3 ms·

Uber has (somewhat correctly) predicted that the feds are so slow and the penalties so small, running things like the mob will pay off. After all, their whole "

by nikanj 9y ago

Uber has (somewhat correctly) predicted that the feds are so slow and the penalties so small, running things like the mob will pay off. After all, their whole "disruption" is "how about we just ignore all the taxi legislation". See also, AirBnB with "how about we just ignore all the hotel legislation".

pjmlp 9y ago
In some European countries, AirBnB no longer has a free reign as people are now required to pay taxes for renting rooms, not doing so is considered tax evasion.
- nolemurs 9y ago
  Not paying taxes on AirBnB income is also considered tax evasion in the US. I doubt there's any meaningful enforcement, but it's no more legal in the US than in Europe.
  - TomMarius 9y ago
    No, paying taxes on income is something different. You of course have to pay taxes for your whole income; new taxes that include requirements for explicit registration and so on have been introduced.
- djsumdog 9y ago
  The state of Washington in the US has a one time fee of a couple of thousand dollars if you want to use a property as an AirBNB. It's per-property and goes to the property (so if you sell it, the new owner gets that grant as well).
mrgordon 9y ago
I don't think its a great comparison. Uber has repeatedly broken the law including stealing trade secrets, spying on competitors, and sabotaging them. They aren't toeing the law to figure out what regulations make sense for ridesharing. They are flagrantly breaking every rule so they win.
- pjc50 9y ago
  Well, not all the rules; so far as I'm aware nobody has got killed. Does make me wonder how far people are going to take "disruption". Could a company decide to make their self-driving cars more successful by hacking their competitors to cause accidents? What about hacking your competitors' factory SCADA systems? Possibly with the help of a foreign intelligence agency? After all, this is the cyberpunk future we were promised.
  - mrgordon 9y ago
    Haha fine, no murder conviction yet You could say that incidents like this leave them indirectly responsible for rapes and murders though: https://techcrunch.com/2017/06/28/lawsuit-claims-uber-ignored-attempted-murder-conviction-of-driver-who-later-raped-passenger/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/06/28/lawsuit-claims-uber-ignore...
markshead 9y ago
> After all, their whole "disruption" is "how about we just ignore all the taxi legislation" The laws I'm familiar with for taxis specifically apply to a vehicle that you hail (wave down) from the street. If you call a car service and arrange someone to pick you up, the rules are entirely different than taxis. Uber found a way to make it really easy to arrange for someone to pick you up which is what allowed them to use drivers who only met the car service requirements. In general, their innovation was to reduce the inconvenience of arranging a ride with a car service and make it even more convenient than dealing with a taxi. (I'm not saying they haven't ever done anything that ignored legislation, but it is a stretch to say that their primary innovation was to ignore taxi laws.)

by nikanj 9y ago

pjmlp 9y ago

In some European countries, AirBnB no longer has a free reign as people are now required to pay taxes for renting rooms, not doing so is considered tax evasion.

nolemurs 9y ago
Not paying taxes on AirBnB income is also considered tax evasion in the US. I doubt there's any meaningful enforcement, but it's no more legal in the US than in Europe.
- TomMarius 9y ago
  No, paying taxes on income is something different. You of course have to pay taxes for your whole income; new taxes that include requirements for explicit registration and so on have been introduced.
djsumdog 9y ago
The state of Washington in the US has a one time fee of a couple of thousand dollars if you want to use a property as an AirBNB. It's per-property and goes to the property (so if you sell it, the new owner gets that grant as well).

mrgordon 9y ago

I don't think its a great comparison. Uber has repeatedly broken the law including stealing trade secrets, spying on competitors, and sabotaging them. They aren't toeing the law to figure out what regulations make sense for ridesharing. They are flagrantly breaking every rule so they win.

pjc50 9y ago
Well, not all the rules; so far as I'm aware nobody has got killed. Does make me wonder how far people are going to take "disruption". Could a company decide to make their self-driving cars more successful by hacking their competitors to cause accidents? What about hacking your competitors' factory SCADA systems? Possibly with the help of a foreign intelligence agency? After all, this is the cyberpunk future we were promised.
- mrgordon 9y ago
  Haha fine, no murder conviction yet You could say that incidents like this leave them indirectly responsible for rapes and murders though: https://techcrunch.com/2017/06/28/lawsuit-claims-uber-ignored-attempted-murder-conviction-of-driver-who-later-raped-passenger/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/06/28/lawsuit-claims-uber-ignore...

markshead 9y ago

> After all, their whole "disruption" is "how about we just ignore all the taxi legislation" The laws I'm familiar with for taxis specifically apply to a vehicle that you hail (wave down) from the street. If you call a car service and arrange someone to pick you up, the rules are entirely different than taxis. Uber found a way to make it really easy to arrange for someone to pick you up which is what allowed them to use drivers who only met the car service requirements. In general, their innovation was to reduce the inconvenience of arranging a ride with a car service and make it even more convenient than dealing with a taxi. (I'm not saying they haven't ever done anything that ignored legislation, but it is a stretch to say that their primary innovation was to ignore taxi laws.)