4 ms·

I think it's reasonable for a government to crack down on businesses where the entire operational structure is designed to subvert that government's tax code an

I think it's reasonable for a government to crack down on businesses where the entire operational structure is designed to subvert that government's tax code and regulations.

agentdrtran 6y ago
I swear people forget how Uber got popular in the first place.
- BadassFractal 6y ago
  By providing a service that was more convenient, safer and affordable than the alternatives protected by regulatory rent-seeking.
  - AgloeDreams 6y ago
    Lol. Haha. You mean, overcrowding a market with underpaid positions, sold with lies and marketing to make them sound better than they are, to force people with full time jobs out of work so that people could get a ride in a vehicle with no safety, security, (or originally) background verification while doing all they could to cheat regulations, driver and user privacy, tax laws, climate change, and eventually, now, rent-seek, to boost stock prices to pad Vegas parties and investor portfolios. Modern ride sharing is not sustainable, environmentally friendly, or a 'job' and this doesn't exempt the bad behaviors by taxi companies, but understand this is the end destination of capitalism invading a regulated economy.
  - matmann2001 6y ago
    Playing devil's advocate here, but how do you think they managed to make a more affordable solution? If you think it's entirely due to their technology, I'm afraid you'd be mistaken.
    - BadassFractal 6y ago
      Not obvious, but entirely plausible. I'd be curious to see what a more sustainable pricing would look like on the consumer's end.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - matmann2001 6y ago
        More than plausible. The fact that Uber does not generate profit means they are effectively subsidizing rides with VC and IPO funds.
x3n0ph3n3 6y ago
Who do you think ends up paying that money? Uber/Lyft? Not a chance! This cost always gets passed down the the individuals in the form of smaller cuts of the pie.
malandrew 6y ago
SCOTUS came to a different conclusion in Gregory v Helvering. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_v._Helvering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_v._Helvering Government doesn't exist to collect taxes. They are there to provide governance. Taxes are a necessary evil that should be kept to a minimum to provide the service of governance. If someone can come up with a legal operational structure that gets around taxes then that the government didn't do its job. It's only easy to get around taxes when the taxes aren't closely tied to the service the government is providing. i.e. when you taxing one individual or business for a service provided to other individuals or businesses.
- compycom 6y ago
  > If someone can come up with a legal operational structure that gets around taxes then that the government didn't do its job. Right, they passed a law, AB5, to better do that job.
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  Wait, the SC ruled in favor of the government in that case, overruling the district court.
  - malandrew 6y ago
    "The legal right of a taxpayer to decrease the amount of what otherwise would be his taxes, or altogether avoid them, by means which the law permits, cannot be doubted."
    - joshuamorton 6y ago
      From the ruling that the SC upheld: "To dodge the shareholders' taxes is not one of the transactions contemplated as corporate "reorganizations." And from the SC ruling: "The whole undertaking, though conducted according to the terms of [the statute], was in fact an elaborate and devious form of conveyance masquerading as a corporate reorganization, and nothing else. ... [T]he transaction upon its face lies outside the plain intent of the statute. To hold otherwise would be to exalt artifice above reality and to deprive the statutory provision in question of all serious purpose." If there's no business purpose beyond tax avoidance, the government can indeed hold you to the higher tax rate. I don't think that's what happened here, i think there are legitimate non-tax reasons for Uber/Lyft's structure, but it's not a completely unreasonable take to disagree with that. And even if not, the government is free to change the law to fix things, which it did.

I think it's reasonable for a government to crack down on businesses where the entire operational structure is designed to subvert that government's tax code and regulations.

agentdrtran 6y ago

I swear people forget how Uber got popular in the first place.

BadassFractal 6y ago
By providing a service that was more convenient, safer and affordable than the alternatives protected by regulatory rent-seeking.
- AgloeDreams 6y ago
  Lol. Haha. You mean, overcrowding a market with underpaid positions, sold with lies and marketing to make them sound better than they are, to force people with full time jobs out of work so that people could get a ride in a vehicle with no safety, security, (or originally) background verification while doing all they could to cheat regulations, driver and user privacy, tax laws, climate change, and eventually, now, rent-seek, to boost stock prices to pad Vegas parties and investor portfolios. Modern ride sharing is not sustainable, environmentally friendly, or a 'job' and this doesn't exempt the bad behaviors by taxi companies, but understand this is the end destination of capitalism invading a regulated economy.
- matmann2001 6y ago
  Playing devil's advocate here, but how do you think they managed to make a more affordable solution? If you think it's entirely due to their technology, I'm afraid you'd be mistaken.
  - BadassFractal 6y ago
    Not obvious, but entirely plausible. I'd be curious to see what a more sustainable pricing would look like on the consumer's end.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - matmann2001 6y ago
      More than plausible. The fact that Uber does not generate profit means they are effectively subsidizing rides with VC and IPO funds.

x3n0ph3n3 6y ago

Who do you think ends up paying that money? Uber/Lyft? Not a chance! This cost always gets passed down the the individuals in the form of smaller cuts of the pie.

malandrew 6y ago

SCOTUS came to a different conclusion in Gregory v Helvering. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_v._Helvering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_v._Helvering Government doesn't exist to collect taxes. They are there to provide governance. Taxes are a necessary evil that should be kept to a minimum to provide the service of governance. If someone can come up with a legal operational structure that gets around taxes then that the government didn't do its job. It's only easy to get around taxes when the taxes aren't closely tied to the service the government is providing. i.e. when you taxing one individual or business for a service provided to other individuals or businesses.

compycom 6y ago
> If someone can come up with a legal operational structure that gets around taxes then that the government didn't do its job. Right, they passed a law, AB5, to better do that job.
joshuamorton 6y ago
Wait, the SC ruled in favor of the government in that case, overruling the district court.
- malandrew 6y ago
  "The legal right of a taxpayer to decrease the amount of what otherwise would be his taxes, or altogether avoid them, by means which the law permits, cannot be doubted."
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    From the ruling that the SC upheld: "To dodge the shareholders' taxes is not one of the transactions contemplated as corporate "reorganizations." And from the SC ruling: "The whole undertaking, though conducted according to the terms of [the statute], was in fact an elaborate and devious form of conveyance masquerading as a corporate reorganization, and nothing else. ... [T]he transaction upon its face lies outside the plain intent of the statute. To hold otherwise would be to exalt artifice above reality and to deprive the statutory provision in question of all serious purpose." If there's no business purpose beyond tax avoidance, the government can indeed hold you to the higher tax rate. I don't think that's what happened here, i think there are legitimate non-tax reasons for Uber/Lyft's structure, but it's not a completely unreasonable take to disagree with that. And even if not, the government is free to change the law to fix things, which it did.