73 ms·

Another "user" is the taxpayer - who ultimately ends up paying for the social security, healthcare, and other unmet needs (lack of paid sick leave, lack of paid

by dkural 6y ago

Another "user" is the taxpayer - who ultimately ends up paying for the social security, healthcare, and other unmet needs (lack of paid sick leave, lack of paid maternity/paternity leave etc.) of these contractors. So in a way, by exempting Uber from these rules, but not others, society is handing out a subsidy for both the passengers and drivers.

zests 6y ago
What's the tax burden of the people unemployed by AB5 versus the tax burden of the people lacking benefits by working for the gig economy?
- linuxftw 6y ago
  What's the tax burden of enforcing a minimum wage vs not having one?
bhupy 6y ago
Which is fine, because that's progressively taxed. The alternative is higher prices which flatly burden everyone equally.
- Spivak 6y ago
  Higher prices are naturally regressive and burden people with lower incomes more than higher. If the gov't levied a hypothetical "everyone pay $2k in taxes right now" tax who do you think would be the most impacted?
- bergstromm466 6y ago
  > Which is fine No it's not fine [that taxpayers "ultimately end up paying for the social security, healthcare, and other unmet needs (lack of paid sick leave, lack of paid maternity/paternity leave etc.) of these contractors"]. The Commons have been slowly plundered. It's the working class who is suffering. Look around you, homeless people everywhere. This is digital Rentier Capitalism, which enriches the ruling classes, and parasitally sucks dry the working class. "[R]entier incomes from ownership and exploitation of assets are continuing to grow, sucking up ever more of global income. And the state is accentuating these two mega-trends by throwing more subsidies to the rentiers while cutting benefits for the precariat, and while the silicon revolution is channelling more income to those who own the robots, creating a perfect storm of economic insecurity. A way out of this approaching impasse would be to create a new income distribution system in which more of the rent is captured for society, and used to buttress the precariat’s living standards. In 1936, John Maynard Keynes predicted the "euthanasia of the rentier" before the end of the 20th century. It did not happen. Now is the time to do it. One way would be by building up democratic sovereign wealth funds through a levy on various forms of rent, which are neither morally nor economically justifiable." Source: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/12/the-precariat-populism-and-robots-is-basic-income-a-political-imperative/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/12/the-precariat-populis...
  - Wolfenstein98k 6y ago
    Why is this truest in the bluest areas? It's not nearly as true in (say) Salt Lake City.
- whimsicalism 6y ago
  Yes, let's pretend that everyone of every economic class will be equally burdened by higher Uber/Lyft prices. Look how SF voted on Prop 22. Doesn't reflect normal voting patterns against a regressive tax https://electionmapsf.com/ https://electionmapsf.com/
- dkural 6y ago
  It's mostly paid out by Uber actually - Uber would start paying for healthcare, payroll tax, unemployment insurance, social security etc. Just like, you know, your average Facebook job except without the 401K matching, stock benefits, bonuses & other perks. Uber could either burn even more secondary-offering cash to pay for it, or charge to passengers what that ride costs. Only people who hire private drivers with Uber would pay those costs, not "everyone" in a flat way. People who ride Uber more would pay more. (And maybe, once we realize the actual cost chauffeurs for rent & private transportation, one can start paying more attention to housing patterns, sprawl, public transportation etc.)
  - bhupy 6y ago
    > It's mostly paid out by Uber actually - Uber would start paying for healthcare, payroll tax, unemployment insurance, social security etc. Just like, you know, your average Facebook job except without the 401K matching, stock benefits, bonuses & other perks. Yes, and that stuff costs money. It doesn't come out of the profit margins, of which there are virtually none since the market is so competitive. It instead manifests as price increases. > Uber could either burn even more secondary-offering cash to pay for it, or charge to passengers what that ride costs. Only people who hire private drivers with Uber would pay those costs, not "everyone" in a flat way. People who ride Uber more would pay more. Yes, and people who ride UberX aren't billionaires. They're white collar workers, families, even other Uber drivers. And it isn't just Uber rides, it's also UberEats. Food delivery isn't just used by the uber-rich. If you're in the middle tax bracket in America and don't own a car, odds are that you've used ridesharing at least once. If you're in that same cohort, odds are you've ordered food or groceries on one of these platforms, especially during the pandemic.
apta 6y ago
Yet people call for socialized healthcare. How is the taxpayer affected anymore in this case comparatively? Too much double standards. As is the case with many of these issues, the underlying cause is never examined, but only attempt to patch the symptom.
dionidium 6y ago
I find this use of the term subsidy entirely unconvincing. That's simply not what the word means in ordinary usage and so using it this way feels nakedly obfuscatory.
Aunche 6y ago
Technology and globalization has displaced a lot of low-middle income jobs. Regardless of whether Uber has to provide "fair" wages and benefits, the taxpayer has to foot the bill of these underemployed or unemployed people. Right now, the money is flowing from the investors' pockets to Uber drivers, which is a good thing.
nxc18 6y ago
I voted for this arrangement specifically because I think the state _should_ be paying, ideally fully, for maternity, paternity, healthcare, and social security. Having a functional social safety net basically moots the issue of classifying employees.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > I voted for this arrangement specifically because I think the state _should_ be paying, ideally fully, for maternity, paternity, healthcare, and social security. I don't know why you would want to change the law now to a state that would be better in this area if you had a law you would like, but which doesn't exist and for which there is very little public or institutional support. It would seem to make more sense to change this law as part of implementing that other law, if and when support for that could be built. Otherwise, its kind of like abolishing a hypothetical law mandating certain minimum decency standards for owners treating slaves on the basis that slavery shouldn't exist in the first place without actually abolishing slavery.
  - austhrow743 6y ago
    Treating slaves decently law doesn't hinder you in post slave world. Employment classifications are a hindrance whether the state is footing the safety net bill or not.
  - stale2002 6y ago
    > I don't know why you would want to change the law now The law change was when app drivers were ruled to have to be employees. That is the status quo that was change. Prop 22 merely reverts the situation back to the previous status quo, that the drivers preferred. (the majority of drivers supported prop 22)
austhrow743 6y ago
If you buy someone something because you want them to have that thing, that's in no way a subsidy of a different entity you tried and failed to force to buy it.

by dkural 6y ago

zests 6y ago

What's the tax burden of the people unemployed by AB5 versus the tax burden of the people lacking benefits by working for the gig economy?

linuxftw 6y ago
What's the tax burden of enforcing a minimum wage vs not having one?

bhupy 6y ago

Which is fine, because that's progressively taxed. The alternative is higher prices which flatly burden everyone equally.

Spivak 6y ago
Higher prices are naturally regressive and burden people with lower incomes more than higher. If the gov't levied a hypothetical "everyone pay $2k in taxes right now" tax who do you think would be the most impacted?
bergstromm466 6y ago
> Which is fine No it's not fine [that taxpayers "ultimately end up paying for the social security, healthcare, and other unmet needs (lack of paid sick leave, lack of paid maternity/paternity leave etc.) of these contractors"]. The Commons have been slowly plundered. It's the working class who is suffering. Look around you, homeless people everywhere. This is digital Rentier Capitalism, which enriches the ruling classes, and parasitally sucks dry the working class. "[R]entier incomes from ownership and exploitation of assets are continuing to grow, sucking up ever more of global income. And the state is accentuating these two mega-trends by throwing more subsidies to the rentiers while cutting benefits for the precariat, and while the silicon revolution is channelling more income to those who own the robots, creating a perfect storm of economic insecurity. A way out of this approaching impasse would be to create a new income distribution system in which more of the rent is captured for society, and used to buttress the precariat’s living standards. In 1936, John Maynard Keynes predicted the "euthanasia of the rentier" before the end of the 20th century. It did not happen. Now is the time to do it. One way would be by building up democratic sovereign wealth funds through a levy on various forms of rent, which are neither morally nor economically justifiable." Source: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/12/the-precariat-populism-and-robots-is-basic-income-a-political-imperative/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/12/the-precariat-populis...
- Wolfenstein98k 6y ago
  Why is this truest in the bluest areas? It's not nearly as true in (say) Salt Lake City.
whimsicalism 6y ago
Yes, let's pretend that everyone of every economic class will be equally burdened by higher Uber/Lyft prices. Look how SF voted on Prop 22. Doesn't reflect normal voting patterns against a regressive tax https://electionmapsf.com/ https://electionmapsf.com/
dkural 6y ago
It's mostly paid out by Uber actually - Uber would start paying for healthcare, payroll tax, unemployment insurance, social security etc. Just like, you know, your average Facebook job except without the 401K matching, stock benefits, bonuses & other perks. Uber could either burn even more secondary-offering cash to pay for it, or charge to passengers what that ride costs. Only people who hire private drivers with Uber would pay those costs, not "everyone" in a flat way. People who ride Uber more would pay more. (And maybe, once we realize the actual cost chauffeurs for rent & private transportation, one can start paying more attention to housing patterns, sprawl, public transportation etc.)
- bhupy 6y ago
  > It's mostly paid out by Uber actually - Uber would start paying for healthcare, payroll tax, unemployment insurance, social security etc. Just like, you know, your average Facebook job except without the 401K matching, stock benefits, bonuses & other perks. Yes, and that stuff costs money. It doesn't come out of the profit margins, of which there are virtually none since the market is so competitive. It instead manifests as price increases. > Uber could either burn even more secondary-offering cash to pay for it, or charge to passengers what that ride costs. Only people who hire private drivers with Uber would pay those costs, not "everyone" in a flat way. People who ride Uber more would pay more. Yes, and people who ride UberX aren't billionaires. They're white collar workers, families, even other Uber drivers. And it isn't just Uber rides, it's also UberEats. Food delivery isn't just used by the uber-rich. If you're in the middle tax bracket in America and don't own a car, odds are that you've used ridesharing at least once. If you're in that same cohort, odds are you've ordered food or groceries on one of these platforms, especially during the pandemic.

apta 6y ago

Yet people call for socialized healthcare. How is the taxpayer affected anymore in this case comparatively? Too much double standards. As is the case with many of these issues, the underlying cause is never examined, but only attempt to patch the symptom.

dionidium 6y ago

I find this use of the term subsidy entirely unconvincing. That's simply not what the word means in ordinary usage and so using it this way feels nakedly obfuscatory.

Aunche 6y ago

Technology and globalization has displaced a lot of low-middle income jobs. Regardless of whether Uber has to provide "fair" wages and benefits, the taxpayer has to foot the bill of these underemployed or unemployed people. Right now, the money is flowing from the investors' pockets to Uber drivers, which is a good thing.

nxc18 6y ago

I voted for this arrangement specifically because I think the state _should_ be paying, ideally fully, for maternity, paternity, healthcare, and social security. Having a functional social safety net basically moots the issue of classifying employees.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> I voted for this arrangement specifically because I think the state _should_ be paying, ideally fully, for maternity, paternity, healthcare, and social security. I don't know why you would want to change the law now to a state that would be better in this area if you had a law you would like, but which doesn't exist and for which there is very little public or institutional support. It would seem to make more sense to change this law as part of implementing that other law, if and when support for that could be built. Otherwise, its kind of like abolishing a hypothetical law mandating certain minimum decency standards for owners treating slaves on the basis that slavery shouldn't exist in the first place without actually abolishing slavery.
- austhrow743 6y ago
  Treating slaves decently law doesn't hinder you in post slave world. Employment classifications are a hindrance whether the state is footing the safety net bill or not.
- stale2002 6y ago
  > I don't know why you would want to change the law now The law change was when app drivers were ruled to have to be employees. That is the status quo that was change. Prop 22 merely reverts the situation back to the previous status quo, that the drivers preferred. (the majority of drivers supported prop 22)

austhrow743 6y ago

If you buy someone something because you want them to have that thing, that's in no way a subsidy of a different entity you tried and failed to force to buy it.