[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.