[notlambda]

Italian here, according to the driver of the taxi i'm in right now Uber is unfair because their drivers don't have to buy taxi licenses(over 200k Euros each in major cities). The Italian economy is in a bad state and the government doesn't want thousands of taxi drivers without a job.

[beezischillin]

I would say this and the fact that most US multinationals are very dodgy when it comes to paying their taxes and are ready to exploit any loophole to take money out of a country.

That, combined with the taxi license thing is the reason I assume they're being thrown out. Hungary also banned them (well, told them to obey the law or leave).

I highly doubt governments would be worried about where they pick customers up that much.

Lyft and other competitors won't be banned as long as they obey the laws and pay their taxes, I'd wager.

I'm really annoyed at companies, startups that have the attitude of Uber, where they break the laws and if they get caught, try to lobby their way out of it. If I did the same as a regular person, I'd be in jail within a month.

I'd also say that money that doesn't end up taxed and back in the economy and instead magically appears in a tax paradise to be held there as a bargaining chip for exemption from US tax laws should probably anger Americans too. It was utterly frustrating to see both presidential candidates bow down and be ready to give huge tax cuts on the repatriation of multinationals' profits just so they could at least see some of that trickle down into actual projects like infrastructure. Reading about it really felt like global-scale a ransom-situation.

[briandear]

Perhaps if taxes were less punitive and confiscatory people would be less likely to be creative in their avoidance.

Lowering and simplifying taxes would increase revenues (per the Laffer Curve,) however that would result in politicians not being as powerful. Milton Friedman explains this brilliantly: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TruCIPy79w8

[qeternity]

> I would say this and the fact that most US multinationals are very dodgy when it comes to paying their taxes and are ready to exploit any loophole to take money out of a country.

You do realize that tax dodging is practically national sport in Italy and the Mediterranean in general?

[register]

Another prejudiced comment that does not go to the point and does not help the discussion in any way.

[beezischillin]

It's a national sport worldwide. The country I live in is a festering pit of corruption, unfortunately that means that I look at politics as a system that mostly exists to serve and protect itself and its own interests, however I acknowledge that if they allow everyone to get away with skirting the laws, there's even less that will ever trickle down to your average person or small business

[polotics]

Oh? Like Starbucks using the Dutch sandwich? What an ignorant slur!

[briandear]

Is the Dutch sandwich illegal? If not, then blame your government. Starbucks follows the law. That's what many people here say about Uber "Uber doesn't follow the law -- so they should be banned; don't like the laws, then change them."

Yet Starbucks follows the law -- they have a huge legal and tax team for that purpose. So how can we complain about Uber not following the law and Starbucks following the law and be intellectually consistent at all?

There is no such thing as a loophole. The law either is or it isn't.

[exDM69]

> Is the Dutch sandwich illegal? If not, then blame your government

I can't blame my government for it because the Dutch Sandwich is based on loopholes in several other countries' laws.

I do blame the EU for not cracking down on it more efficiently but the recent injunction against Ireland and Apple is a good start.

It's very difficult to compete on a level playing field when the multinationals don't pay taxes. Google, Apple, Facebook, Ikea, McD, Amazon should all be slapped a proper fine.

But I don't have high hopes as long as Juncker from Luxembourg is running the show.

[Markoff]

so if someone is stealing you can too? let's get rid of police, courts and live in anarchy! what are you, 15?

[pooper]

> I would say this and the fact that most US multinationals are very dodgy when it comes to paying their taxes and are ready to exploit any loophole to take money out of a country.

> That, combined with the taxi license thing is the reason I assume they're being thrown out. Hungary also banned them (well, told them to obey the law or leave).

> I highly doubt governments would be worried about where they pick customers up that much.

> Lyft and other competitors won't be banned as long as they obey the laws and pay their taxes, I'd wager.

> I'm really annoyed at companies, startups that have the attitude of Uber, where they break the laws and if they get caught, try to lobby their way out of it. If I did the same as a regular person, I'd be in jail within a month.

I'm no fan of Uber but wouldn't it be better to get rid of the loopholes? What laws do you think those governments care about? Why?

[polotics]

Or you could say a politician's main role is to create and trade loopholes.

[vesinisa]

Similar situation in my (another EU) country. Uber does not check and enforce that their drivers are actually licensed cab drivers (perhaps not strictly illegal on the company's part but very questionable) and helps their drivers in illegally avoiding tax on their salary (perhaps not strictly illegal on the company's part but very questionable.) And despite all these shady practices its black market ride is often only slightly cheaper than a real, licensed cab!

Why we have licensed cabs is because the country is very sparsely populated. The taxi license is specific for a certain area and the driver must service mainly that area. This lets the officials haggle with the private taxi companies and thus guarantee taxi service to all areas. Essentially, riding in the city subsidizes riding in the countryside. Whether this system is changed is a local domestic political decision. Until then I wouldn't condemn the licensed taxi operators suing Uber here.

Though Uber has had one positive impact: the taxi unions now advertise how safe the "real taxis" are compared to illegal rides and have tightened the checks on their already strict quality standards on proper customer service, vehicle cleanliness, driver clothing etc.

[bbrazil]

That sounds like how Ireland used to work, before 2000 when things were deregulated.

We've gone from a shortage of taxis, to an overabundance. When Uber launched, it wasn't interesting as our taxi system (which Uber appears to comply with the laws of) already works.

[lucaspiller]

Same here in Lithuania - there were already two major apps providing the same service when Uber launched, the only difference is Uber is more expensive - I assume the cars are nicer, but most taxis here are pretty well maintained, so it's not really a selling point.

[simo7]

> the government doesn't want thousands of taxi drivers without a job.

I don't know, I find this quite unfair to say to be honest.

Once you make an agreement, as non-sensical as it can be, you should hold your end up. Especially if you are an important institution.

The agreement here concerns the taxi licenses (and the fact that you can sell them). It's a bit selfish and narrow-minded to scrape off all that was agreed upon (leading people to pay 200k+ euros !) because "modernity" has arrived.

A better solution would be to legalize services like Uber and charge them a royalty fee for a certain number of years. The collected money should serve as a reparation to current owners of taxi licenses.

[lucaspiller]

When I was living in Rome last year I never took taxis, mainly because they were so expensive and as a non-Italian I was concerned they'd just rip me off.

Once I tried to get a taxi from Ciampiano to Garbetella - I asked for the price and the driver said €50. I pointed at the ad on the side of his car saying it's a fixed €30 to the city, but apparently as Garbetella is outside the city walls, even though it was closer, it was more expensive. Guess I should have asked to go to Pyramide and walked a couple of hundred metres :-)

My go to transport was Car2Go and Enjoy, but they didn't cover the airports - which I assume is just because taxi drivers protested against it.

[Pyxl101]

Do you happen to know: do black car services in Italy normally have to buy taxi licenses?

I'm curious because black car services (such as limousines and black towncar services) generally do not need taxi licenses in the US. A taxi license is only needed for hailing rides on the street, not for picking someone up by prior reservation. The Uber service provides a variety of different kinds of cars, some which operate more like limos while others operate like taxis (they even have medallioned taxis in some cities).

Edit: Thanks! Interesting to know how standards and norms vary by country in this area. It will be fascinating to see how transport evolves over the next decade.

[jaclaz]

The service is called NCC (Noleggio Con Conducente or Rent With Driver), the cars (and drivers) are nonetheless "licensed", since you are probably familiar with the concept of medallion, here is how a NCC car medallion looks:

https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noleggio_con_conducente

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/76/No...

The differences are several ones:

a Taxi has a meter and follows some time + km official tariff (+ a number of "fixed" supplements in some cases, like going to the airport, etc.) a NCC works by private agreement (usually, taken in writing or verbally) in advance.

a Taxi is a public service, i.e. they cannot refuse the service (unless of course there are serious reasons), whilst the NCC is a private one.

a taxi can be (though rarely it is as since the dawn of time, years before Uber came out, most cities have "RadioTaxi" where you phone a number and they send you the nearest available taxi which is contacted via radio) hailed on the street, the NCC must (in theory) start each and every trip from their (private) garage and end it again at the garage on return, i.e. unlike the taxi in which it is "yours" just for the time you are onboard, the NCC is rented for the whole trip and cannot take other passengers on the way back.

moreover there are territorial limitations (different for each category) on the operations of both taxies and NCC, as an example a taxi licensed by city "A" can bring a customer to city "B" but cannot take another passenger in city "B", a NCC licensed by city "A" must initiate the trip (i.e. pick up the passenger) within city "A".

Overall, the situation is messy and overcomplicated and the (IMHO illegal) costs for the licenses (and their clearly too limited number) do represent problems, but Uber it is (still IMHO) not the solution to them.

[register]

Yes but the value of the license of a black car service is much lower than the one of a normal taxi. Also black car services must wait in their depot and pick up passengers only by appointment. Picking up passengers in the street is reserved only to taxies.

[notlambda]

According to my taxi driver you do

[jbmorgado]

"over 200k Euros each in major cities"

Yes, you see that there is the problem (also in Portugal, and perhaps in other countries in EU). You have a local taxi mafia running a black market operation right there.

Those licences cost less than 150 euros! (not thousand euros, just plain one hundred and fifty euros) when you get them from the city hall, then some taxi mafia gets to buy all those licenses when they are issued (in their, sons/spouse/cousins/uncles/etc name) and then they go around selling them to the people that actually work in the taxis by those absurd prices.

I think Uber must follow the rules, but don't ask me any sympathy for the Taxi drivers and for the mafia behind them.

[chj]

> The Italian economy is in a bad state and the government doesn't want thousands of taxi drivers without a job.

Now, after Uber is banned, many more car owners will lose the opportunity to earn extra income, and many many more people will have to pay more to take a taxi. Which is the better economical choice?

[rorykoehler]

Somewhere in the middle would be ideal. Deregulate he taxi industry and phase out the license fee over the next 5 years (or however long the most recently sold taxi licenses last for). This way current drivers don't get shafted and everyone gets the benefits offered by ride hailing apps. I am a strong advocate for Uber-like services to be provided at close to cost by local governments as a public transport option once self driving cars get introduced.

[Markoff]

because it follows law? if you don't like the law then express yourself in elections

[briandear]

So harm everyone by reducing competition in order to subsidize people that spend €200k on a license? That doesn't benefit the public, that benefits a tiny special interest at the expense of everyone else.

I spend more money on a taxi, I spend less money at the restaurant. And get less value from my money than I should.

So we 'protect' taxis but what about struggling restaurant owners (or other shops) that lose money because taxis aren't subject to competition? Who cries for them?