4 ms·

Agreed. There's lots of government sanctioned monopolies, or duopolies. Taxies are often one due to the sheer logistics required. Your city either has a taxi se

Agreed. There's lots of government sanctioned monopolies, or duopolies. Taxies are often one due to the sheer logistics required. Your city either has a taxi service, or doesn't. There's unfathomable liability not having a taxi service. Are you going to start paying designated drivers? Because it'll be the city on the line when there's no operating taxi service and drunk driving rates skyrocket and a judge is forced to punish people who had no practical way to get home. Construction companies are the same, there's only one big company that does roadwork where I live. I got a driveway in, the job was given to a bunch of different contractors to do the sidewalk as they had to be city approved. It took 3 contractors 4 visits to do the prep for the sidewalk: they marked it twice, cut and removed it but did it to the wrong marks, framed it. We complained and complained and nothing happened. Finally the concrete company that does all the roadworks was the final contractor, I run out and explain it to them and the guys like "yeah no problem, happens all the time. We just bill the city for the extras." That was the day I stopped questioning why there was one big contractor, its because the little guys just can't coordinate it. Uber will get squashed for the very reason it is disruptive. Until mileage and fees are all recorded and payment is through the app, there will be no possibility of this app surviving. No taxes and drivers with no liability insurance, no quality regulation, its a recipie for massive lawsuits, tax agencies alleging tax fraud and worse Uber will be targeted for aiding tax evasion.

madeofpalk 12y ago
> Until mileage and fees are all recorded and payment is through the app, there will be no possibility of this app surviving. This happens already? Here's my trip from last night http://i.imgur.com/JzseAq8.png http://i.imgur.com/JzseAq8.png > No taxes and drivers with no liability insurance Taxes have nothing to do with this - everyone still needs to report their regular income - Uber doesnt change this. Also, the majority of fares on Uber are actually through Uber taxi, black or SUV. They are all licensed and already carry commercial insurance (as some of them accept fares outside of Uber). For the drivers that don't have their own commercial insurance (e.g. UberX), Uber covers them with their own insurance (which you can actually read yourself as it was leaked not too long ago).
- chillingeffect 12y ago
  Wow, $36 for 3.45 km? I assume that's Australia, right? so that's roughly 2.1 miles for $33 USD. That ride would be $9.00 (US) in San Francisco. [0] Perhaps Uber is, like Apple, quite simply providing a higher class of service and getting compensated proportionally for it. Maybe they won't ever eliminate traditional taxis b/c not enough people can afford a 266% markup. [0]http://yellowcabsf.com/service/cab-fares/ http://yellowcabsf.com/service/cab-fares/
  - eru 12y ago
    Even normal taxis in Australia are crazy expensive.
  - CHY872 12y ago
    The ride took 18 minutes, and most of the money is for time. Say a car would take that route at an average of 10 miles an hour + stoppage time. It seems a conservative estimate. Then the cost of the ride would be $0.559 + $3.5 + 6 $0.55 = $11.75. Even so, had he got an UberX it would have cost him $12.40, or $11.50, so it's really quite comparable. I spent $15 last week going from Union Square SF to the Caltrain station (accidentally picked Uber Black not UberX) - about a mile. It's really quite a lot nicer than a taxi. So it's really quite close, dollar for dollar But here's the thing - SF taxis have (presumably because of past abuses) very rigidly pegged milage to total cost in order to properly compensate drivers. The problem is that this works terribly for further distances. So SFO to Palo Alto will set you back at an absolute minimum about $100, but Millbrae (2 miles fewer) to Palo Alto cost me $30 on UberX. Where I live in the UK, I'll spend £20 ($45) on travelling 6 miles after a night out (no traffic) - because the taxis go off meter outside the city limits. Travelling 3 miles to catch a bus to London in a minicab, prebooked costs £8.
  - vacri 12y ago
    Taxis also charge for time if they're idling in traffic; maybe the traffic was hellish? I'm from the next major city in Aus (which also has overpriced taxis) and I was suprised at the cost of that taxi ride.
  - madeofpalk 12y ago
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
jonknee 12y ago
What parallel universe are you living in where taxi companies are tax abiding enterprises? It's well known (even to the IRS) that the cash dominated business of taxis is a giant bastion of unreported income. This is one of the reasons why in many cities you frequently get harassed when trying to pay with a credit card (and lied to, it's amazing how often the CC machines is "broken" when you pull out a card). Uber has not accepted $1 in cash which means its hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue is all reported. It's a boon for tax revenue. Also, mileage/fees/payment have always been part of the app. Have you used Uber before?
- mschuster91 12y ago
  > What parallel universe are you living in where taxi companies are tax abiding enterprises? At least in Germany, it is - at least for the companies. There are some drivers willing to game the books, but the companies have an obvious interest in eradicating these practices.
  - jonknee 12y ago
    > the companies have an obvious interest in eradicating these practices What is that interest? The way cabs most frequently work in the US is that the drivers are effectively independent contractors who rent the car (and ever valuable medallion) from the taxi company. The companies themselves may or may not accurately report their income, but it doesn't have anything to do with the fares. Some companies charge a percentage of fares, so in that instance I'd assume there are more stringent controls. It's similar to restaurants in the US, cash tips are drastically underreported and this is fully known by management.
    - mmarx 12y ago
      Typically, the drivers are employed by the companies, and are paid either by the hour, or receive a percentage of the fares. In either case, underreporting the fares to the company increases the driver's share. Also, tips, though they must be reported, are exempt from taxation.
prostoalex 12y ago
> Until mileage and fees are all recorded and payment is through the app It's all recorded. Payment has been done through the app since they've started. Their app also shows the driver the fastest route to the customer's destination, acting as a GPS navigator, and eliminating the possibility of unnecessary routes in order to boost the mileage. > No taxes and drivers with no liability insurance, Uber drivers must pass background checks and carry commercial-grade liability insurance, which is typically more than consumer liability insurance, since it covers more edge cases. > tax agencies alleging tax fraud If anything, lack of cash transactions makes Uber a very welcomed development (from tax authorities' point of view) in the industry that's been known for chronic under-reporting.
kalleboo 12y ago
> There's lots of government sanctioned monopolies, or duopolies. Taxies are often one due to the sheer logistics required. Your city either has a taxi service, or doesn't. There's unfathomable liability not having a taxi service I fail to see how you need a government-sanctioned monopoly to get a taxi service. I've been on small islands in the Mediterranean with taxi service (it's one grandpa in his car who you call on his mobile phone and he'll come pick you up). Sweden has an almost completely unregulated taxi market and I've never heard of a place without taxis.
- jellicle 12y ago
  You don't need a government-sanctioned monopoly to get a taxi service. You need government regulations of existing taxi services to avoid the many problems that have been observed with unregulated taxi services, including but not limited to: -- drivers that jack tourists around -- drivers that don't know where they're going -- drivers that don't make enough to live on -- excessive numbers of empty taxis idling/cruising the streets, creating unnecessary congestion and pollution -- drivers that red-line particular areas of the city -- drivers that red-line particular ethnicities of passenger -- taxis as a public service: making sure everyone has access If your only analysis is the typical Hacker News mouth-breathing of "government BAD huh-huh", then I can't help you. But if you're actually trying to understand the problem, you should maybe consider why every city in the world has some sort of taxi regulation system.
  - kalleboo 12y ago
    Sure, those can be valid reasons. None of that was in the argument I was replying to. That argument was "without a government-sanctioned monopoly you won't get a taxi service and people will start drunk driving." I'm from Sweden where the taxi market is mostly deregulated, with the only remaining regulations being in the interest of consumer protection - extended driver's license, approved taximeters and clearly displayed standardized pricing information. There are a few problems with tourists who don't understand the pricing information getting on taxis with rip-off rates, but aside from that it works well. There's a number of full time taxi drivers, and during busy periods (evenings weekends) there's a contingent of part timers who get in a car to skim off the lucrative periods and add capacity. From the discussions I've seen in "hey anyone tried becoming a taxi driver" threads in Swedish forums, it's a career you can make a living in. I've been in places with high levels of regulation (:cough: san francisco :cough:) where I've experienced half the points you take up, whereas I haven't experienced any of those in Sweden. As usual, it's more a case of "good regulation vs bad regulation" instead of the more typical political dichotomy of "no regulation vs lots of regulation".

madeofpalk 12y ago

> Until mileage and fees are all recorded and payment is through the app, there will be no possibility of this app surviving. This happens already? Here's my trip from last night http://i.imgur.com/JzseAq8.png http://i.imgur.com/JzseAq8.png > No taxes and drivers with no liability insurance Taxes have nothing to do with this - everyone still needs to report their regular income - Uber doesnt change this. Also, the majority of fares on Uber are actually through Uber taxi, black or SUV. They are all licensed and already carry commercial insurance (as some of them accept fares outside of Uber). For the drivers that don't have their own commercial insurance (e.g. UberX), Uber covers them with their own insurance (which you can actually read yourself as it was leaked not too long ago).

chillingeffect 12y ago
Wow, $36 for 3.45 km? I assume that's Australia, right? so that's roughly 2.1 miles for $33 USD. That ride would be $9.00 (US) in San Francisco. [0] Perhaps Uber is, like Apple, quite simply providing a higher class of service and getting compensated proportionally for it. Maybe they won't ever eliminate traditional taxis b/c not enough people can afford a 266% markup. [0]http://yellowcabsf.com/service/cab-fares/ http://yellowcabsf.com/service/cab-fares/
- eru 12y ago
  Even normal taxis in Australia are crazy expensive.
- CHY872 12y ago
  The ride took 18 minutes, and most of the money is for time. Say a car would take that route at an average of 10 miles an hour + stoppage time. It seems a conservative estimate. Then the cost of the ride would be $0.559 + $3.5 + 6 $0.55 = $11.75. Even so, had he got an UberX it would have cost him $12.40, or $11.50, so it's really quite comparable. I spent $15 last week going from Union Square SF to the Caltrain station (accidentally picked Uber Black not UberX) - about a mile. It's really quite a lot nicer than a taxi. So it's really quite close, dollar for dollar But here's the thing - SF taxis have (presumably because of past abuses) very rigidly pegged milage to total cost in order to properly compensate drivers. The problem is that this works terribly for further distances. So SFO to Palo Alto will set you back at an absolute minimum about $100, but Millbrae (2 miles fewer) to Palo Alto cost me $30 on UberX. Where I live in the UK, I'll spend £20 ($45) on travelling 6 miles after a night out (no traffic) - because the taxis go off meter outside the city limits. Travelling 3 miles to catch a bus to London in a minicab, prebooked costs £8.
- vacri 12y ago
  Taxis also charge for time if they're idling in traffic; maybe the traffic was hellish? I'm from the next major city in Aus (which also has overpriced taxis) and I was suprised at the cost of that taxi ride.
- madeofpalk 12y ago

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

jonknee 12y ago

What parallel universe are you living in where taxi companies are tax abiding enterprises? It's well known (even to the IRS) that the cash dominated business of taxis is a giant bastion of unreported income. This is one of the reasons why in many cities you frequently get harassed when trying to pay with a credit card (and lied to, it's amazing how often the CC machines is "broken" when you pull out a card). Uber has not accepted $1 in cash which means its hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue is all reported. It's a boon for tax revenue. Also, mileage/fees/payment have always been part of the app. Have you used Uber before?

mschuster91 12y ago
> What parallel universe are you living in where taxi companies are tax abiding enterprises? At least in Germany, it is - at least for the companies. There are some drivers willing to game the books, but the companies have an obvious interest in eradicating these practices.
- jonknee 12y ago
  > the companies have an obvious interest in eradicating these practices What is that interest? The way cabs most frequently work in the US is that the drivers are effectively independent contractors who rent the car (and ever valuable medallion) from the taxi company. The companies themselves may or may not accurately report their income, but it doesn't have anything to do with the fares. Some companies charge a percentage of fares, so in that instance I'd assume there are more stringent controls. It's similar to restaurants in the US, cash tips are drastically underreported and this is fully known by management.
  - mmarx 12y ago
    Typically, the drivers are employed by the companies, and are paid either by the hour, or receive a percentage of the fares. In either case, underreporting the fares to the company increases the driver's share. Also, tips, though they must be reported, are exempt from taxation.

prostoalex 12y ago

> Until mileage and fees are all recorded and payment is through the app It's all recorded. Payment has been done through the app since they've started. Their app also shows the driver the fastest route to the customer's destination, acting as a GPS navigator, and eliminating the possibility of unnecessary routes in order to boost the mileage. > No taxes and drivers with no liability insurance, Uber drivers must pass background checks and carry commercial-grade liability insurance, which is typically more than consumer liability insurance, since it covers more edge cases. > tax agencies alleging tax fraud If anything, lack of cash transactions makes Uber a very welcomed development (from tax authorities' point of view) in the industry that's been known for chronic under-reporting.

kalleboo 12y ago

> There's lots of government sanctioned monopolies, or duopolies. Taxies are often one due to the sheer logistics required. Your city either has a taxi service, or doesn't. There's unfathomable liability not having a taxi service I fail to see how you need a government-sanctioned monopoly to get a taxi service. I've been on small islands in the Mediterranean with taxi service (it's one grandpa in his car who you call on his mobile phone and he'll come pick you up). Sweden has an almost completely unregulated taxi market and I've never heard of a place without taxis.

jellicle 12y ago
You don't need a government-sanctioned monopoly to get a taxi service. You need government regulations of existing taxi services to avoid the many problems that have been observed with unregulated taxi services, including but not limited to: -- drivers that jack tourists around -- drivers that don't know where they're going -- drivers that don't make enough to live on -- excessive numbers of empty taxis idling/cruising the streets, creating unnecessary congestion and pollution -- drivers that red-line particular areas of the city -- drivers that red-line particular ethnicities of passenger -- taxis as a public service: making sure everyone has access If your only analysis is the typical Hacker News mouth-breathing of "government BAD huh-huh", then I can't help you. But if you're actually trying to understand the problem, you should maybe consider why every city in the world has some sort of taxi regulation system.
- kalleboo 12y ago
  Sure, those can be valid reasons. None of that was in the argument I was replying to. That argument was "without a government-sanctioned monopoly you won't get a taxi service and people will start drunk driving." I'm from Sweden where the taxi market is mostly deregulated, with the only remaining regulations being in the interest of consumer protection - extended driver's license, approved taximeters and clearly displayed standardized pricing information. There are a few problems with tourists who don't understand the pricing information getting on taxis with rip-off rates, but aside from that it works well. There's a number of full time taxi drivers, and during busy periods (evenings weekends) there's a contingent of part timers who get in a car to skim off the lucrative periods and add capacity. From the discussions I've seen in "hey anyone tried becoming a taxi driver" threads in Swedish forums, it's a career you can make a living in. I've been in places with high levels of regulation (:cough: san francisco :cough:) where I've experienced half the points you take up, whereas I haven't experienced any of those in Sweden. As usual, it's more a case of "good regulation vs bad regulation" instead of the more typical political dichotomy of "no regulation vs lots of regulation".