3 ms·

I’m not saying they know better. I’m saying that what Uber and Lyft are doing is extracting a margin at the cost of drivers and taxpayers without having built a

by kbos87 8y ago

I’m not saying they know better. I’m saying that what Uber and Lyft are doing is extracting a margin at the cost of drivers and taxpayers without having built any real competitive moat. Cities could do the same thing, leverage their control over airports, streets, and other public infrastructure to build a distinct advantage over Uber and Lyft, and reinvest the earnings from this capital light business model back into the capital intensive but ultimately better for society public transit system. Also - why instantly criticize government for “knowing better”? Any entrepreneur starting a business in an existing space is doing the same thing, and they’d likely be celebrated.

kmlx 8y ago
> I’m saying that what Uber and Lyft are doing is extracting a margin at the cost of drivers and taxpayers without having built any real competitive moat. I agree with the competitive moat issue. Not ideal for a business, but not a deal breaker. > Cities could do the same thing, leverage their control over airports, streets, and other public infrastructure to build a distinct advantage over Uber and Lyft, and reinvest the earnings from this capital light business model back into the capital intensive but ultimately better for society public transit system. Thanks for the explanation. It's a bit clearer to me know. I don't see a need to tax Uber/Lyft when considering that the main fault lies in the municipality failing to make owning a car so expensive that people would rather take the bus. Good examples come from Europe: owning a car in some places costs you so much, that taking an Uber/tram/subway/bus is the only way to go. Thus, fewer people have cars. And thus politicians focus on public transport. As long as we're talking taxes, why tax a taxi service when you can instead tax the huge number of people that actually don't need cars?

by kbos87 8y ago

kmlx 8y ago

> I’m saying that what Uber and Lyft are doing is extracting a margin at the cost of drivers and taxpayers without having built any real competitive moat. I agree with the competitive moat issue. Not ideal for a business, but not a deal breaker. > Cities could do the same thing, leverage their control over airports, streets, and other public infrastructure to build a distinct advantage over Uber and Lyft, and reinvest the earnings from this capital light business model back into the capital intensive but ultimately better for society public transit system. Thanks for the explanation. It's a bit clearer to me know. I don't see a need to tax Uber/Lyft when considering that the main fault lies in the municipality failing to make owning a car so expensive that people would rather take the bus. Good examples come from Europe: owning a car in some places costs you so much, that taking an Uber/tram/subway/bus is the only way to go. Thus, fewer people have cars. And thus politicians focus on public transport. As long as we're talking taxes, why tax a taxi service when you can instead tax the huge number of people that actually don't need cars?