4 ms·

That shifts the costs on to me, the taxpayer, but not necessarily an Uber customer, for non-wage benefits. Why should I, the non-Ubering taxpayer have to pay be

That shifts the costs on to me, the taxpayer, but not necessarily an Uber customer, for non-wage benefits. Why should I, the non-Ubering taxpayer have to pay benefits for an Uber driver? That isn’t “progressive,” that’s shifting a cost from the two people engaged in a contractual transaction to everyone who doesn’t necessarily have any interest in the transaction. If an Uber driver needs health insurance, that cost would be part of the calculus of deciding to drive for Uber. If the government provided it, the taxes required would also become part of that calculus. The deadweight loss from taxation can’t be ignored. Not to mention it isn’t my job to provide non-wage benefits to support Uber or a driver. That’s between them. Literally not my problem. If the Uber driver isn’t taxed proportional to their consumption of benefits, then I the taxpayer am forced to subsidize the profit of both Uber and the driver. If the driver has to pay for his own non-wage benefits, than that would be part of their determination of accepting the offered wage or not.

alistairSH 6y ago
The problem in the current scenario is the drivers needs health insurance, but Uber isn't supplying it (nor are they paying a high enough wage to buy insurance on the open market), so tax-payers are stuck footing the bill anyways.
- mjevans 6y ago
  This is also what's happening with //part time// workers, and anyone else who isn't getting a 'full job'. As another reply mentioned, cliffs (cutoffs) incentivize gaming the cutoff.
  - alistairSH 6y ago
    Yup. The 30-hour (I think that's the value) cliff for insurance wasn't a brilliant idea. I don't know the best (most efficient for society) solution, but I'm pretty sure phasing out the tax write-off for employer-provided health insurance is a good start.
bumby 6y ago
>Why should I, the non-Ubering taxpayer have to pay benefits for an Uber driver? I think the argument is that there are certain public goods that should be included in the social contract and funded by taxes rather than via employers as part of the social contract. We can maybe disagree on what those specific public goods should be, but it doesn't absolve one from helping to pay for them if one wants to be a member of that society. For example, public schools has been decided to be a public good paid for, in large part, by property taxes in the U.S. My sister does not get to opt out of that portion of taxes despite not having children. While it would be nice to be able to unilaterally choose each and every tax payment that we want to contribute to, I don't think that is feasible in a complex society. I would, however, like to see a simple chart on everybody's tax return that shows what portion of money they pay to each program at filing time in the hopes that it would lead to more informed decisions at the ballot box.

alistairSH 6y ago

The problem in the current scenario is the drivers needs health insurance, but Uber isn't supplying it (nor are they paying a high enough wage to buy insurance on the open market), so tax-payers are stuck footing the bill anyways.

mjevans 6y ago
This is also what's happening with //part time// workers, and anyone else who isn't getting a 'full job'. As another reply mentioned, cliffs (cutoffs) incentivize gaming the cutoff.
- alistairSH 6y ago
  Yup. The 30-hour (I think that's the value) cliff for insurance wasn't a brilliant idea. I don't know the best (most efficient for society) solution, but I'm pretty sure phasing out the tax write-off for employer-provided health insurance is a good start.

bumby 6y ago

>Why should I, the non-Ubering taxpayer have to pay benefits for an Uber driver? I think the argument is that there are certain public goods that should be included in the social contract and funded by taxes rather than via employers as part of the social contract. We can maybe disagree on what those specific public goods should be, but it doesn't absolve one from helping to pay for them if one wants to be a member of that society. For example, public schools has been decided to be a public good paid for, in large part, by property taxes in the U.S. My sister does not get to opt out of that portion of taxes despite not having children. While it would be nice to be able to unilaterally choose each and every tax payment that we want to contribute to, I don't think that is feasible in a complex society. I would, however, like to see a simple chart on everybody's tax return that shows what portion of money they pay to each program at filing time in the hopes that it would lead to more informed decisions at the ballot box.