3 ms·

Obviously the logic is mystifying, but the math behind this is baffling as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_the_United_States#Boston https://en.

Obviously the logic is mystifying, but the math behind this is baffling as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_the_United_States#Boston https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_the_United_States#... says there are 1825 cabs in Boston. Boston is 10% of Massachusetts' population, so let's say there are 18k cabs in the state. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-massachusetts-uber-idUSKCN10U1ST http://www.reuters.com/article/us-massachusetts-uber-idUSKCN... says 5 cents/ride-hailing app will go toward taxis, and Uber+Lyft do 2.5m rider per month. So, the tax will produce 2.5m rides/mo * 12 months * 5 cents/ride = $1.5m/year. That works out to... drum roll... $83 per taxicab per year. How is this supposed to help taxi drivers with anything? Maybe as ride-sharing increases, this becomes $200 or $400 per cab per year, but that's still a small sum. I imagine a few hundred dollars is a small consolation when you lose 50% or 90% of your business.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
wutbrodo 10y ago
> there are 1825 cabs in Boston. Boston is 10% of Massachusetts' population, so let's say there are 18k cabs in the state. The number would likely be way lower than this (it doesn't make too much sense to extrapolate linearly from the densest urban population), but your point still stands even you double or triple the $/driver. That's pretty weird...
- lpolovets 10y ago
  That's a good point. After Googling some more, it seems like MA has about 8300 "taxi drivers and chauffeurs" (http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes533041.htm http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes533041.htm), so the $83 should probably be doubled or tripled.
manarth 10y ago
> "the tax will produce…$1.5m/year" If that's $83 per taxi-driver, then I agree: handing that $83 to the driver will not have a significant effect. So rather than use the tax to directly subsidise taxi-drivers income, what if it's used to invest in taxi infrastructure? Or perhaps invest in things that level the playing field, providing equivalents to some of Lyft/Uber's tools? Research or software into the most profitable time to work (to equalise with surge-pricing). A ride-hailing app that's open to all taxi companies. A training system that lowers the cost of entry into the market.
- lpolovets 10y ago
  I completely agree with you that this could be meaningful if it's used to improve taxi infrastructure, although I'm skeptical that the government will be able to effectively allocate money to build software tools that compete with Uber and Lyft. But regardless, why is the MA taxi industry waiting tax ride-hailing apps? Why not just ask every taxi driver for $83, which seems like a small price to pay for job security?
  - manarth 10y ago
    > "why is the MA taxi industry waiting tax ride-hailing apps? Why not just ask every taxi driver for $83?" I guess it's because of fragmentation: the "MA taxi industry" is an amorphous unidentifiable mass made up of hundreds of individual cab companies and thousands of drivers. There's no one body to say "Hey, pay $83 and we'll make things better", and even if there were, without a state regulation to compel the payment, many drivers wouldn't chip in, leaving a much higher fee for those who did, or a much poorer investment fund. Those who did chip in would want preferential treatment or the exclusion of those who didn't pay, and we'd be in exactly the position where we are: those who want to evolve tools and invest in the industry (and have the means) do so at their own cost and to their own benefit, and those who don't, don't. Sometimes there's a role for tax and regulation to force change. That said, like you, I'm skeptical that the government will spend the money effectively.
danohu 10y ago
Entirely logical in political terms. When under pressure to "Do Something!", cook up a solution which sounds big but has minimal real impact

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

wutbrodo 10y ago

> there are 1825 cabs in Boston. Boston is 10% of Massachusetts' population, so let's say there are 18k cabs in the state. The number would likely be way lower than this (it doesn't make too much sense to extrapolate linearly from the densest urban population), but your point still stands even you double or triple the $/driver. That's pretty weird...

lpolovets 10y ago
That's a good point. After Googling some more, it seems like MA has about 8300 "taxi drivers and chauffeurs" (http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes533041.htm http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes533041.htm), so the $83 should probably be doubled or tripled.

manarth 10y ago

> "the tax will produce…$1.5m/year" If that's $83 per taxi-driver, then I agree: handing that $83 to the driver will not have a significant effect. So rather than use the tax to directly subsidise taxi-drivers income, what if it's used to invest in taxi infrastructure? Or perhaps invest in things that level the playing field, providing equivalents to some of Lyft/Uber's tools? Research or software into the most profitable time to work (to equalise with surge-pricing). A ride-hailing app that's open to all taxi companies. A training system that lowers the cost of entry into the market.

lpolovets 10y ago
I completely agree with you that this could be meaningful if it's used to improve taxi infrastructure, although I'm skeptical that the government will be able to effectively allocate money to build software tools that compete with Uber and Lyft. But regardless, why is the MA taxi industry waiting tax ride-hailing apps? Why not just ask every taxi driver for $83, which seems like a small price to pay for job security?
- manarth 10y ago
  > "why is the MA taxi industry waiting tax ride-hailing apps? Why not just ask every taxi driver for $83?" I guess it's because of fragmentation: the "MA taxi industry" is an amorphous unidentifiable mass made up of hundreds of individual cab companies and thousands of drivers. There's no one body to say "Hey, pay $83 and we'll make things better", and even if there were, without a state regulation to compel the payment, many drivers wouldn't chip in, leaving a much higher fee for those who did, or a much poorer investment fund. Those who did chip in would want preferential treatment or the exclusion of those who didn't pay, and we'd be in exactly the position where we are: those who want to evolve tools and invest in the industry (and have the means) do so at their own cost and to their own benefit, and those who don't, don't. Sometimes there's a role for tax and regulation to force change. That said, like you, I'm skeptical that the government will spend the money effectively.

danohu 10y ago

Entirely logical in political terms. When under pressure to "Do Something!", cook up a solution which sounds big but has minimal real impact