[smt88]

> provide the same level (or greater) services

I don't agree with that in all cases, and I particularly don't agree related to Uber.

When I lived in NYC, I often called "311" to complain about taxi-driver misconduct. This was the only outlet, and you really only did it because you wanted to feel better. There were never any direct consequences that you knew of.

If you consider the decreased cost of operating the 311 service, as well as lower taxi-related crime, less drunk driving, etc., I'd guess that a government would spend less when Uber had replaced all traditional taxi services.

(You can also think of Uber as redistribution of wealth from wealthier to less wealthy, since riders will usually be wealthier than drivers. In that case, Uber makes tax revenue go up, since poorer people usually pay more in taxes.)

Edit: Clarified some language, since no one seemed to have understood anything I said the first time.

[jkahn]

That's not what I mean. I'm talking about what the tax money collected gets spent on by government - roads, healthcare, infrastructure, aged pensions.

If industry X was paying $100mm tax, and industry Y disrupts and replaces that, while paying only $20mm tax, the government needs to find $80 million to replace that tax shortfall.

Nothing to do with taxi related services...

[smt88]

And what I was saying is that industry Y might save the government money as well. The net effect might be that the government has more money.

To continue using Uber as an example, not only do they potentially decrease the costs of operating the government (see my reasoning above), they're also still paying local employees. Those employees will spend their Uber revenue and pay taxes, just as taxi drivers would.

Further, Uber makes it easier to move physical objects around in an economy. That should generally make the economy more efficient, which could also help to swing the balance in favor of a net positive effect.

All I was saying from the beginning is that it's not always true that an international company replacing local companies is creating a net decrease in government income.

[kuschku]

Uber is in every way reducing tax income.

Old model: The taxi company spends 100% of its income in the state, meaning the state collects 100% of the taxes of the costs.

Uber model: Uber spends next to nothing in the state, so the state gets less.

Uber still uses the same governmental resources, uber drivers earn less than the taxi drivers (less income, less taxes), and have less money to spend (economy shrinks, less taxes).

Uber makes the economy less efficient, as more money ends up in the US than in local businesses.

[smt88]

> Uber still uses the same governmental resources

No, it doesn't, at least not in the US. It uses fewer government resources, although I don't have the data to say how significant of a difference it is.

[kuschku]

How does it use fewer resources? It drives on the same roads, uses the same infrastructure, and costs the taxpayer the same.

If you consider the taxpayer paying the bill because uber doesn’t insure properly, it costs even more.

[username223]

> they're also still paying local employees. Those employees will spend their Uber revenue and pay taxes, just as taxi drivers would.

This is drifting off-topic, but it's worth noting that Uber's short-term plan is to somewhat reduce the wages of people who drive taxis (or "share rides," as they call it), and greatly reduce the tax cities collect on that activity. Their long-term plan is robot cars with no paid drivers.

[mlrtime]

The government only needs to find $80mm if the disrupted industry consumes the same resources. If somehow the disrupted industry does not (efficiency, other tax base), government does not need the revenue. It is incomprehensible to some people that government should let go of funding.

[guard-of-terra]

Tax regular car drivers more. There's simply no reason why taxi users should (indirectly) foot that bill more than car owners. If your tax were set up on assumption that taxi is a premium service, time to rethink it.

[blowski]

Uber can only exist in a society with a detailed and rigorously applied legal code, decent transport infrastructure, and wealthy citizens. I'm sure there are more requirements.

As Uber benefits from public spending on these things, they should also contribute to their upkeep.

[smt88]

> detailed and rigorously applied legal code

Not sure this one is a necessity. Uber is growing in China and India, and both of those places have legal systems and levels of corruption that shock those of us in the US learning about them for the first time.

I agree that Uber should contribute to the upkeep, but I was just doing an absolute comparison between Uber and taxi companies.

[kuschku]

Eh, look at Germany: We had like 5 or 6 different uber-like businesses already competing before uber even was a thing.

The only reason uber even ever made profit in some German cities was by refusing to buy insurance and thereby being cheaper than the competitors.

[nathanvanfleet]

You have a lot of problems with your argument.

If you have a local taxi company, you make tax money from that company. If it's at least in your country, you make tax money from that company. If the support employees are in your city/country, you make tax money from those people.

So if the company is not from your country, and their support/offices/profits all go somewhere else, it's a loss for you (as a city or country) because before you got to make more money from the local taxi companies. Which you would hopefully use to pay for different services (not sure why you think 311 is the only conceivable cost here).

And honestly, you think rich people pay more taxes? Sorry, it's just not the case. 1 person making 100x more than an average person is going to pay less net taxes and will buy fewer things (even if it's more expensive stuff) than 100 people.

[aianus]

> 1 person making 100x more than an average person is going to pay less net taxes and will buy fewer things (even if it's more expensive stuff) than 100 people.

This just isn't true at all.

The top 1% of earners in the US pay more tax than the bottom 90% combined. Sometimes rich people pay a smaller percentage of their income than less-rich people but in absolute terms poor people and middle class constitute a minority of the tax base.

[anjc]

...he was talking about net income and personal expenditure. You're talking about income tax. They're different things. 1 person will buy less than 100 people.

Incidentally, the top 1% pay more tax, in absolute terms, because they earn more than everybody else. What's your point? That's how percentages and progressive taxation works.

[rstupek]

Its not necessarily true that 1 person will SPEND less than 100 people.

[smt88]

You have completely misunderstood everything I said.

I understand that tax revenue goes down when Uber replaces local taxi companies. I'm not arguing with that.

However, Uber can possibly decrease the costs of running the government (police, 311, and possibly others). We can't know for sure without specific numbers, but it's possible that Uber saves a government more money than it removes by avoiding taxes.

And I wasn't saying that rich people pay more taxes. I was saying that rich people using Uber is a redistribution of income, since the rider is almost always wealthier than the driver.