[arcticbull]

> One reason that short-term rentals have been cheaper than hotels is because hotels had to collect and pay sales tax while Airbnb didn’t.

Seems like this isn’t a new tax from out of nowhere to disadvantage Airbnb but rather a policy designed to bring Airbnb in line with their peers.

It reads like Airbnb was put at an artificial advantage as compared to hotels because hotels had to charge sales tax. Now everyone does. Seems fair to me. What seems unfair is that they weren’t subject to this the whole time. Honestly surprised it’s not retroactive.

[buran77]

> was put at an artificial advantage as compared to

That makes up most of the "disruption" lately. Companies discover that they can exploit some legal loophole by claiming "but technology" and get an upper hand over classic competitors.

By the time they're forced to follow the same rules, or (less likely) the law is relaxed for everyone else, they already have a healthy head start and can either claim that they're being treated unfairly, or that they're better than everyone else.

[throwaway201103]

The biggest and most common "loophole" being "we don't need all the physical infrastructure"

Amazon: we don't need to own retail stores or inventory

Airbnb: we don't need to own hotel properties and employ managers and housekeepers

Uber: we don't need to own cars and employ drivers

Are there any examples of tech disruptors that are really displacing classic competitors only on the basis of tax loopholes?

[buran77]

I never said (or meant only) "tax loopholes", Uber may even end up paying more tax than taxi companies. But taxi companies have a far, far higher bar in the eyes of the law. In most countries you can't just decide to climb in your private car and provide commercial transportation service. You have to spend a lot of time and money to get there, authorizations, commercial insurance, driver certifications, etc. Uber bypassed it by saying "we're a tech company" and left it to the drivers, making the enforcement of the law a lot harder.

Hotels also have higher requirements than an AirBnB host but the company says "we're just the tech platform". Just look at conflict resolution and what kind of leverage and protections a client has when dealing with a hotel vs. dealing with a private renter to see the massive gap that comes attached to that "disruption".

Because that's the thing, you could have short-term renting in the past but that wasn't an alternative to hotels. AirBnB made it a hotel alternative so that's the benchmark. Same with Uber, you could (legally) hitchhike in the past but Uber made the service a taxi alternative.

Imagine Google "disrupting" the state/national/federal identity registry, as in become the equivalent of the passport or identity card issuer while offering Google-style support and SLAs. Some services are important enough to be regulated, this is what today's disruptors are bypassing.

The solution to an industry being crap isn't to allow someone to bypass existing regulation, it's to create a set of effective regulations that can be applied equally to everyone.

[kd5bjo]

> Uber bypassed it by saying "we're a tech company" and left it to the drivers, making the enforcement of the law a lot harder.

The original loophole that Uber used was San Francisco’s different regulations between taxis and limo companies: The latter are less regulated but are allowed to accept prebooking, and not street hails. Uber realized that ordering a ride via a phone app is more convenient than trying to hail a passing taxi in many cases and can be served by a limo company instead.

[buran77]

Not very familiar with the situation across the pond but in much of Europe the expectation from companies providing commercial transportation services are far higher than just booking method:

- Drivers need a different, more expensive license or attestation that needs to be renewed periodically;

- Car needs a more expensive commercial insurance that covers all passengers and cargo, to a much higher payout, not just the driver like most Uber drivers have;

- Car needs to be inspected far more often to ensure it's roadworthy and can stand that driving regime for the future;

- Prices are regulated because the taxi service is seen as closer to public transport than to personal one. So you don't see price fluctuations more than you'd see for the bus;

- They need an authorization to serve an area (meaning they were checked according to local regulation);

- The company is responsible for its employees in many ways;

- And more.

A restaurant's kitchen has higher requirements than your private one which makes owning and operating a commercial kitchen far more resource intensive than a private one. There's no "kitchen sharing" where you can sell food straight from your private kitchen, "infirmary sharing" where you can pretend you're a doctor or a hospital room, or "legal office sharing" where you can pretend to be a lawyer without meeting all the requirements imposed on those sectors.

This is the loophole Uber exploited. Replace "car" with "house/room" and you get AirBnB. When they had enough of a head start they started complying with some regulation, while still acting like they're a different kind of service for what other regulation is concerned. They want to live on the border and pick and choose what applies to them, something no other commercial service is allowed to do. Except all the other disruptors who raise enough money to afford some fines while they still operate in a grey area. Cost of doing business.

[kd5bjo]

These are per-city rules in much of the US, but the limo companies that Uber was originally subcontracting to had to meet similar requirements in San Francisco as what tou describe. Booking is just the test that was used to determine which set of regulations apply to any given compan. For example, taxi supply was artifically constrained by a medallion system, but there was no such limit on the number of limos allowed to operate.

(Past tense b/c I don’t live there anymore and am not up-to-date with current developments)

They certainly have used the loophole you describe extensively, but that started later, once they were sure there were no repurcussions for the limo dodge.

[mabbo]

> There's no "kitchen sharing" where you can sell food straight from your private kitchen, "infirmary sharing" where you can pretend you're a doctor or a hospital room, or "legal office sharing" where you can pretend to be a lawyer without meeting all the requirements imposed on those sectors

I definitely remember someone trying the kitchen one. Forgetting the name of that startup now, but it's been tried.

And given how badly America treats health care and law, I suspect the other two are in stealth mode right now.

[emteycz]

What's the difference from calling by phone, also served by many limo companies?

[908B64B197]

> But taxi companies have a far, far higher bar in the eyes of the law. In most countries you can't just decide to climb in your private car and provide commercial transportation service. You have to spend a lot of time and money to get there, authorizations, commercial insurance, driver certifications, etc. Uber bypassed it by saying "we're a tech company" and left it to the drivers, making the enforcement of the law a lot harder.

Let's be real, most of it is getting a taxi medallion (sure you need a different driving license but any 18 years old can get it).

Posted it in an other thread [0] but do we really want to go back to the medallion system? Pre-Uber, either the driver rented the car to a middleman who rented the medallion from a rich owner, or said owner was selling and financing (most banks won't touch these medallions!) a medallion at a ridiculous interest rate to a driver that planned to use it as his retirement savings (an extremely volatile asset and not very liquid). The more I spoke to cab drivers the more it seemed their industry was a pyramid scheme aimed at helping established rent-seeker take advantage of often poor new immigrants. Uber brought a breeze of fresh air: Someone could simply buy a car, calculate the depreciation and it's value on the market (since unlike medallions cars are relatively liquid assets!) do rideshare and calculate their profits or loss. They can get out of the game at anytime, and they know exactly how much they are going to get for the car they have should they sell it.

Also, the argument on Uber/Lyft drivers not being contractors since they can't set their own rates and decide which ride they take strikes me as weird since medallion drivers were contractors, had to charge the price set by the city and could only pick-up customers in the (arbitrary) zones covered by their medallions.

And I'm not even touching the usual pain points and often discriminatory practices of medallion drivers (refusing card payments, refusing rides to non-white passengers and to non-white neighborhoods...).

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24225648

[syshum]

The problem here is you failed to identify the regulations as the problem in the first place, especially with Taxi's and Uber

The regulations created an artificial scarcity for transportation that increased prices, and lowered quality of service to the point where people were BEGGING for a service like Uber to come along

The solution to this problem is not "make Uber follow the tax regulations" which seems to be what you are suggesting

[buran77]

That's the kind of explanation you get from anyone breaking the law and claiming it was because the law not conducive to the greater good. Every regulated sector could get the same characterization from entities failing to meet said regulation making all of it in effect invalid. Uber has deep enough pockets to lobby for changing regulation but that would apply to everyone and they would again have to fight on a level playing field. They broke the law for profit.

Robbery is illegal even if you steal from a criminal, or if people are BEGGING for someone to do it. Sure, when it's a social movement it's still breaking the law but has a different moral value. As it stands the value now is in Uber's pockets.

> The solution to this problem is not "make Uber follow the tax regulations" which seems to be what you are suggesting

No. Not only did I literally start my comment with <I never said (or meant only) "tax loopholes">, I also ended it with:

> > The solution to an industry being crap isn't to allow someone to bypass existing regulation, it's to create a set of effective regulations that can be applied equally to everyone.

I'm trying to assume good faith but replying to me while completely ignoring the content of my comment or twisting my words to imply the exact opposite of what I said is disrespectful and disqualifies your opinion in my eyes at least. Pretty sure also in the letter and spirit of HN's guidelines. Makes it seem like you don't want to be part of a conversation but rather throw your personal ideas out there everything else be damned.

[throwaway201103]

You can sort of make a moral argument for Uber, maybe others in that one of the problems with the legacy taxi services is that they would refuse to provide rides to minorites, blacks in particular. With an artificially constrained supply of taxis, they could do this without penalty, possibly even profitably.

With Uber, sure an individial driver can decline a ride based on the destination and assumptions he makes about the passenger, but it's far more likely that someone will take the ride, since there are many more drivers. They also have less to fear with Uber since they don't carry cash or deal with cash payments, and there's some level of trackability/identifiability of the passenger in comparison to picking up a random person on a street hail.

[syshum]

>>claiming it was because the law not conducive to the greater good

No, I never claim the greater good, that is what people that support government and regulations claim.

We need all these laws, regulations, taxation, etc "for the greater good"

Anyone that claims to be doing something for the greater good chances are is evil.

>>Robbery is illegal even if you steal from a criminal, or if people are BEGGING for someone to do it.

Some how I bet you would not agree in all situation, income taxation as an example...

That said, I do not place much stock in an argument "well that's illegal", as an Individualist libertarian I assess things based on the ethical foundation of liberty or the principle of self ownership..

So I base my support or rejection of a public policy, law, or regulation based on that ethical foundation. I do not outsource my thinking to a legislature.

>>I'm trying to assume good faith but replying to me while completely ignoring the content of my comment or twisting my words to imply the exact opposite

I was not "completely ignoring" your content, it seemed to me then, and continues to be my belief now based on this further comment that you desire increased regulations on Uber to make them fall inline with existing regulations, to "close the loop hole" as it were

This is in stark contrast to my belief that the regulations are the problem and adding regulations to uber is not the solution to the problem

Eliminating regulations on everyone is the solution.

[jahaja]

> The regulations created an artificial scarcity

Is the classification as an employee, with attached benefits, artificial scarcity in a negative sense? If so, we got quite a few industries that would also love to remove this "artificial scarcity" and allow the use of day labourers.

[syshum]

Many taxi drivers, like uber drivers, are also classified as Independent contractors

Employment classification was not what I was referring to, I am talking about the endless regulations around taxi medallion system that puts a government regulated cap on the number of taxi's

[jasode]

>Airbnb: we don't need to own hotel properties and employ managers and housekeepers

Fyi because this is a common misunderstanding: Hotel chains like Marriott, Hilton, Four Seasons, etc also do not own most of their physical properties[1]. They are primarily management companies instead of owning a portfolio of real estate. If you see a Hilton logo on the side of a building, it doesn't mean that Hilton actually owns it. The logo is there because they have a long-term contract to manage the hotel for the real owners of that property.

>Amazon: we don't need to own retail stores or inventory

Amazon isn't a totally "virtual" company. Amazon owns (or leases) physical distribution centers instead of retail stores. They've always paid sales taxes based on nexus of those DCs. What's recently changed (circa 2017?) was collecting sales taxes on behalf of 3rd-party marketplace sellers.

[1] https://www.quora.com/Do-hotel-chains-like-Hilton-Mandarin-o...

[miohtama]

> Airbnb: we don't need to own hotel properties and employ managers and housekeepers

This is correct for AirBnb, but incorrect for the value chain. Someone must have the flat on their balance sheet. Someone must have a cleaner lady on a payroll. Is Airbnb value chain more effective that hotel value chain? Maybe. Maybe not. But for AirBnb host having a tax advantage of not being charged as a tourism business while in fact being one was clearly an advantage.

Similar laws have been passed all over the world, including the US where it goes by a city or a state, Las Vegas being notable.

[TheOtherHobbes]

Amazon: We don't need to pay sales tax or look after our warehouse employees

AirBnB: We don't need to pay sales tax or look after our hosts

Uber: We don't need to pay sales tax or look after our drivers

The sales tax problem is only a loophole in some territories. The "look after" part is a problem in all of them.

[rob74]

Can't think of any, but it's still fair to say that tax loopholes (and lack of other regulations that the established competitors are subject to, e.g. Taxi licenses) provide an additional advantage...

[qwerty456127]

Nevertheless, all these are legitimate things if viewed from a different perspective.

As a driver I like to have a platform to list my own services an independent way at instead of applying for a job at a transportation company. And as a passenger I like to be able to hire an individual driver. I don't want a taxi company nor the Uber company, just a private individual + a convenience website where I can find one.

As a traveler I don't want a fancy hotel, let alone a shitty one - I prefer a decent room or a bed in an ordinary private home.

If only Uber and AirBnB were just doing their job connecting individuals rather than trying to conquer the markets for themselves I would certainly be on their side.

[ghaff]

>As a traveler I don't want a fancy hotel, let alone a shitty one - I prefer a decent room or a bed in an ordinary private home.

I think that's a generally minority position though. For the most part, people prefer their own room, bathroom, and possibly kitchenette/sitting space. Along with flexibility about checking in and out. Not always of course. Sometimes you need to adapt if you're off the beaten path. But I'm pretty sure that if you surveyed most people, especially business travelers, they're not really looking for a speare room or bed in a private home.

[qwerty456127]

Obviously.

But I believe there is enough no-hotel people to consider this an option worth existing.

Same thing with transportation: a significant portion (if not the majority) of people would prefer to be serviced/employed by a serious company yet many drivers prefer to freelance and many customers prefer real people over corporations.

In fact I myself mostly use classic taxis and hotels but I understand the value of being able to choose the other model.

[mellavora]

uber: we don't need to demand/provide commercial insurance even though the vehicles are used commercially, private insurance can pick up the risk.

[jonny_eh]

Opendoor is disrupting real estate agents by buying real estate and selling directly. Seems fair to me.

[AmericanChopper]

My reading of that article was that tax liability hasn’t changed at all. The Airbnb hosts were always liable for paying all of their taxes, including whatever sales taxes they were liable for. This change means that Airbnb are now responsible for collecting that sales tax and paying it to the government on behalf of their hosts.

Whatever opinion you have about that, it doesn’t seem to be addressing any sort of loophole. It’s not a new tax, it’s just a new regulation for collecting it.

[jannes]

Didn't Amazon also avoid collecting sales tax in the US until recently? I think they didn't have to collect sales tax on any cross-state transactions (tax is owed at the point of delivery). Whereas brick and mortar stores almost never make transactions with their customers across state borders.

According to Wikipedia [0] they only had to collect sales tax in all states since 2017 after some "Amazon laws" were introduced? That sounds later than I expected.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_tax

[ghaff]

Really the relevant Supreme Court case was Wayfair which required sales tax collection (overturning Quill) for all businesses over a certain revenue(?) in 2018. [1] Sales tax collection was sort of an Amazon-specific patchwork by state previously. (And, yes, in general buyers were supposed to pay a usage tax on out-of-state orders but most individuals almost certainly did not.)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Wayfair,_Inc.

[throwaway201103]

That wasn't unique to e-commerce though. Pre-internet, if you ordered something from a catalog and the seller was out-of-state, they did not collect sales tax. It was up to the buyer to report and pay the tax, which of course nobody did.

[syshum]

>>> I think they didn't have to collect sales tax on any cross-state transactions

That is not how it worked (or works), in the US Sales tax is owed by the consumer, just like income tax. Amazon nor any other retailer "owes" the tax, they collect it on your (the customers) behalf and submits it to the state. In fact most states pay the retailer to do this as they get to keep a small part of the collected tax.

Before some TERRIBLE court rulings in 2017, Sales tax was required to collective if your business had a "legal nexus" in the state which generally meant you had a physical location in the state you were required to collect sales tax on the sales you made to consumers of that state, so even "cross state" shipments had to be taxed if you say had a office in that state but your warehouse with the goods was in another state

If the sales tax was not collected by the retailer, you the consumer were suppose to pay the tax yourself, most states have a self reporting question on your states income tax return form.

Many people did not do this, so the states started passing laws attempting to "close this loop hole" aka the Constitutional Power grated to the federal government to regulate interstate commerce

Sadly the Federal Courts are TERRIBLE at applying the commerce clause of the US Constitution in its plainly written meaning, as they allow the federal government to use it regulate completely intrastate commerce (which should be unconstitutional) and now (as of 2017) allow the states to regulate interstate sales which also should be unconstitutional by allowing states for retailers that have no Nexus in their state to collect sales tax on sales to consumers in the state

This is also why Amazon, Walmart and others are pushing for Congress to come up with a Interstate Sales tax regulation to override the patch work for some 3000 taxing jurisdictions that make up the US sales tax regulations

[candu]

It reminds me a lot of the excesses of software patents, many of which in effect say "it does (insert mundane thing X)...BUT WITH MORE TECHNOLOGY".

[esc_colon_q]

Fixing a bad law is fine, but you can't propagate that back just because you wish you'd thought of the edge cases then. Or at least you shouldn't, if you have any sense of fair play...

[usrusr]

Legislative changing laws, that should definitely not apply retroactively, even if sometimes this is very painful.

Executive fixing application of laws that haven't been applied correctly in the past however is an entirely different story. If laws oblige you to pay taxes you are obliged to pay wether they have been collected or not. Not much different from a crime being a crime wether you are caught or not. Unless of course there's also a law that states an equivalent of "taxes not collected within the first $n $timeunit are waived".

[syshum]

The problem with that is the AirBnB never owed the tax in the first place.

Either the Host does, or the Consumer of the service does, AirBnb would just be collecting and remiting that on behalf of the parties

[Sanzig]

Depends on the jurisdiction, but most wouldn't put this on the consumer. In most jurisdictions, if a merchant neglects to collect sales tax when the sale is made, it's out of their pocket - not the customer.

[arcticbull]

In Canada ex post facto laws are prohibited in the charter of rights and freedoms for criminal matters only - and this isn’t an absolute prohibition either. They are permitted for civil matters.

It’s an interesting thought exercise, and fairness would in my sole opinion be based on whether they knew they should have been paying the whole time and were getting away with it. It won’t happen, though.

[DanBC]

Tax law is a bit more complicated.

Tax law is what's written in statutes, but it's also how the courts interpret the law. This means there's stuff that's clearly lawful, stuff that's clearly unlawful, and then a grey area where reasonable people can interpret the law in different ways and we need the courts to rule.

This works well when you have cases that go to court. But some tax authorities prefer a light-touch or right-touch regulatory approach, and so they prefer to persuade people to pay tax that's owed and they leave court cases for the blatant offenders. That means we don't get the case law.

[calyth2018]

I disagree.

What's being explicitly applied is the federal and provincial sales tax.

Airbnb and the hosts were selling a service without collecting the sales tax.

Someone was tax evading, and someone owes the CRA back taxes.

[rootsudo]

Ex post facto.

[freeone3000]

Is legal in Canada. I'm honestly surprised it wasn't applied here, because it's clear that tax should have been paid by analogy, even absent a direct law.