Bay Area Cities Consider Rideshare Tax On Uber, Lyft (arstechnica.com) 92
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."
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 wa
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 apar
Re: (Score:2)
Tax them as taxis (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Why not just regulate and tax them as taxi services... since they *are* taxi services?
Maybe because those very same government taxes, laws, ordinances, and regulations, along with the way they are implemented and enforced, are the exact reason WHY taxis suck such a huge bag of dicks that things like Uber and Lyft have risen despite laws and regulations against them in order to fulfill the population's need for quality and affordable individual on-call transportation that taxi services and mass transit in the US utterly fail at providing?
Strat
Re: (Score:3)
You're right. The laws haven't kept up with technology. So companies should be allowed to flagrantly violate the laws?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The US has failed to provide mass transit because it's not funded. People in the US don't want to pay for mass transit, and by and large, they don't. I think that people should fund mass transit. But that's neither here nor there.
People are not willing to fund mass transit in many if not most areas of the US because of the barriers raised firstly in the form of the enormous size of the US (you can travel over 3,000 miles and never leave the country!!), secondly the way cities, towns, and villages spread because they are laid out with the idea that people will have personal transportation, and thirdly many people don't wish to live crowded together in close proximity to others. The practicality and costs of implementation and ongoing
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And again, this statement is not a fact, but an opinion held by a lot of Americans. That's why we don't have mass transit.
The US could easily afford to do it. Instead, people would rather spend (waste) our money on endless wars and an ever growing military.
Re: (Score:2)
An overwhelming need for mass transit just really isn't there in the US for most place in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Rather than impose laws and fees on the new model that is working, why not LIFT the laws and fees on regular taxis, and allow them to compete and see who wins?
Instead of dragging down a model that seems to be working and is superior....why not allow the others to build themselves UP?
That's a win for everyone.
Re: (Score:2)
Rather than impose laws and fees on the new model that is working, why not LIFT the laws and fees on regular taxis, and allow them to compete and see who wins?
Instead of dragging down a model that seems to be working and is superior....why not allow the others to build themselves UP?
That's a win for everyone.
Except for those in power who control the laws, regulations, ordinances, etc, and who are the ones that enacted the present status quo to benefit themselves and their cronies in the private sector in the taxi business and in businesses & groups like labor unions associated with it. Just look at larger cities that have the 'medallion' system for examples. It's a racket worthy of '20s-era Chicago gangsters.
There's a lot of money and power at stake here. These people will fight tooth and nail, spend bucket
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I would posit that todays taxis, even with the regulations...are still bad. I've
Re: (Score:2)
With most cabs of my past...my main concern was often holding my breath due to odors and trying not to stick to anything for the duration of the ride.
The fact that this was your main concern and not the dying because the taxi didn't have properly maintained brakes or the driver didn't have a license, or being driven to the middle of nowhere and charged a large fee to be taken back, or just mugged and left on the side of the road, tells me all I need to know: you've benefitted hugely from regulations to the degree that regulated behaviour is so normal to you that you don't notice it.
UK regulates them as 'Private Hire' (Score:2)
Which means you have to book in advance - no street hailing - but totally matches the Uber ride style. It seems to work for us.
What makes you think taxi drivers are paid more? (Score:2, Insightful)
Taxi drivers are paid less [propertycasualty360.com] 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.
Re: (Score:2)
Desire to avoid assholes is what powers Uber (Score:2)
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 explo
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like a LINK??? (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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 transi
Mass transit should not be for the poor (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Mass transit won't ever be 100% self supporting on the fares it collects. This is a fact that everybody needs to be aware of. Mass transit always requires some kind of additional funding to keep the wheels rolling. This funding usually comes from public coffers, though taxes, fees and the like.
HOWEVER, I'm also saying that there ARE justifications for the funding of mass transit from public funds to subsidize the fares.
How do I know these things? If providing Mass Transit was able to be supported by f
Re:This is backwards. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
The world would be much better off if people weren't forced to pay for shit they don't use or want.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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... [frontiergroup.org]
Things have changed a lot since then:
https://www.citylab.com/transp... [citylab.com]
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 ou
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 regulation
Re: (Score:2)
Tax ride share = incentivise private cars (Score:2)
This is nuts; unless you are proposing to tax all private car usage, this is encouraging people to stay in THEIR cars.
They're working on that too (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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....
Re: (Score:2)
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.
I'd rather they stop letting them skirt (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
People should have a choice of whether they want to be a W2 employee or a 1099 contractor.
Are you against the individual having a say in their mode of employment, or way to pick up side mon
Yay! (Score:2)
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!
Better not be an outrageous statement! (Score:2)
[ 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.
Typical (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
by helping Uber/Lyft expand
You misspelled 'helping local competitors to Uber/Lyft start up.'
Before they rush to raise funds... (Score:2)
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?
Remember all those bonds and taxes you passed? (Score:2)
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!
Cleveland Ohio tried this (Score:2)
Uber and Lyft are not Ride Sharing (Score:2)
How can this not be obvious? At best it is a chauffeur service, maybe an upscale taxi.