8 ms·

I am really curious how they arrived at any of the numbers in this article. Seriously, what other large employers make it to hundred plus million per year? Are

I am really curious how they arrived at any of the numbers in this article. Seriously, what other large employers make it to hundred plus million per year? Are they just up and deciding that anyone who did one trip is now an employee? Is there a source that shows how much each company pays per year in this state? who else is equivalent? this isn't about protecting the drivers, this is about protecting the taxi industry and metropolitan mass transit unions both of which were under threat of better service being offered at lower costs both to tax payers as a whole as well as customers. you don't have to like Uber to understand what this is really about. It is protecting the current gravy train the politicians rely on to stay in office. edit: https://www.njbia.org/get-njbias-tax-changes-for-2019/ https://www.njbia.org/get-njbias-tax-changes-for-2019/ Unemployment Insurance, New Jersey Workforce Development and Health Care Subsidy Fund Taxes > Employee and employer state Unemployment Insurance tax rates will apply to the first $34,400 of an employee’s earnings in 2019 (up from $33,700 in 2018). > For 2019, employees are subject to a 0.0425% (.000425) Workforce Development Partnership Fund tax rate. The employee Unemployment Insurance tax rate remains at 0.3825% (.003825) of taxable payroll.

Retric 7y ago
This must mostly be penalties for not paying any taxes for 4 years. Unemployment in New Jersey is taxed at 0.3825% of the first 34,400$ of income so it cap’s at 132$/employee per year. The other tax is uncapped but at ~1/9th the rate. Nationwide Walmart has 2,300,000 US employees. If they are paying an average of 150$ each nation wide on similar taxes that’s 345 million per year. However, I doubt even 20 million of that is in New Jersey.
- throwawayhhakdl 7y ago
  It’s 120 in interest and fines. The rest accrued over four years
- IanCal 7y ago
  > Uber and subsidiary Rasier LLC were assessed $523 million in past-due taxes over the last four years, the state Department of Labor and Workforce Development said in a pair of letters to the companies. The rideshare businesses also are on the hook for as much as $119 million in interest and penalties on the unpaid amounts, according to other internal department documents. Also it's unemployment + disability insurance they're being charged for.
  - Retric 7y ago
    “At the end of each calendar year, any tax, penalties, and interest remaining due (unpaid) will become part of the balance on which interest is charged.” https://www.state.nj.us/treasury/taxation/njit19.shtml” https://www.state.nj.us/treasury/taxation/njit19.shtml” So, that 119m should be this years penalties. If this thing is growing at over 22% per year and 4 years ago the already had a 54m unpaid tax bill, then I can see this snowballing fast.
lost_access 7y ago
Also the acid test is whether the drivers are qualified for unemployment benefits.
- mirimir 7y ago
  If they're not considered employees, I don't see how they could claim unemployment. And if that's the case, this statement from TFA makes no sense: > The money that they’re not paying into the unemployment and disability systems is being picked up by the states and the taxpayers. Because there's nothing to be "picked up" if those workers don't qualify for unemployment and job-related disability. I get the argument about having more freedom when you're not an employee. But these people are generally getting screwed, I think.
  - manigandham 7y ago
    How are they getting screwed? Drivers do it by choice, and many of them do have a full-time job or other commitment and like Uber for the flexibility. They specifically don't want a full-time driving job.
    - mirimir 7y ago
      From what I've read, they often don't make enough to even cover their increased vehicle expenses. And then there's insurance exposure. Also, TFA notes that classification of drivers as employees would increase costs by over 20%. If that's true, someone here is getting screwed. Drivers, governments, or both. But still, I value freedom highly. So I do get the argument that people ought to have the right to work how they want. Even if they're getting screwed.
      - manigandham 7y ago
        Articles are a poor source. The drivers wouldn't be driving if they weren't making any money. I've taken thousands of rides and discussed Uber with about 90% of my drivers. While they all would like to make more money (who wouldn't?), they all make a profit and enjoy the flexibility the most.
xenocyon 7y ago
You make reference to protecting mass transit as well as to the cost to consumers. These arguments make sense if there are zero externalities, but unfortunately there are: carbon footprint, both directly as well as second order effects from increased congestion, commercial exploitation of subsidized infrastructure, increased collision risk to cyclists and vulnerable road users, abuse of contract law by preventing independent rate setting and concealing negotiable information, artificially depressed prices fueled by venture capital in order to create a monopoly and capitalize later. These externalities are borne by society at large, so a pure "let the consumer decide" philosophy is not fully justified in this scenario. Some of these externalities apply to taxis as well, which is precisely why regulating and limiting taxis is good, though I think one could do a lot better than the medallion system.
- manigandham 7y ago
  Regulation is what made taxis so terrible. We don't need the government to control everything. Many of the externalities you describe would be the same if people just drove their own cars. If ridesharing is so bad then govt should invest in proper public transport to create more choice, not try and crush a valuable service used by millions.
  - tasogare 7y ago
    No, taxis are bad because companies try to squeeze the maximum amount of money while providing the least possible service. They could provide a good service within the term of the regulations if it were their focus. Where I live taxis are regulated yet provide a decent/high quality of service. And it’s true even in cities like mine where the public transportation network is crap (bus based).
    - manigandham 7y ago
      Taxis got away with it because there was no competition until ridesharing came around. They wouldn't have provided good service on their own when protected by laws. Nothing has improved commercial services like competition. Nothing has ruined it like regulation. I've yet to hear how any of these externalities are solved with regulation, or how they are unique to ridesharing vs private car ownership.

Retric 7y ago

This must mostly be penalties for not paying any taxes for 4 years. Unemployment in New Jersey is taxed at 0.3825% of the first 34,400$ of income so it cap’s at 132$/employee per year. The other tax is uncapped but at ~1/9th the rate. Nationwide Walmart has 2,300,000 US employees. If they are paying an average of 150$ each nation wide on similar taxes that’s 345 million per year. However, I doubt even 20 million of that is in New Jersey.

throwawayhhakdl 7y ago
It’s 120 in interest and fines. The rest accrued over four years
IanCal 7y ago
> Uber and subsidiary Rasier LLC were assessed $523 million in past-due taxes over the last four years, the state Department of Labor and Workforce Development said in a pair of letters to the companies. The rideshare businesses also are on the hook for as much as $119 million in interest and penalties on the unpaid amounts, according to other internal department documents. Also it's unemployment + disability insurance they're being charged for.
- Retric 7y ago
  “At the end of each calendar year, any tax, penalties, and interest remaining due (unpaid) will become part of the balance on which interest is charged.” https://www.state.nj.us/treasury/taxation/njit19.shtml” https://www.state.nj.us/treasury/taxation/njit19.shtml” So, that 119m should be this years penalties. If this thing is growing at over 22% per year and 4 years ago the already had a 54m unpaid tax bill, then I can see this snowballing fast.

lost_access 7y ago

Also the acid test is whether the drivers are qualified for unemployment benefits.

mirimir 7y ago
If they're not considered employees, I don't see how they could claim unemployment. And if that's the case, this statement from TFA makes no sense: > The money that they’re not paying into the unemployment and disability systems is being picked up by the states and the taxpayers. Because there's nothing to be "picked up" if those workers don't qualify for unemployment and job-related disability. I get the argument about having more freedom when you're not an employee. But these people are generally getting screwed, I think.
- manigandham 7y ago
  How are they getting screwed? Drivers do it by choice, and many of them do have a full-time job or other commitment and like Uber for the flexibility. They specifically don't want a full-time driving job.
  - mirimir 7y ago
    From what I've read, they often don't make enough to even cover their increased vehicle expenses. And then there's insurance exposure. Also, TFA notes that classification of drivers as employees would increase costs by over 20%. If that's true, someone here is getting screwed. Drivers, governments, or both. But still, I value freedom highly. So I do get the argument that people ought to have the right to work how they want. Even if they're getting screwed.
    - manigandham 7y ago
      Articles are a poor source. The drivers wouldn't be driving if they weren't making any money. I've taken thousands of rides and discussed Uber with about 90% of my drivers. While they all would like to make more money (who wouldn't?), they all make a profit and enjoy the flexibility the most.

xenocyon 7y ago

You make reference to protecting mass transit as well as to the cost to consumers. These arguments make sense if there are zero externalities, but unfortunately there are: carbon footprint, both directly as well as second order effects from increased congestion, commercial exploitation of subsidized infrastructure, increased collision risk to cyclists and vulnerable road users, abuse of contract law by preventing independent rate setting and concealing negotiable information, artificially depressed prices fueled by venture capital in order to create a monopoly and capitalize later. These externalities are borne by society at large, so a pure "let the consumer decide" philosophy is not fully justified in this scenario. Some of these externalities apply to taxis as well, which is precisely why regulating and limiting taxis is good, though I think one could do a lot better than the medallion system.

manigandham 7y ago
Regulation is what made taxis so terrible. We don't need the government to control everything. Many of the externalities you describe would be the same if people just drove their own cars. If ridesharing is so bad then govt should invest in proper public transport to create more choice, not try and crush a valuable service used by millions.
- tasogare 7y ago
  No, taxis are bad because companies try to squeeze the maximum amount of money while providing the least possible service. They could provide a good service within the term of the regulations if it were their focus. Where I live taxis are regulated yet provide a decent/high quality of service. And it’s true even in cities like mine where the public transportation network is crap (bus based).
  - manigandham 7y ago
    Taxis got away with it because there was no competition until ridesharing came around. They wouldn't have provided good service on their own when protected by laws. Nothing has improved commercial services like competition. Nothing has ruined it like regulation. I've yet to hear how any of these externalities are solved with regulation, or how they are unique to ridesharing vs private car ownership.