Massachusetts Will Tax Ride-Sharing Companies To Subsidize Taxis (reuters.com) 445
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.
What is it that you say? (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:What is it that you say? (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
I imagine they are saying that if a taxi see someone standing there waiting for an Uber, they might try to "vulch" the customer, and steal it from the Uber driver already en route.
While it is currently illegal for Uber drivers to do the same to taxis, since they would then have to be fully compliant with taxi regulations.
For example, it's also illegal for Town Car operators to pick up people at the San Francisco Airport who are waiting for transport, unless they specifically called the Town Car company, even though both the people and the Town Car are there, the Town Car's fare's flight got delayed or cancelled, and there are not Taxis in sight.
So yes: Taxi's potentially compete with Uber (and Town Cars), but Uber (and Town Cars) does not compete with ad hoc taxi service.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:What is it that you say? (Score:5, Insightful)
This just means that Taxi services aren't providing the service that customers want. The solution is for Taxi companies to adapt or to push for any legal changes regarding their operations that will allow them to compete.
Taxing one private company for another's direct subsidy is just un-American.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I would postulate that ANY law that is technologically, or business specific is bad legislation, because the regulated entities will simply find a way to route around the inefficiencies created by "there ought to be a law" proponents.
California just recently passed a law regarding "bullet buttons" on rifles. It accomplished NOTHING, because the way the law was written, it was easily routed around. So, while the Specifics of the law made those SPECIFIC modifications to the weapon illegal, the industry quickl
Re:When it stops moving, subsidize it... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Actually, here in Mass. the goal of taxi companies it seems is to offer the lowest possible level of customer service, for the highest possible amount that can be legally charged. (Source: I drove for one such company for over a decade). Companies like Uber are a welcome change...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So it's illegal for me to give me co-worker a ride to work without paying this onerous tax?
So it's illegal to give a friend a ride somewhere without paying this onerous tax?
So it's illegal to give wome you just met a ride without paying this onerous tax?
No, enough. Amazing once people once did (Boston Teaparty anyone?) over onerous taxes, yet now they just accept them like little sheep.
Re: (Score:3)
Uber is a taxi company. Everybody knows it. Everybody uses it like it. You can argue that the taxi industry is terrible, you can argue it's immoral to tax company A in favor of company B, or numerous other things. Just don't try to argue that Uber isn't a taxi company. It's pathetic, and it isn't fooling anybody.
Uber is obviously not a taxi service. The cars show up ontime, unlike a taxi service. You can easily pay with a credit card without a lot of drama, unlike a taxi service. They in general have reasonable customer service, unlike a taxi service.
They have maybe 10% overlap with the experience of a taxi. They're their own thing - not a taxi service, not a towncar service, but a different kind of people-hauling business.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What is it that you say? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Uber's quality of service has been no better than any Cab I've ever been in.
For me the awesome feature of Uber is that I can specify an exact GPS location to be picked up on a map, and an exact destination to be dropped off, and I can see how many minutes until the Uber arrives.
With taxis it's always a terrible uncertain communication process to give the telephone operator your pickup address (what if you're at a place where the address isn't clear? like at a park, or shopping mall? or if street numbers on your street don't fit the normal pattern?)
With taxis it's often difficult to
Re: (Score:3)
I think you mean, "Uber and the like are free to compete, but we're going to hamstring them so the antiquated taxi companies can still compete, because they're an extraordinarily powerful political special interest group."
Re: (Score:3)
No, people only wanted the minimum amount of effective regulations of minimum standards of safety and quality with some assurance of honest fare systems. Although very heavily regulated, taxi services have only marginally improved in the last several decades in regards to unfair/deceptive/
Re: (Score:3)
Re:What is it that you say? (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem is that you're both right. The taxis are providing the service, the taxi companies are not. Taxi companies have long since adopted similar business models to Uber and Lyft: the drivers either bring (and maintain) their own car or rent it from the taxi company. The only service that the companies provide is a dispatcher, for which they take a hefty cut.
Consumers want to have a single dispatcher service that works anywhere and puts them in touch with a lot of taxi drivers. Uber provides something like this. The taxi companies don't want to, because this kind of thing naturally benefits from economies of scale: it's only slightly more expensive to provide a dispatcher service for the entire USA than for NYC.
If you really want to address the problem with a legislative fix then make every licensed taxi reachable via a single computerised dispatcher service and provide a well documented API for interacting with it. Provide (and fund out of the taxes on taxi fares and licenses) enough infrastructure that anyone can write an app that will hail any taxi in your jurisdiction and pay for it. If Uber wants to operate in your city, then they're free to do so by simply integrating their front end with your municipal back end.
Re:What is it that you say? (Score:4, Interesting)
Uber isn't the end-game here. Some ride-sharing app which simply lets drivers and people looking for a ride link up for a nominal fee (like 25 cents) is going to be the end-game. It's like music. In the past, manufacturing and distribution were a huge part of their expenses. Today with digital media and the Internet, those expenses are almost zero. Likewise, in the past a lot of the expense and complexity for a taxi system was in matching up ride requests with drivers. Radios in the cabs were the first big breakthrough. Then GPS so the dispatcher didn't have to manually keep track of where the cabs were. Now cell phones (with GPS) and cellular Internet service have pretty much made the dispatcher obsolete. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if a craigslist-like service ends up winning, providing the service essentially for free just because it can be done so cheaply.
Re: (Score:2)
Subsidies (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:What is it that you say? (Score:4, Insightful)
Are the polititions going to drop the veneer of giving a shit about the public when they support the very cab companies that have done jack shit for consumers right here in boston for decades?
Everyone I know who doesn't drive, and many who do, uses these services on a regular basis, choosing them over cabs. Anyone who has taken a cab knows why.
Where was the precious regulation for YEARS when cabs were "required" to take credit cards, but regularly just drove around telling people the machine was broken. The local news was doing investigative reports about how bad the cabs were before Uber got here.
Now all of a sudden the poor cabbies who squandered their government granted monopoly for decades are crying foul and the politicians are happy to turn a blind eye to decades of disservice for a buck.
Re:What is it that you say? (Score:4, Informative)
In short the Taxi industry has a lot of say in the politics. Especially because the government decided to highly regulate the taxi industry.
I am sorry Taxi industry that your business model is failing. However it happens, trying to have the government come in and try to subsidize your business model isn't a solution.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What is it that you say? (Score:5, Insightful)
The government's job isn't to be heavy handed. It is to insure that we are all playing by the same sets of rules.
But this case isn't giving Uber Driver regulations, but just taking them to support the competitors who have a bunch of regulations.
Now as I see it, the Government should be doing either the following.
Lessening the regulations on Taxi Companies so they can be more competitive.
Or
Giving Ride Sharing services regulations to insure safety and standards are met to match the Taxi Services.
Re:What is it that you say? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What is it that you say? (Score:4, Insightful)
You don't need a million dollar medallion to land at Laguardia, or to drive a bus down 5th Avenue.
Stop trying to make Uber comply with insane taxi regulations and instead lift the insane regulations on taxis.
Re:What is it that you say? (Score:5, Informative)
a bus-service is also not a taxi-service, yet the 2 do compete for travelers
A bus is so not like a taxi:
* Buses involve a ton of waiting.
* Buses carry more than two or three passengers, so less privacy.
* Buses won't pick you up at the starting location of your journey. Instead you have to walk to the bus stop.
* For long distance travel, you may have to take two or three buses (and wait between those buses), unlike a single taxi for the whole trip.
* Buses are usually cheap, especially if you buy a bus-pass.
* All that waiting and taking inefficient routes mean buses often take 2 to 5 times longer than a taxi for the same A-to-B trip.
An uber is sooo similar to a taxi:
* Instead of waving with your hands to hail a cab, you send a message to Uber's servers, which in turn will send messages to hail a cab for you.
* Instead of a taxi meter, software on Uber's servers will calculate the fare based on distance traveled, waiting time, etc.
* Both involve one for-hire driver driving a car.
* Both involve carrying one to three passengers.
* Price per mile is very similar, compared to other modes of transport such as bus or train.
in other words this isn't double-speek
So "ride-sharing" (or TOI, taxi-over-the-internet), automate just a couple of actions related to taxis, but are otherwise, they are exactly the same as taxis.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you implying that you cannot order a taxi over the internet?
Re:What is it that you say? (Score:5, Interesting)
* Price per mile is very similar, compared to other modes of transport such as bus or train.
At least here in Las Vegas, it ain't so... For example: A taxi from my house on the east side of Las Vegas to McCarran airport is gonna cost me right around $47, whereas an Uber trip from home to the airport is around $20, not to mention the fact that the last time I took a trip to the airport via Uber, I rode in a very nice, well kept SUV, and the driver was very personable. Whereas, the last time I took a cab to the airport, before Lyft/Uber came on the scene, I swore I'd walk before taking another cab in this town.. Overpriced, rude drivers, often don't show up when you call.... We NEED something like Uber/Lyft to provide some competition to taxicabs...
Re: (Score:3)
Black cars have to be booked well in advance of departure, not on-demand like Uber or a taxi.
Have you ever even heard of black cars? They park outside hotels in NYC. If you walk up to one, they point you to the bell hop (or concierge), who writes down your name in the log book, and you walk back to the car and drive away. He gives you a business card, and when you want a ride back, you call or text, and he retrieves you. Black cars were created to be an alternative to taxis.
And there are very few black cars compared to taxis.
What idiotic world has "very few" being "more than"? There are more black cars than taxis in NYC. https://en.wikipedia.or [wikipedia.org]
Subsidizing Businesses.... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is like taxing car owners to subsidize stage coaches.
Re: (Score:2)
It would be closer to the post and courier services. The post has to deliver a mail to anywhere and not just the easy places. This is not the case for courier services.
The taxi companies (at least many places - I do not know if it concretely the case in Massachusetts) has to drive you were you want to go, even if it is to a part of town the taxi driver wants to stay out of. This is not the case for Uber/Lyft.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
> This is like taxing car owners to subsidize stage coaches.
What? How?
A more accurate simile would be,
This is like taxing coal to subsidize wind.
Re:Subsidizing Businesses.... (Score:4, Informative)
Wrong way around, more like taxing wind to subsidize coal. Historically taxes of that nature worked as your example: the government taxes the older, less glamorous thing to help the new thing. For example there was a 10% tax on railroad tickets from 1942 to 1962 (originally intended for WW2) which eventually was used to fund airport and interstate construction, which helped doom the private railroads.
If the government wanted to do it consistent with history and your example, taxi fares would be taxed to subsidize ride sharing even as they're losing money.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This is like taxing car owners to subsidize stage coaches.
Hardly. The Uber and Lyft people in typical Silly Valley marketing hype are saying their services are a new and innovative way for personal transportation and it's going to revolutionize how people live and travel!
In reality, it's just a cheap way to get around regulations, pay their workers less and pocket the difference so one day, they can IPO their companies and make BILLIONS off of stupid people who fall for the BS that Uber and Lyft are tech companies.
With their reasoning, I can open up a bakery, ha
Re:Subsidizing Businesses.... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, you messed up.
Your bakery needs to ignore food hygiene laws, force your bakers to provide their own ovens and refuse to pay minimum wage.
Then you'll be an innovating GENIUS!
Re: (Score:2)
This is like taxing car owners to subsidize stage coaches.
Indeed. MA screwed the metaphorical pooch on a coupe other levels, too. For example from TFS:
requirements . . . such as regular vehicle inspection by the police
Which is like having your regular colonoscopy done by the fire department.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If only buggy whip manufacturers had had the political clout to have trolly/car/bus operators taxed for their benefit. We'd have buggy whip shops filled with beautiful buggy whips that no one buys. Perhaps we'll have taxis that no one actually uses, but gainfully employed taxi drivers standing by nonetheless.
Re:Subsidizing Businesses.... (Score:4, Informative)
The entrenched criminals don't like their illegal "legal-monopolies" being smashed, so the silly dinosaurs are gonna thrash like mad trying to escape that tarpit...
Re:Subsidizing Businesses.... (Score:4, Insightful)
If you'd paid upwards of $500K for a taxi medallion in a big city, you'd probably thrash like mad too. Just because Uber is appy app is not an excuse to violate the law. The reason taxis are tightly regulated make sense: You want a fair meter that charges you fairly for your trip. You want a vehicle that is safe. You want the driver to not rob or rape you. There's plenty of argument to be made that a medallion shouldn't cost so damn much and shouldn't be so scarce, but I don't think Uber et al are the solution. I frankly find the selling of false hope to the people that sacrifice their time and their cars to the service to be abhorrent. And they're dropping their fees yet again. Drivers can barely keep their vehicles fueled and maintained while make a petty income. Keep dropping the fees and they'll lose their network of shittily paid volunteers.
Re:Subsidizing Businesses.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Except for anyone who's not rich enough to afford a so-called "smart" so-called "telephone" or who, like me, cannot fathom why anyone would pay to carry a spy-on-you machine around. We have no way to utilize those services.
Re: (Score:2)
While I appreciate your conviction for not purchasing a phone for privacy concerns, you have to understand you are a minority in this day and age, and a shrinking one at that. Not every private service will cater to you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why are you surprised? It already happens to us on Linux, and often even Mac - plenty of software and services simply aren't available (or are unsupported) unless you run the de-facto standard of Windows. *Every* choice we make comes comes with an opportunity cost, some larger than others.
Re:Subsidizing Businesses.... (Score:5, Insightful)
So -- You favor throwing all of us who run only free software on open computer hardware into some sort of digital ghetto?
I don't think anyone is favoring it, but I certainly don't want progress stopped by even the tiniest degree to accommodate those who self-impose such restrictions on themselves. I'm also not concerned at all with how the Amish will be affected by technological progress if that helps put things in perspective.
Re:Subsidizing Businesses.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Nobody is throwing you anywhere. Use the computer that you want. Use the phone you want. Use the services that you want. Uber can either support your system or not, as they seem fit, and you can use it or not.
What's your complaint? 'Oh, I can't use this nice service because I've crippled myself, so nobody else should be able to use it either' ?
Re: (Score:3)
Except for anyone who's not rich enough to afford a so-called "smart" so-called "telephone" or who, like me, cannot fathom why anyone would pay to carry a spy-on-you machine around. We have no way to utilize those services.
The intersection between "people not rich enough to afford a smartphone" and "people who take taxis" is zero.
Re: Subsidizing Businesses.... (Score:4, Insightful)
And if you believe that... (Score:5, Insightful)
> The whole fee will go away at the end of 2026.
If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.
Re:And if you believe that... (Score:5, Insightful)
Instead, the tolls are one way: you pay them, if you are a nasty, low income person coming from Emeryville into San Francisco, but not if you are a wonderful, high income person going from San Francisco to Emeryville.
The tolls are one-way because they know that 99.99% of people travel back to where they came from so instead of making people stop twice to pay the toll, it's more convenient for *everyone* to just collect it once.
Re: (Score:2)
Illinois was actually able to raise taxes from 3% to 5% temporarily (for 4 years), and did lower the rate at least to 3.75% when the four years were up. It did take a newly appointed Republican governor willing to let the state go without a budget for over a year to fight the Democrats on raising it back to 5% though (among other points of contention).
I would have given 5-1 odds the income tax rate would never go below 5% again back in 2011 but I would have been dead wrong.
Banning passing the costs? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Banning passing the costs? (Score:4, Insightful)
Here's the relevant section of the law:
The rider or the driver are not to be charged. So it has to come out of Uber's existing take of each ride. It makes it more expensive for Uber while it doesn't cost the rider any more and the driver still makes just as much.
But ultimately there is no way to prevent Uber from just raising their costs in other areas to offset their costs. It's no different than fining a company for some illegal act...the cost is always ultimately passed on to the customer. Or a police department settling a lawsuit...it's not the police that pay it, it's the tax payers. The one that actually pays money into the system is always the one that foots the increased costs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yep. That's it. Obviously the thugs can't outright force the businesses not to raise their rates.
What political compromise looks like (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
You're screwing up our parable of the clever, innovative upstart versus the entrenched, probably corrupt, existing service with a side of government overreach.
They should really just UBI it for taxis. (Score:2)
They should really just UBI it for taxis.
Everyone with a hack medallion gets as much money as they would have gotten, had they actually done their job, and then whatever that costs, tax the ride sharing companies that. Then the taxi drivers won't have to work at all, instead of working only profitable areas, despite being called for an unprofitable pickup, which they just ignore anyway.
Then hack medallions can be like dividend paying stock investments, instead of licenses to work in a government granted mo
Re: (Score:2)
They should really just UBI it for taxis.
Everyone with a hack medallion gets as much money as they would have gotten, had they actually done their job, and then whatever that costs, tax the ride sharing companies that. Then the taxi drivers won't have to work at all, instead of working only profitable areas, despite being called for an unprofitable pickup, which they just ignore anyway.
Then hack medallions can be like dividend paying stock investments, instead of licenses to work in a government granted monopoly market with enforced artificial scarcity.
If the government really wanted to help the taxi drivers, it should offer to buy the medallions back at the price they sold for 5 years ago and then throw them all in the trash. The whole medallion "lottery monopoly" is as stupid as it gets. In certain places this makes sense. For instance having a "lottery monopoly" for crab fishing where too many fishing boats can hurt the crab population makes a certain amount of sense but it's hard to make the same argument that too many taxis hurts the population o
Uber is not "ride sharing" (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree its a poor choice of terminology, as what they are really doing is "vehicle sharing." Although the word "ride" can be used colloquially as meaning someone's vehicle, such as the statement: "check out my new ride." Either way calling the company part of the sharing economy is still accurate.
What's the tax supposed to provide, exactly? (Score:2)
Traditionally, a tax on one line of business would be to support special costs and infrastructure that business might require. Taxis might be levied to support taxi stands, security services and special lanes. But what is a tax on non-medallion ride sharing services only supposed to provide? Because for socialists the cure for a monopoly is to add a tax rather than to let in competition, one-quarter of the new Massachusetts tax is a subsidy to the medallion drivers. But does the rest of it go into anything
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know what they're planning, but subsidizing to ensure the availability of taxis is likely enough.
In many areas (I don't know about Massachusetts), taxis aren't legally allowed to refuse fares, while there's no such restriction on Uber and similar companies. So when your flight doesn't get in 'til 2am and you live in a slightly sketchier neighborhood, but none of the Uber drivers are willing to take you there, the taxis need to still be available.
(I've even had trouble w/ getting the SuperShuttle to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Stupid politicians (Score:2)
Republican Governor Charlie Baker signed the law, which specifically bans ride-sharing services from passing those costs on to their drivers or riders.
The price is determined by the costs how else do you stay in business. It would be stupid to think otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't you realize? The pols RELY on the voters being stupid SOBs. And they are almost never disappointed.
Re: (Score:3)
I'd love to know how this was enforced or failed to be enforced.
I can see something like:
"Clause 69: The Telecommunications Widget Freedom Tax may not be identified or listed as a line item on any telecommunications bill."
Telecom Bill: Government Freedom Tax For Widgets...$1.97
Regulator: You can't list that on the bill.
Telco: We don't list the tax by its actual name, just a tax of a similar sounding name. Oh, and First Amendment protects our speech to our customers.
They should be taxing the drivers (Score:2)
The drivers are the people in the most realistic position to be liable for local laws and taxes. If it isn't profitable for the drivers then they will not do the work. They would be the ones potentially breaking any local laws. Prices for uber will go up until enough people are willing to drive for that price.
I see no reason people can't unionize but I do see a problem where people have to be unionized or have to pay dues and obey.
But I also see a problem with tips. That results in lower base pay and unstab
Next a renewable tax (Score:2)
To subsidize the oil industry
Brilliant Idea! (Score:4, Funny)
In fact, if they levied a 50% per fare tax instead, then the Taxi company could just call an Uber for you.
Taxis are a municipal transportation service (Score:3)
Thank you GOP (Score:2)
"Republican Governor Charlie Baker signed the law"
And the GOP wonders why people are leaving its party in droves?
The GOP used to be about free-market economics, not protecting a government sinecure.
As an ex-cabbie... (Score:5, Interesting)
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...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I am biased, but there is logic behind my bias.
We all have biases and priors. Good on you for admitting it.
I'm going to re-arrange the order of some of your points to make a clearer response.
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 of the risk, both financial and otherwise, falls on the drivers.
I think in those respects, taxis and ride sharing are essentially identical. Your transaction is with the driver, brokered via Uber/Lyft/etc. The driver, as a contractor, takes the financial risk if they are trying to drive as a full time job. They may or may not make enough money depending on how many rides they get, how many hours they can work, and so forth. The
Damn cities (Score:2)
and by "a special fund for the taxi industry" (Score:2)
Bad math (Score:2)
2.5 million rides x $0.20 per ride = $500,000 per year, not millions. Unless there are a whole lot of smaller ride-sharing businesses in MA with a combined multiple times the volume of Uber and Lyft, this the post fails as a troll.
Do limousine services get taxed too? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"....bans ride-sharing services from passing those costs on to their drivers or riders."
What a bunch of bullshit. The government wants to tax them on a ride-by-ride basis, and the government also demands that the company eat the entire cost?
Taxes are bad enough without Big Brother sticking its fat nose into your business and telling you exactly how to pay them.
Re:How do you ban someone from passing on this cos (Score:4, Insightful)
Welcome to socialism [opportunitylives.com].
Re: (Score:3)
"....bans ride-sharing services from passing those costs on to their drivers or riders."
What a bunch of bullshit. The government wants to tax them on a ride-by-ride basis, and the government also demands that the company eat the entire cost?
Taxes are bad enough without Big Brother sticking its fat nose into your business and telling you exactly how to pay them.
Indeed, and it is virtually unenforceable since the legislation involves no provision for the local governments to regulate ride-sharing fees. These smells more like an attempt to quell a legitimate objection by the ride share companies. "See, we stuck it to the evil upstart, and without raising the taxpayer burden a dime, we added a revenue stream!" Back-patting all around.
This has become a disheartening trend, both in your more socialist American and European States, as there become fewer pockets to pick
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's bullshit. Of course they can't prevent it. They can prohibit passing on the tax as an enumerated line item, and maybe make that stick,but there's no way in hell they can stop uber from just raising its rates by ... gee ... just HAPPENS to be the same amount as the tax.
They do this with gas stations. Gas stations are prohibited from enumerating on their signage the taxes which the corrupt statist pigs are saddling you with.
Re: (Score:3)
They can't really ban them from passing on this cost. Unregulated taxi companies like Uber are free to set their price, which is part of what make them different from actual taxis.
What they don't want is the tax to appear anywhere in the bill or driver contract. It is a form of consumer and driver protection, they don't want the ride to become a confusing "$10 + tax", but I don't see how they can't prevent the price from being "$10.20". And for the drivers, Uber can't just add 0.20$ per trip to the commissi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Republican fails econ 101, shock! (Score:2)
Did Charlie Baker write the law?
Re: (Score:2)
Who cares? He signed it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Perhaps you'd enjoy learning more about Massachusetts, starting with the composition of its legislative bodies [wikipedia.org]. Hint: they are overwhelmingly populated by Democrats. Please feel free to contribute more disingenuous soundbites to the discussion. -PCP
Re: (Score:3)
That provision is in there to prevent the ride sharing companies from putting the line "Charlie Baker Tax $0.20" on the receipts. It is obvious to everyone that these $0.20 will be coming from the customer, because Lyft doesn't actually print money, but the moment they expllicitly admit in writing that this is the case they are in vioation of the law.
Charlie Baker protecting his own ass in other words, making sure it's illegal to tell the voter why Lyft prices have gone up ever so slightly.
Re: (Score:2)
Republican In Name Only.
Re: (Score:2)
Who are the real republicans these days? Trump?