4 ms·

This is awesome news! As a NSW taxpayer, I'm not too sure I agree with the government doling out our taxpayers to compensate a dying/legacy industry, or tackin

This is awesome news! As a NSW taxpayer, I'm not too sure I agree with the government doling out our taxpayers to compensate a dying/legacy industry, or tacking on $1 per Uber ride to pay them out but I suppose the taxi lobby is strong, and the government needs to pander to them. I'm curious what licensing is required, will be good to hear more details.

cletus 11y ago
The government has sold taxi licensed/medallions for the right to provide this service. If this were real estate eminent domain would apply and the owners would be compensated. It seems consistent to compensate existing license holders.
- victorhooi 11y ago
  Well, not really. It's not like the government took away the rights of taxi drivers to drive people around. It's just that there's a new entrant now, and they actually need to compete. In fact, taxi medallion prices went down post-2011 (before Uber) because the government released more, because consumers (i.e. everyday people) complained about crazy prices. You don't see the government compensating people there. It would be like if the government handed out licenses to build 1000 apartments. Then, they realised, jeez, house prices are crazy, we better issue more licenses. Or we better re-zone to allow super-high density apartments, or allow people to sub-let apartment (cause in this make-believe world, that wasn't possibly before). Would the original 1000 apartment owners be clamoring for government handouts?
  - nsxwolf 11y ago
    Yeah, but the new entrant decided to not play by the same rules as everyone else. They just started breaking the law, and they just get to win for some reason. If you're just going to let that happen, you should compensate the people that played by the rules but got screwed over by your failure to enforce those rules.
  - notatoad 11y ago
    But the whole selling point of a taxi medallion is that the government will limit supply. If a developer was sold the rights to build 1000 apartments under an agreement that the government would limit future development in the region and they later opened the market, the developer they made that promise to would be right to expect some compensation. The problem isn't the compensation. The problem is that the government promised artificial scarcity to the taxi companies in the first place.
    - wycx 11y ago
      Does the legislation specifically state artificial scarcity will be enforced, or just that supply will be regulated by the govt?
- sanswork 11y ago
  The government sold taxis the right to pick up people from the side of the road without previous contact. They still have that and uber doesn't. They haven't lost anything but business to a better service that doesn't need that right. If this were real estate it would be the government paying a slumlord money to make up for the fact that they approved a new apartment building next door which is nicer with lower rent.
thisrod 11y ago
> I'm not too sure I agree with the government doling out our taxpayers to compensate a dying/legacy industry This is a tradition in Australia. When our law creates property rights that shouldn't exist, and people spend money in good faith to buy those rights, we compensate them when we fix the law and their property stops existing. We did the same thing with water licences: it wasn't the farmers' fault that the legislatures stuffed up and sold them water that didn't exist. Of course, a lot of the money paid for taxi licences was speculation. When people speculate on bad laws staying in force, then lobby the government to ensure that they do, those people deserve to lose their money. Twenty thousand dollars per licence sounds like a good balance to me.
- Scoundreller 11y ago
  Buy a government license for $100 and your business fails: tough luck. Buy a government license for $100k and your business fails: here's your money back.
  - will_hughes 11y ago
    Well, it's closer to 'Bought a taxi plate for $400k, it's now worth ~$280k, here's $20k for your troubles' I'm not sure that the $280k pricetag is going to work given the changes (in Sydney, anyway). The only advantage now that a taxi plate has is that they can stand at ranks, be hailed and operate at the Airport.
    - victorhooi 11y ago
      Taxi medallion fell in price around 2011, because the government increased the supply (consumers started screaming about high taxi prices - and trust me, as a Sydney-sider, they are ridiculous, and the service is on the whole, pretty shoddy. I challenge you to find anybody who will defend Sydney taxi pricing, or their service). You don't see the government compensating the taxi drivers for that - taxpayers would be up in arms. It's only now, that they have somebody external to demonise, that they can get away with giving our money to them. At the end of the day, nothing was taken away from the taxi drivers - they still have exclusive rights to pick up from ranks, and of course, can still operate as taxis. It's just, the digital age caught up with them, and they now have some real competition. A lot of the Uber drivers I spoke to, do this as a part-time gig (at least in Sydney) - they have a car, spare time, why not make use of it. Everybody wins.
tacostakohashi 11y ago
The article doesn't go into great detail on funding, but it does say "Both taxi and Uber drivers will also have to pay the government a $1 levy per trip for a maximum of five years to fund the compensation package.". Presumably, the $1 per trip levy is intended to fund the compensation, rather than it coming from general revenue / other tax sources. If that's the case, I think it's great that taxi / uber users will be funding this (incorporated into fares by their drivers), since they are the beneficiaries of the increased supply and competition in the market space.
- sanswork 11y ago
  The problem is the compensation package shouldn't exist at all. We shouldn't be paying for failing investments.
  - seanmcdirmid 11y ago
    It is not that really that we shouldn't be paying for failing investments, but that some sort of moral hazard should exist for businesses who don't proactively keep up with the times.
  - lukevdp 11y ago
    The problem is that taxi plates were so expensive and the fees went to the government as a requirement to be able to drive a taxi. A taxi driver that spent 100k to the government for an exclusive right to drive passengers should be compensated by the government when they break their end of the deal.
    - sanswork 11y ago
      They weren't paying for the exclusive right to drive passengers though. Hire car drivers could already do that. They were paying for the exclusive right to pick up people off the street without prior arrangement which they already have.
    - wycx 11y ago
      Was that 100k to the NSW govt, or 100k on the secondary market? I am not sure the govt should compensate beyond the initial sale price. Everything else is speculative inflation.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

cletus 11y ago

The government has sold taxi licensed/medallions for the right to provide this service. If this were real estate eminent domain would apply and the owners would be compensated. It seems consistent to compensate existing license holders.

victorhooi 11y ago
Well, not really. It's not like the government took away the rights of taxi drivers to drive people around. It's just that there's a new entrant now, and they actually need to compete. In fact, taxi medallion prices went down post-2011 (before Uber) because the government released more, because consumers (i.e. everyday people) complained about crazy prices. You don't see the government compensating people there. It would be like if the government handed out licenses to build 1000 apartments. Then, they realised, jeez, house prices are crazy, we better issue more licenses. Or we better re-zone to allow super-high density apartments, or allow people to sub-let apartment (cause in this make-believe world, that wasn't possibly before). Would the original 1000 apartment owners be clamoring for government handouts?
- nsxwolf 11y ago
  Yeah, but the new entrant decided to not play by the same rules as everyone else. They just started breaking the law, and they just get to win for some reason. If you're just going to let that happen, you should compensate the people that played by the rules but got screwed over by your failure to enforce those rules.
- notatoad 11y ago
  But the whole selling point of a taxi medallion is that the government will limit supply. If a developer was sold the rights to build 1000 apartments under an agreement that the government would limit future development in the region and they later opened the market, the developer they made that promise to would be right to expect some compensation. The problem isn't the compensation. The problem is that the government promised artificial scarcity to the taxi companies in the first place.
  - wycx 11y ago
    Does the legislation specifically state artificial scarcity will be enforced, or just that supply will be regulated by the govt?
sanswork 11y ago
The government sold taxis the right to pick up people from the side of the road without previous contact. They still have that and uber doesn't. They haven't lost anything but business to a better service that doesn't need that right. If this were real estate it would be the government paying a slumlord money to make up for the fact that they approved a new apartment building next door which is nicer with lower rent.

thisrod 11y ago

> I'm not too sure I agree with the government doling out our taxpayers to compensate a dying/legacy industry This is a tradition in Australia. When our law creates property rights that shouldn't exist, and people spend money in good faith to buy those rights, we compensate them when we fix the law and their property stops existing. We did the same thing with water licences: it wasn't the farmers' fault that the legislatures stuffed up and sold them water that didn't exist. Of course, a lot of the money paid for taxi licences was speculation. When people speculate on bad laws staying in force, then lobby the government to ensure that they do, those people deserve to lose their money. Twenty thousand dollars per licence sounds like a good balance to me.

Scoundreller 11y ago
Buy a government license for $100 and your business fails: tough luck. Buy a government license for $100k and your business fails: here's your money back.
- will_hughes 11y ago
  Well, it's closer to 'Bought a taxi plate for $400k, it's now worth ~$280k, here's $20k for your troubles' I'm not sure that the $280k pricetag is going to work given the changes (in Sydney, anyway). The only advantage now that a taxi plate has is that they can stand at ranks, be hailed and operate at the Airport.
  - victorhooi 11y ago
    Taxi medallion fell in price around 2011, because the government increased the supply (consumers started screaming about high taxi prices - and trust me, as a Sydney-sider, they are ridiculous, and the service is on the whole, pretty shoddy. I challenge you to find anybody who will defend Sydney taxi pricing, or their service). You don't see the government compensating the taxi drivers for that - taxpayers would be up in arms. It's only now, that they have somebody external to demonise, that they can get away with giving our money to them. At the end of the day, nothing was taken away from the taxi drivers - they still have exclusive rights to pick up from ranks, and of course, can still operate as taxis. It's just, the digital age caught up with them, and they now have some real competition. A lot of the Uber drivers I spoke to, do this as a part-time gig (at least in Sydney) - they have a car, spare time, why not make use of it. Everybody wins.

tacostakohashi 11y ago

The article doesn't go into great detail on funding, but it does say "Both taxi and Uber drivers will also have to pay the government a $1 levy per trip for a maximum of five years to fund the compensation package.". Presumably, the $1 per trip levy is intended to fund the compensation, rather than it coming from general revenue / other tax sources. If that's the case, I think it's great that taxi / uber users will be funding this (incorporated into fares by their drivers), since they are the beneficiaries of the increased supply and competition in the market space.

sanswork 11y ago
The problem is the compensation package shouldn't exist at all. We shouldn't be paying for failing investments.
- seanmcdirmid 11y ago
  It is not that really that we shouldn't be paying for failing investments, but that some sort of moral hazard should exist for businesses who don't proactively keep up with the times.
- lukevdp 11y ago
  The problem is that taxi plates were so expensive and the fees went to the government as a requirement to be able to drive a taxi. A taxi driver that spent 100k to the government for an exclusive right to drive passengers should be compensated by the government when they break their end of the deal.
  - sanswork 11y ago
    They weren't paying for the exclusive right to drive passengers though. Hire car drivers could already do that. They were paying for the exclusive right to pick up people off the street without prior arrangement which they already have.
  - wycx 11y ago
    Was that 100k to the NSW govt, or 100k on the secondary market? I am not sure the govt should compensate beyond the initial sale price. Everything else is speculative inflation.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]