4 ms·
>On the consumer side it looks very much like they undercut the existing market by dodging taxes and benefits for their disguised employees. I'm curious if the
by macspoofing 6y ago
>On the consumer side it looks very much like they undercut the existing market by dodging taxes and benefits for their disguised employees.
I'm curious if the salary for an Uber driver was significantly (or even at all) below the salary of a cab driver. It isn't like cabbies were rolling in the cash if they were employed by the cab company.
Also, is the salary significantly different if you compare it to independent cabbies (who owned a medalion).
Quick googling shows that the salaries are comparable: https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2016/11/28/fare-deal-how-the-hourly-earnings-of-uber-and-taxi-drivers-measure-up-infographic/#5600f6d9689a https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2016/11/28/fare-d...
>by dodging taxes
Hold on a second here. Let's not play fast and loose with words. Minimizing taxes is not illegal and everyone does it..
>for their disguised employees.
Employment has certain characteristics. It is much easier to make a case that Uber drivers are not employees rather than they are.
- Nursie 6y ago>Minimizing taxes is not illegal and everyone does it.. But in their case may not have been, as in some places (California?) it's looking like employment rules, and therefore related taxes, should probably have been in place from the beginning. It's a very grey area here, and a part of how they were able to undercut. The other part being VC subsidy of course.
- macspoofing 6y ago>It's a very grey area here It's not a grey area. The default position is not regulation and government permission. If it's not illegal, it's not illegal. If I'm starting a business, and that business does not violate existing regulations, why do I need to wait for government permission?