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 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
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.
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.