4 ms·

This is a misrepresentation. Taxi drivers are not protesting against the regulation. In fact, in most places taxi drivers and their unions are strong supporter

by avz 12y ago

This is a misrepresentation. Taxi drivers are not protesting against the regulation. In fact, in most places taxi drivers and their unions are strong supporters of the said regulations and have worked for decades to get it in place. It's a typical situation where a bunch of "insiders" have striven for years to keep "outsiders" away with the goal of reducing competition. Another typical aspect to this situation is how technology upends a structure put in place by legalistic means.

pistle 12y ago
Do Uber drivers pay taxes to the municipalities in which their drivers deliver service? The regulators and the regulated both get something from the status quo. Selling medallions, etc. gets the city in which the drivers do business some revenue to pay for the services the city must provide to support the business. Taxes help fund roads, police, administration, etc. The "situation" is more complex than you describe and the unintended consequences of Uber are nowhere in the discussion. I'm surprised that Uber hasn't put forth licensing a version of their infrastructure for use by black/yellow cabs for dispatch. They can provide access to customers along with a pretty seamless payment process.
- rlpb 12y ago
  > I'm surprised that Uber hasn't put forth licensing a version of their infrastructure for use by black/yellow cabs for dispatch. They can provide access to customers along with a pretty seamless payment process. They have: http://blog.uber.com/UberTAXI http://blog.uber.com/UberTAXI
  - pistle 12y ago
    That's not what I mean at all and this model wouldn't work outside of places, like NYC, where drivers are indy contractors. Even there, it's not clear that this would be OK with the lessors or their cab. They may not be able to use this. I'm thinking something that cedes some control of the system while making available some of the functionality. SaaS, not a franchising exercise directly from Uber to drivers.
- avz 12y ago
  They pay income taxes. The primary intent of medallions is not to raise funds for infrastructure. Their goal is to keep people out of the business. You can tell by the fact that they're regressive: they burden lower-income persons more than higher-income thereby preventing new competition from low-skilled workers and guaranteeing safety to the incumbents.
  - pistle 12y ago
    Income taxes for drivers likely do not benefit the municipalities where the cars are driving. e.g. The drivers would be consuming space and wear and tear in NYC, but living in Jersey. NYC roads and services necessary to support increased congestion get burdened, but no tax dollars help support them. A regressive policy has nothing to do with the goal of the medallions. They cost what market forces will support. The goal of high-end watches is to keep poor people from knowing what time it is. The medallions aren't for infrastructure. I'd argue the medallions are supported by both the city and existing cabbies because of congestion and quality management issues. It's a way to ensure minimal levels of service and to punish bad (well, abhorrent) service. The tax on fares is for infrastructure and administration. In NYC, $.50/trip is imposed. What's Uber paying? I guess Uber couldn't know when it was dealing with a NYC fare subject to the tax... Oh, wait they couldn't offer that since it would imply they were a taxi service subject to other regs... So, they have to flaunt all the laws and put themselves in a legal bind that isn't all "just obvious barriers to entry."
    - seanmcdirmid 12y ago
      Medallions are meant to regulate supply with demand, nothing more. Other fees go to road maintenance (gas tax, tab tax, tolls, etc...) and are actually sort of related to usage. Uber is doing what it can disrupt the status quo, the laws are ambiguous enough that they can get away with it. Admirable in my opinion.
      - toomuchtodo 12y ago
        Medallions shouldn't be assets you can own, transfer, rentseek on. They should be a lottery, with no cash value if their purpose is to restrict the number of vehicles in a geographic area.
bunderbunder 12y ago
> Taxi drivers are not protesting against the regulation. I think perhaps both are true, though one only accidentally so. Taxi drivers' see themselves as protesting for stronger enforcement of the regulations. I suspect a large portion of the public, though, will recognize the protests as a sort of performance art designed to illustrate that the regulations are problematic and could perhaps stand to be revised.
mhd 12y ago
Yes, because the only reason those regulations are in place is a lobbying industry trying for a monopoly. Care for the safety and treatment of the actual passengers would never enter the mind of a politician. And of course this is true for every country affected.
- randallsquared 12y ago
  I think you're being sarcastic, but as a first approximation it's so close to what many actually think that the sarcasm might be lost. :)
  - Jgrubb 12y ago
    I didn't think it was sarcasm - I'm one of those people you're talking about. edit: reading again - yeah it's a pretty black and white statement and the truth is always grey-er, but I'm an American who has absolutely no faith in most of our govt anymore so it hits home.
- wyager 12y ago
  Funny enough, I feel much safer in an uber car than a taxi. Technology has succeeded where the government has failed.
throwaway0010 12y ago
Agreed. The name for this is "regulatory capture." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture

by avz 12y ago

pistle 12y ago

Do Uber drivers pay taxes to the municipalities in which their drivers deliver service? The regulators and the regulated both get something from the status quo. Selling medallions, etc. gets the city in which the drivers do business some revenue to pay for the services the city must provide to support the business. Taxes help fund roads, police, administration, etc. The "situation" is more complex than you describe and the unintended consequences of Uber are nowhere in the discussion. I'm surprised that Uber hasn't put forth licensing a version of their infrastructure for use by black/yellow cabs for dispatch. They can provide access to customers along with a pretty seamless payment process.

rlpb 12y ago
> I'm surprised that Uber hasn't put forth licensing a version of their infrastructure for use by black/yellow cabs for dispatch. They can provide access to customers along with a pretty seamless payment process. They have: http://blog.uber.com/UberTAXI http://blog.uber.com/UberTAXI
- pistle 12y ago
  That's not what I mean at all and this model wouldn't work outside of places, like NYC, where drivers are indy contractors. Even there, it's not clear that this would be OK with the lessors or their cab. They may not be able to use this. I'm thinking something that cedes some control of the system while making available some of the functionality. SaaS, not a franchising exercise directly from Uber to drivers.
avz 12y ago
They pay income taxes. The primary intent of medallions is not to raise funds for infrastructure. Their goal is to keep people out of the business. You can tell by the fact that they're regressive: they burden lower-income persons more than higher-income thereby preventing new competition from low-skilled workers and guaranteeing safety to the incumbents.
- pistle 12y ago
  Income taxes for drivers likely do not benefit the municipalities where the cars are driving. e.g. The drivers would be consuming space and wear and tear in NYC, but living in Jersey. NYC roads and services necessary to support increased congestion get burdened, but no tax dollars help support them. A regressive policy has nothing to do with the goal of the medallions. They cost what market forces will support. The goal of high-end watches is to keep poor people from knowing what time it is. The medallions aren't for infrastructure. I'd argue the medallions are supported by both the city and existing cabbies because of congestion and quality management issues. It's a way to ensure minimal levels of service and to punish bad (well, abhorrent) service. The tax on fares is for infrastructure and administration. In NYC, $.50/trip is imposed. What's Uber paying? I guess Uber couldn't know when it was dealing with a NYC fare subject to the tax... Oh, wait they couldn't offer that since it would imply they were a taxi service subject to other regs... So, they have to flaunt all the laws and put themselves in a legal bind that isn't all "just obvious barriers to entry."
  - seanmcdirmid 12y ago
    Medallions are meant to regulate supply with demand, nothing more. Other fees go to road maintenance (gas tax, tab tax, tolls, etc...) and are actually sort of related to usage. Uber is doing what it can disrupt the status quo, the laws are ambiguous enough that they can get away with it. Admirable in my opinion.
    - toomuchtodo 12y ago
      Medallions shouldn't be assets you can own, transfer, rentseek on. They should be a lottery, with no cash value if their purpose is to restrict the number of vehicles in a geographic area.

bunderbunder 12y ago

> Taxi drivers are not protesting against the regulation. I think perhaps both are true, though one only accidentally so. Taxi drivers' see themselves as protesting for stronger enforcement of the regulations. I suspect a large portion of the public, though, will recognize the protests as a sort of performance art designed to illustrate that the regulations are problematic and could perhaps stand to be revised.

mhd 12y ago

Yes, because the only reason those regulations are in place is a lobbying industry trying for a monopoly. Care for the safety and treatment of the actual passengers would never enter the mind of a politician. And of course this is true for every country affected.

randallsquared 12y ago
I think you're being sarcastic, but as a first approximation it's so close to what many actually think that the sarcasm might be lost. :)
- Jgrubb 12y ago
  I didn't think it was sarcasm - I'm one of those people you're talking about. edit: reading again - yeah it's a pretty black and white statement and the truth is always grey-er, but I'm an American who has absolutely no faith in most of our govt anymore so it hits home.
wyager 12y ago
Funny enough, I feel much safer in an uber car than a taxi. Technology has succeeded where the government has failed.

throwaway0010 12y ago

Agreed. The name for this is "regulatory capture." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture