The Off Topic Topic

[Tamas]

Taxi drivers are poorer than the vast majority of their customers.

So? the guy serving you your food is probably poorer than you, not to mention the guy cleaning up the office after you, etc.

Government, if it really needs to pick a side, should be on the side of the majority in these cases. Competition offered by Uber and AirBNB and all others is great to everyone but the people getting new competition. Which mean 99.99% of citizens benefit from it. Yet the government takes the other side. Not really a free-market thing to do now is it?

Cheaper != better.
Sure, taxi driver licensing systems have elements of trying to control the market and keep the jobs of taxi drivers secure, but a big part of its reason for existence is also to make sure people who are out there doing the job are capable of doing it and aren't going to get anyone killed.
There's no clear cut answer to which side is in the right on this one.

There is a clear cut answer alright. Even if it was difficult to know what kind of driver you sit behind in a taxi, Uber AFAIK has a review system. And is not like the current guild system used for taxis has stopped many taxi drivers to be major assholes and crooks.

[Tamas]

I'm under the impression that Airbnb and Uber providers don't pay tax. At least the ones I know who make money via Airbnb does not, small sample, sure, but I've no shame in generalizing here.

However, it is (or should) be much harder for them to get away with it. For Uber AFAIK there is only card payment, no cash, and for Airbnb, they are on the friggin' Internet. The taxmen could make a killing then browsing Airbnb and auditing hosts. Not paying tax after a business you are openly putting up on the Internet with the address of your home seems idiotic to me.

[Tamas]

I was mainly taking issue with referring to habitual taxi passengers as "the little man".

That was more about the general principle, however, if Uber and ilk make using taxi services cheaper, then in fact there are more people who will be able to afford it, and thus, it benefits the common man, again.

[Liep]

I'm under the impression that Airbnb and Uber providers don't pay tax. At least the ones I know who make money via Airbnb does not, small sample, sure, but I've no shame in generalizing here.

However, it is (or should) be much harder for them to get away with it. For Uber AFAIK there is only card payment, no cash, and for Airbnb, they are on the friggin' Internet. The taxmen could make a killing then browsing Airbnb and auditing hosts. Not paying tax after a business you are openly putting up on the Internet with the address of your home seems idiotic to me.

I'm not sure what my friends do is actually illegal because of a triviality limit on tax income from private business. So what I mean is that thousands of people could steal business from Hotels or cap drivers without paying taxes and so with much less expense and safety regulations.

Edit: added two words!

[CountDeMoney]

Fuck uber and all that freebie bullshit. 
I'm all about sticking it to The Man^tm but if it comes down between working-class cabbies and douchebag hipsters looking to get out of a cab fare yet spend $6 for a specialty coffee while they play with their iProduct, I'm rooting for the cabbies.

[alfred russel]

Cheaper != better.
Sure, taxi driver licensing systems have elements of trying to control the market and keep the jobs of taxi drivers secure, but a big part of its reason for existence is also to make sure people who are out there doing the job are capable of doing it and aren't going to get anyone killed.
There's no clear cut answer to which side is in the right on this one.

Tyr, this is a good point. A driver's license qualifies you to drive a car, and one with other people in it, but who is to say you can drive a car safely with other people in it if they are paying you money?

How many times have I been in a cab and thought, "thank goodness I have such a safe and curteous driver"?

[Tamas]

I'm under the impression that Airbnb and Uber providers don't pay tax. At least the ones I know who make money via Airbnb does not, small sample, sure, but I've no shame in generalizing here.

However, it is (or should) be much harder for them to get away with it. For Uber AFAIK there is only card payment, no cash, and for Airbnb, they are on the friggin' Internet. The taxmen could make a killing then browsing Airbnb and auditing hosts. Not paying tax after a business you are openly putting up on the Internet with the address of your home seems idiotic to me.

I'm not sure what my friends do is actually illegal because of a triviality limit on tax income from private business. So what I mean is that thousands of people could steal business from Hotels or cap drivers without paying taxes and so with much less expense and safety regulations.

Edit: added two words!

Ah, I was basing on the Hungarian practice of taxing everything and anything. In that case, with such innovations, income is dispersed from big conglomerates to the masses! We are saying wealth inequality is The Issue, so here is one of the partial solutions!

[Tamas]

Fuck uber and all that freebie bullshit. 
I'm all about sticking it to The Man^tm but if it comes down between working-class cabbies and douchebag hipsters looking to get out of a cab fare yet spend $6 for a specialty coffee while they play with their iProduct, I'm rooting for the cabbies.

Hah. You are so big Anti-Corporation in words but when something actually comes around to cause trouble for them, you immediately rally around them, with pocket full of shells.

[CountDeMoney]

Hah. You are so big Anti-Corporation in words but when something actually comes around to cause trouble for them, you immediately rally around them, with pocket full of shells.

Eat me, shitbird.  The immigrant driving two shifts a day so his kid can go to MIT needs the cash more than Uber does, even if it benefits the medallion holders.  Like waiters and waitresses, they live off their tips, even if the megacorporation restaurant owners don't.

[Barrister]

I don't know which I hate more - Silicon Valley "disruptive" douchebags that think just because they do something on the internet that normal rules don't apply to them, or the poster-child of regulatory capture that are taxi boards.

Artificially limiting the number of taxis allowed on the streets benefits nobody other than taxi companies.  The whole model of taxi licensing should be dramatically deregulated.  However, Uber/Lyft and the like need to follow the rules like anybody else.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

Eat me, shitbird.  The immigrant driving two shifts a day so his kid can go to MIT needs the cash more than Uber does, even if it benefits the medallion holders.  Like waiters and waitresses, they live off their tips, even if the megacorporation restaurant owners don't.

What is stopping said immigrant from working for Uber and taking home more?  I guarantee you the medallion holders are getting a lot more out of their drivers and Uber is from their's.  Plus, the taxi system as currently implemented is the most shining example of wage slavery out there.  I'm honestly shocked that you think it's a good idea to perpetuate it for the benefits of the wage slaves. 

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

I don't know which I hate more - Silicon Valley "disruptive" douchebags that think just because they do something on the internet that normal rules don't apply to them, or the poster-child of regulatory capture that are taxi boards.

Artificially limiting the number of taxis allowed on the streets benefits nobody other than taxi companies.  The whole model of taxi licensing should be dramatically deregulated.  However, Uber/Lyft and the like need to follow the rules like anybody else.

There is definitely a lot of quasi-anarchist douchebag bullshit coming out of SV right now.  That said, it is hard to play by rules that were created to prevent you from existing in the first place.

[The Larch]

2015 Rugby World Cup advertising with Charles Dance:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bl9ahNhH3Cc

[Tamas]

I don't know which I hate more - Silicon Valley "disruptive" douchebags that think just because they do something on the internet that normal rules don't apply to them, or the poster-child of regulatory capture that are taxi boards.

Artificially limiting the number of taxis allowed on the streets benefits nobody other than taxi companies.  The whole model of taxi licensing should be dramatically deregulated.  However, Uber/Lyft and the like need to follow the rules like anybody else.

There is definitely a lot of quasi-anarchist douchebag bullshit coming out of SV right now.  That said, it is hard to play by rules that were created to prevent you from existing in the first place.

This.

[CountDeMoney]

I don't know which I hate more - Silicon Valley "disruptive" douchebags that think just because they do something on the internet that normal rules don't apply to them, or the poster-child of regulatory capture that are taxi boards.

Artificially limiting the number of taxis allowed on the streets benefits nobody other than taxi companies.  The whole model of taxi licensing should be dramatically deregulated.  However, Uber/Lyft and the like need to follow the rules like anybody else.

There is definitely a lot of quasi-anarchist douchebag bullshit coming out of SV right now.  That said, it is hard to play by rules that were created to prevent you from existing in the first place.

Then they can buy a medallion and get licensed by the city commission like everybody else.  They've got the cash for it.  The fact they go to work in t-shirts and shoes with no socks on in Silicon Valley doesn't make them any different than any other capital investment firm.