12 ms·
Maybe we should be asking why some industries are heavily taxed and others are not
by jostmey 10y ago
Maybe we should be asking why some industries are heavily taxed and others are not
- dmix 10y agoJust look how successful the products are (not talking about the companies) without heavy government intervention. Both of those would not exist if they had followed laws designed a (half?) century ago for different types of businesses. And customers love those services. Rather than finding a common working ground that keeps customers happy that outnumber those unhappy with it by 100:1 and instead updates laws like improving landlords protection from Airbnb renters, improving access to employment insurance and health care to self employed contractors, etc it's easier to blame tech billionaires for being greedy.
- wmeredith 10y agoCustomers love Uber because it's prices are currently subsidized by VC money. Once that goes away, we'll see how competitive they are.
- stale2002 10y agoUber is profitable in the USA. So I see no reason why its won't stay competitive.
- DasIch 10y agoApple is profitable but it certainly not competitive on pricing. Monopolies also tend to be profitable, competitiveness isn't even a concern there.
- stale2002 10y ago???? So are Uber's prices too low, because it is being subsidized by VC money, or are the prices too high, because it is a monopoly? You can't have it both ways. My argument is that their prices are just fine where they are now, and that there is no upcoming price hike, because the prices, in the USA, are profitable NOW.
- darpa_escapee 10y agoIn my market, Uber undercuts the established taxi businesses. People clearly have a higher valuation for a taxi ride than what Uber is charging because they've been paying the higher price and are still paying it when they choose another business other than Uber to ride with. Once Uber has driven out the other options, thus the need for competitive pricing, why wouldn't they capture that lost value?
- stale2002 10y agoWhat I am saying is, Is that if Uber is profitable right now in the US, then this isn't "undercutting". This is the fair, free market price. That's how normal competition works. If they were significantly not profitable, then you can use the price dumping argument. But since they ARE profitable, then this is the price that the free market will go towards.
- DasIch 10y agoI can have both because there is no relationship between profitability and competitive prices. Profitability doesn't imply competitive prices and competitive prices don't imply profitability. That Uber happens to be profitable and offer competitive prices doesn't imply anything for their prices in the future.
- baddox 10y agoAre there any good sources for Uber's unit costs versus prices? I would be surprised if all rides in all markets are subsidized by VC money. I would expect most of the VC money is being spent on expansion (more cities and more drivers) and that Uber service is actually profitable in mature markets. There are several articles claiming that Uber is profitable in the US.
- empath75 10y agoI actually preferred uber when it first launched and it was kind of expensive and you got nicer cars and more professional drivers.
- dajohnson89 10y agoUber black still provides that option.
- jghn 10y agoRight. When I started using Uber, back when it was just "Uber" and w/o the various levels, it was cost-wise on par with local cabs but I always used it. The ability to get a decent experience, when I wanted it and with the online capabilities was a huge win over taxis.
- Zach_the_Lizard 10y agoYou can still use Uber black for that.
- cheath 10y agoI don't think this is necessarily true. Much of the VC dollars Uber has are currently being used to enter new markets. It's primarily used as growth dollars, as it should be. They lost $1.2 billion this year and spent $1 billion on trying to capture the India market alone. In several other markets they were taking a similar strategy. My suspicion is that as a rider in a primary market, you are paying a "sustainable" (for the rider) rate. Maybe not so much for the driver. But that's a different topic.
- toomuchtodo 10y agoTech billionaires are greedy.
- digitaltrees 10y agoSo are you saying we should get rid of any regulation where "customers love a service" that doesn't follow the regulation? So we should allow a contract killer for hire on-line marketplace because drug cartels would really love to book their preferred hit man from an iPhone app?
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- eloff 10y agoSlippery-slope fallacy. Revising regulation to strike a balance between no regulation and existing regulations to allow services like AirBnB and Uber does not have a causative link to creating a contract-for-hire market for killers...
- digitaltrees 10y agoI am pushing back against the slippery slope that all regulation is bad, or rather, that AirBnB should be allowed to ignore regulation. I am trying to demonstrate, that in principal, at least one regulation would be obviously appropriate. If we agree on that, then we can get into the process of evaluating which regulations are efficient, acceptable and balance the competing interests of maximizing utility, and promoting social good.
- eloff 10y agoI think few would take the position that all regulations are bad, or that Silicon Valley companies should be able to ignore regulations. However, regulations need to change with the times and the technology, and this is one case where they haven't caught up. The regulations are serving to protect special interests, defeating the natural efficiency of the free market. They also serve some use, in terms of safety standards, mandating accessibility for people with disabilities, etc. Clearly they need to be revised and improved, but I don't have a lot of confidence in the political environment in the US that they will bring sanity to the situation anytime soon.
- 10y ago
- DanBC 10y ago> And customers love those services. Until they die in a fire in a building that doesn't follow fire code; or are seriously injured in a possibly uninsured Uber[1] car. [1] Uber provides insurance to US drivers. I don't think they provide it anywhere else.
- Symmetry 10y agoThe regulations that Uber is skirting are based on the problems caused by taxi drivers otherwise being anonymous. Since Uber can connect drivers to rides and handles payment the problems that plagued pre-regulation taxis aren't a concern in this case. We shouldn't reflexively assume that all regulation is bad, but we shouldn't reflexively assume that all regulation is good either. As with Chesterton's fence, always look at why something was created before saying whether it should continue or stop. Injuries by uninsured drivers in places where valid insurance isn't required to drive isn't really a thing you can lay on Uber. It applies to every car on the road in those countries.
- Xylakant 10y ago> Injuries by uninsured drivers in places where valid insurance isn't required to drive isn't really a thing you can lay on Uber. It applies to every car on the road in those countries. Uber has been cited multiple times in Germany because it did not enforce the required insurance for its drivers, instead letting them drive with a private insurance.
- kwhitefoot 10y ago> taxi drivers otherwise being anonymous. Everywhere I take taxis the drivers have to display their name and id. Or did you mean something else by 'anonymous'?
- Symmetry 10y agoThey display those because of the medallion system, the system of regulations that Uber is ignoring.
- 10y ago
- rayiner 10y ago> And customers love those services. All else being equal, customers love paying less for the same thing. But they don't necessarily like the implications at scale. E.g. would New Yorkers vote to raise property or income taxes to make up for the $1.8 billion that would be lost from hospitality taxes?
- scarmig 10y agoEven that's not as simple, though: if hotels all failed, they would be replaced by something else (maybe AirBnBs, maybe other things, probably a mix) that would generate economic activity and tax revenues. Certainly adding up to less than what's lost in hospitality taxes, but it does counteract the loss to an extent.
- rayiner 10y agoIt doesn't counteract the loss, because the hotel already generated economic activity and tax revenue and then hospital taxes on top of that.
- rayiner 10y agoTaxing the hospitality industry is a way for a municipality to shift the tax burden from residents to visitors.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- throwaway_45 10y agoBecause we live in a first world country. Taxes pay for that. That include hotel and taxi taxes.