[jimmywanger]

If you look at the context of the thread, the parent basically said that the old laws should have applied to Uber and that they should have been collecting taxes all along but wasn't by exploiting legal loopholes.

My point is that Uber did not have to pay taxes, and their obligation to collect taxes was unclear. Under the new law they have the collect taxes. Under the old law, it was plausible that they didn't.

The main takeaway is that most aspects of the legal system, including definitions for commonly accepted terms, are not actually clear.

Especially your argument on intents of taxes. I don't believe that brand-name and infrastructure alone make an employee out of an independent contractor. Also, based on your brandname and infrastructure arguement, should people who sell handicrafts on Etsy or Amazon be classified as employees of Amazon and be forced to pay GST on all sales?

[rdiddly]

I'm absolutely not addressing who's an employee and who's an independent contractor. That distinction isn't needed or useful. Cleanse it from your mind for a minute.

Also, they wouldn't pay GST; they would collect it from customers and pass it on to the government.

The question is what entity provides the service? In name, it's Uber. Do you take a Joe Johnson? Or do you take an Uber?

The point of contact is Uber also. You contact Uber for a ride, not Joe Johnson.

What entity sets the price? What entity collects the money? Uber.

There are some differences with Amazon and Etsy, but in general I think for this purpose if you partner up with a big company, you are not necessarily a small supplier anymore.