded. Roads are generally funded through taxes on fuel, so public transit-using urbanites aren't contributing much to that (but car-using urbanites are, of course). Public transit funding varies, but may be through general tax revenue, which means everybody contributes.
That might have been the case in the 60's but even then it only covered about 70% of the cost.
https://frontiergroup.org/repo...
Things have changed a lot since then:
https://www.citylab.com/transp...
We all pay for things we don't use in our taxes. It's like insurance. Hope and pray you don't have to use it, but the pennies you pay for it are worth it when you need it. The fire department is the best example, but they are all equally important.
How can this not be obvious? At best it is a chauffeur service, maybe an upscale taxi.
So they plan to become the worlds biggest taxi company and monopolise the world's markets without using full time labour? I see your opinions often and it's amazing how frequently they parrot the company line.
As to Uber/Lyft and whatever their future plans are, I have no idea and don't really care as it's not relevant to this discussion.
As to "parroting the company line", maybe it seems that way because logic and facts are universal and do not require agreement, collusion, or any cooperation with anyone or anything else to be found to be true and sound and those findings shared by anyone who investigates? It does not require any sort of Machiavellian plotting and subterfuge for two people thousands of miles apart to both accurately opine that the sky is blue, water is wet, and that fire will burn.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Then move to a place like Africa, where they have that kind of mentality. I kind of like to see society move away from people starving in the streets, but if that's what you like then you should definitely move there.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Or to opine that it is impossible to run a taxi company full-time with part-time employees. So your lofty presumptions about your incredible logic may need some re-assessment.
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.