3 ms·

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

by bhupy 6y ago

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.

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

by 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.