
Massachusetts to tax ride-hailing apps, give the money to taxis - petethomas
http://reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSKCN10U1ST
======
rev_bird
This is a pretty surreal move:

>The law says the money will help taxi businesses to adopt "new technologies
and advanced service, safety and operational capabilities" and to support
workforce development... [Larry Meister, manager of the Boston area's
Independent Taxi Operator's Association] said the money could go toward
improving a smartphone app his association has started using, or to other big
needs.

I'm not an anti-regulation guy most of the time, but this doesn't even seem
like regulation -- they're _literally giving money_ to a fading industry
because they are incapable of keeping up. I don't want to see cab drivers turn
into homeless drifters, but this just seems wrong.

Making a more efficient competitor pay to help taxi companies make their
service better? The whole reason these companies exist is because taxi
companies have been utter garbage for years and got the government to elbow
out competitors. Am I missing something? Surely the burden for "do things
better and buy nicer equipment" falls on the taxi companies, not the other
organizations that are embarrassing them.

~~~
acidburnNSA
I mostly agree with you, and I would have wholeheartedly agreed with you 2
weeks ago, but I just read a book ("Listen, Liberal" by Thomas Frank) that
makes some interesting points about how liberals have shifted from
representing working people to representing professionals, and to worshiping
innovation. While free trade and disruptive technology is good for the
professional class, it inherently increases inequality.

Frank argues that after the liberal shift, "everyone" now agrees to these pro-
business, pro-Wall Street policies, but we don't have to allow rapid
disruption freely. We could do what Massachusetts is doing. We could have
tariffs and bring manufacturing back. Policy can prevent the inevitable.

I learned about the book while vigorously researching Trump's rise to
popularity during the primaries. I personally can't wait for self-driving
cars, etc., but I think someone needs to be thinking of the swaths of working
people who are afraid of losing their jobs.

I know lots of working people. Many of them don't want to go back to school or
get technical training. Many of them don't want to start the next big company.
They just want to work their job and go hang out with their family. What do we
tell the taxi and truck drivers when Uber shows up with self-drivers, etc.?

I'm new to this line of thinking myself and I know there are lots of
counterarguments. I just find it worth a ponder.

~~~
dsacco
I like your comment as a contribution to discussion, but I'd like to see a
dialectic about why income inequality increasing is bad, in of itself.

I see this implied quite a bit on Hacker News. Usually something along the
lines of, "But doing this will increase income inequality" stated as a
counterpoint.

If overall quality of life increases, I am personally unconcerned with income
inequality. I haven't seen definitive evidence that income inequality is
itself a bad thing if it is a byproduct of capitalist processes that are
improving life for basically every measurable metric.

I'm not saying we should dismiss it, but I'd like to engage in more
consideration rather than make it a boogeyman.

~~~
HillRat
>I'd like to see a dialectic about why income inequality increasing is bad, in
of itself.

One main issue is that income inequality decreases socioeconomic mobility by
inflating the cost of scarce goods that improve earnings capabilities. So 4K
TVs are cheaper but college tuition becomes unaffordable, because good
universities and grad programs are valuable, scarce goods that the wealthy can
outbid everyone else on.

Policies that aggressively expand capacity and defray costs, such as post-WW2
expansions of universities and the GI bill, can ameliorate this by shifting
monies down the socioeconomic ladder via taxation, but high levels of
inequality also lead to a powerful political interest group that generally
seeks to reduce tax rates that affect them.

There's also the more general economic argument that high levels of inequality
are economically inefficient since they result in a lower average marginal
propensity to consume, but that's not so much "bad" as "could be better and
provide greater macro stability."

~~~
dsacco
In response to your main issue regarding socioeconomic mobility - why is this,
in turn, a problem?

If you can demonstrate that reduced social mobility is an issue, and that this
is increased by progressively greater income inequality (the latter of which I
probably agree with on cursory inspection), then it seems income inequality is
a net loss.

However, from a utilitarian perspective, I don't see a reason to care about
social mobility if quality of life increases for everyone, not just the upper
classes.

Keep in mind that I am working on two axioms:

1\. Income inequality is a mathematical certainty in a functional society with
more than _n_ participants, where _n_ is the maximum number of people who can
be personally and honestly cooperative with each other, and

2\. Income inequality refers to differences in an individual's absolute
resources available for consumption, not their quality of life (exceptions
granted for luxury consumption goods, not basic utilities that are available
across all social classes).

As a _very_ simplistic example that I'd enjoy having holes poked in, Apple has
generated wondrous income inequality for _many_ of its engineers and
management. However, it has also leveraged economies of scale and competitive
forces to manufacture a mass market product that is, statistically, enjoyed by
even the poorest households in America and which affords its users with the
most powerful innovation since the printing press in their pockets.

EDIT: This comment has had a rapid change in up and down votes. It's fine to
disagree with me, but I don't think it's unreasonable to question whether or
not a lack of social mobility is actually a bad thing, as a Socratic baseline.

~~~
hx87
Low socioeconomic mobility is a problem because the potential for any
individual to contribute to the good of society is at best loosely correlated
with their previous socioeconomic status. If people who could have been top-
notch scientists, engineers, civil servants and entrepreneurs were prevented
from doing so because they couldn't move up the ladder (and inversely, rich
rent-seekers couldn't move down), society is deprived of their contributions
and is worse off.

P.S.: The rapid change in up and down votes is probably caused more by your
confusion of socioeconomic mobility and equality (you seem to be using the two
interchangeably) than anything else.

~~~
dsacco
Where did I conflate socioeconomic mobility and income equality? I didn't
intend to do that.

More to your point - I respond by asking whether or not the socioeconomic
standing of a scientist matters for the societal impact of their work.

I don't see an easy conclusion here. The scientists driving innovation in
industry are generally paid very well (this is relative, but we can probably
agree they are paid higher than a median salary). The scientists driving
innovation in academia are not, as a rule, paid as well as their counterparts
in industry, but that doesn't stop them from contributing valuable research to
their fields.

So how do we conclude that socioeconomic stance matters for a scientist's
research impact, if they have grants or corporate sponsorship?

To reiterate my point - if reduced socioeconomic mobility can't be
demonstrated to be a net loss for society, why does it matter if income
inequality causes it or not, and how does it demonstrate income inequality as
a net loss for society?

~~~
Ericson2314
How many famous intellectuals from before the 19th century came from the lower
classes? That is what we will return to.

~~~
CydeWeys
Thank you. There are so many "could have beens" throughout history that didn't
happen simply because the vast majority of the human populace was, until very
recently, entirely excluded from being able to contribute towards human
progress.

------
ricw
This is unbelievable. Never have I used a more corrupt and unfriendly taxi
service as the one in Boston / Cambridge. And they are supposed to be
subsidised?!

I have 1) been driven round crazy detours to up my cost 2) been forced to
drive a detour because the card machine was broken and they only accepted cash
3) been turned down because my destination wasn't far enough 4) been shouted
at because I was watching the free tv in the cab

In short, they suck. Badly. Thinking about it, I can't remember a positive
experience. In contrast I've hardly had a negative experience with lyft/uber
and mostly had very positive or positive experiences.

What's the best way of contacting this senator?!

~~~
jacobolus
I lived in Cambridge for about 6 years from ~2004–2011. Nothing but positive
experiences with Boston-area cabs. The drivers were uniformly friendly and
competent, and had no trouble with the ridiculously convoluted MA street
layouts. When I was carrying suitcases or moving boxes of books around, they
were patient and helpful with loading/unloading. When I left my wallet one
time, the driver called me as soon as he found it and promptly returned it.

Maybe you just got unlucky? Or maybe things have deteriorated since other
transportation started undercutting them?

Yay for anecdotal evidence, right?

~~~
staticfish
I'm not disputing your experiences for one second, but mine closely match OP's
in Boston, and just about every other large city in the US.*

*With the exception of London. Maybe having to study The Knowledge has something to do with it..

~~~
benjiweber
The "card machine is broken" line is consistently used by most London cabbies.
They're being forced into accepting card kicking and screaming by regulations
towards the end of the year [https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-
releases/2016/februa...](https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-
releases/2016/february/card-payments-to-be-accepted-in-every-black-cab)

------
jwallaceparker
You and a friend are stranded on an island. You both spend all your working
hours catching fish by hand in order to eat.

You use some leisure time to build a fishing rod, which enables just one of
you to catch enough fish to feed you both.

It would be foolish to destroy the fishing rod to preserve both your jobs as
fishermen. One of you would fish and the other would do something else, like
build shelter and cut firewood.

It's just the two of you, so you don't literally exchange in barter, but an
implicit exchange takes place when you share the fish, shelter and firewood.

You both enjoy a better standard of living thanks to the productivity increase
created by the fishing rod.

A modern economy is much more complex but the same fundamental principle
applies.

The ride-hailing apps make taxi drivers more productive by helping them
connect with customers faster.

Now it takes fewer taxi drivers to satisfy the demands of customers. This
frees up the labor time of the remaining taxi drivers to produce additional
goods or services.

There is certainly temporary pain endured by workers who are displaced by the
innovation. But it is folly to subsidize work that is no longer in demand.

~~~
tim333
Not sure it takes fewer drivers to satisfy the demands of customers. As Uber
like apps make getting a ride cheaper and nicer the useage is presumably going
up so there should be more drivers but making less per hour.

~~~
jwallaceparker
> Not sure it takes fewer drivers to satisfy the demands of customers.

I mean this in the sense that any one taxi driver can satisfy more customers
with the use of a ride-hailing app than without.

You're right that ride-hailing apps have increased the demand for taxi rides.

------
akulbe
If the taxi cab companies can't make it on their own, they should go out of
business.

As a self-employed person, I shouldn't expect someone else to bail me out by
their efforts. If I can't make it on my own steam, I close up shop.

When this happens, it's unfortunate, and unpleasant, but it's a simple fact of
doing business.

Our parents and grandparents would balk and roll in their graves at the
thought of this idea that someone else should shoulder the burden of bailing
you out.

What ever happened to the idea of (in the case of business hardship or
failure) picking yourself up, dusting yourself off and _starting OVER_??

~~~
wutbrodo
> Our parents and grandparents would balk and roll in their graves at the
> thought of this idea that someone else should shoulder the burden of bailing
> you out.

That's definitely not true. People have been kicking and screaming (and
regulating) against being obsoleted by technology since literally the
beginning of industrialization, and even earlier if you broaden that to
"obsoleted by a change in market conditions". The only difference between that
and asking for a bailout is that the bailout happens later in the process.

~~~
akulbe
Industrialization didn't end up with a net loss of jobs. It ended up with a
_change_ and _retooling_ of jobs.

This hasn't changed with the advance of technology. We just have to figure out
the how, and where, and what of this change. You know... be resilient, like we
are as humanity.

That's not to say it's going to be easy, and I'm not trying to over-simplify
things. It will be HARD, but it is POSSIBLE.

One of the things I'm advocating for is to try and figure out the challenge
_yourself_ rather than ask for a bailout. Personally, I don't think that is
unreasonable. ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯

Information is plentiful for us. Probably not nearly as much for previous
generations.

~~~
wutbrodo
I don't disagree with anything you're saying, except for the claim that our
parents' and grandparents' generation took the obsolescence of job categories
with noble foresight. They were pretty much just as in love with bailouts and
protectionism as we are (if not more).

------
brownbat
There are two competing narratives about ride-hailing apps success:

1) They are profitable because they are finding loopholes in relevant
legislation, or,

2) they are profitable because they are injecting competition and new ideas
into a stagnating industry dominated by government-protected monopolies (or
oligopolies).

Your opinion of the law will likely depend on which narrative you find more
persuasive.

~~~
bsder
> They are profitable

We have no evidence of this, and this is scary to me, for various reasons.

Uber/Lyft/et al are all about trying to gain a "lock" on the industry. If they
succeed, they're going to hose me, badly. If they fail, they're going to leave
a big crater behind from all the taxis they drove out of business.

Not friendly.

~~~
bmon
What makes you think that cab companies aren't ripping you off already? In my
area, you pay over twice the amount for a cab compared to uber.

~~~
angry-hacker
And what do you think happens when they have the monopoly and/or VC's start
wanting their money back?

~~~
zigzigzag
Er, either prices float to their natural level and there's no problem (i.e.
Uber's profits are reasonable), or a competitor comes along.

Come on, keep some perspective. Uber is a taxi app. We're not talking about a
Manhatten Project of software here. Duplicating the Uber experience is _easy_.
99% of the effort they're putting in there is the fights with all the
governments, regulators, taxi unions etc.

~~~
angry-hacker
And how those new apps get traction? They either need VC money or they die.

Facebook and Twitter are not Manhattan projects either, but there's no real
competition.

Right now Uber is using the VC money to break or ignore laws and create itself
a monopoly.

If we really wanted to disrupt the Taxi business, you need to destroy all the
regulation for everyone.

Collecting tax pennies and giving them away does not help, of course.

It does not matter what the right answer is; the playground needs to be equal.

~~~
zigzigzag
Facebook and Twitter _are_ in competition. And I think you underestimate the
complexity of a project like Facebook. It started small, but back then
people's expectations were much lower.

If Facebook started charging for its services or otherwise pissing off its
users in big and obvious ways, I guarantee there'd be a serious competitor on
the streets within months.

------
bawana
The capitalist model, the concept of 'disruption', Adam Smith's precepts work
well when they allow individuals to control their choices, their fate, their
destiny. When the transactions exceed human scale - when they become so big,
so far reaching, so expensive that the participants are powerless to make
changes, then capitalism fails. It fails because the 'losers' suffer even if
they try to adapt. They cannot compete because the the 'winning side' is so
new with fewer legacy costs. The losers necessarily must die and become
assimilated by the winning strategy. And the winners who skirt the regulations
will close shop and disappear at the first sign of trouble.

I disagree with the concept of entitlement-taking money from the winner and
giving it to the loser. But the winner MUST abide by the same rules as the
loser. If the ride sharing industry has the advantage of venture capital
startup money and newer (less costly to maintain) infrastructure, then their
benefits to drivers should be GREATER than what the taxi industry provides,
not less. The 20 cent tax should go entirely to the health care and insurance
of the drivers of the ride sharing industry's drivers. Not the welfare
recipients we call 'politicians'. That HALF of this tax goes to people who are
ALREADY living off of money made by people who actually work really bothers
me.

I would really like to see silicon valley startups that offer a new and better
forms of local government. I would like to see our political system get
improved by disruption. I really believe politicians are vastly overpaid for
the non-service they provide.

~~~
tbihl
>I would really like to see silicon valley startups that offer a new and
better forms of local government. I would like to see our political system get
improved by disruption. I really believe politicians are vastly overpaid for
the non-service they provide.

There was an idyllic notion in the heads of some of the founders of the US
that the many towns could be thousands of little laboratories, each testing
their own ideas and then, as a wider community of towns, naturally coalescing
around the ideas that worked best. The problem, as I see it, is that they
don't have the agility and flexibility of a laboratory or startup. In modern
times (in the US), towns act as franchises rather than labs, with the
exceptions of large cities and a few other special places.

For example, I think most people can instinctively feel the unpleasantness of
a place with large chain retailers and restaurants lining the sides of a 6
lane, 40MPH road with openings and stop lights everywhere. Nonetheless,
they're everywhere in the US. Places without these awful (and horrendously
expensive) development patterns are the exception. The reason is because the
US government pushes development decisions. They do it not by saying 'thou
shalt construct car sewers,' but through more subtle means. Since 1934, it has
been artificially expensive to build multi-use buildings with dwellings over a
shop because you can't get an FHA-compliant mortgage and the accompanying
subsidies. We push common road engineering standards, which works great for
highways, but then towns build highway-compliant roads in town to get federal
grants.

Then each state has its own set of policies that create perverse incentives in
curious ways. Actually, in CA the state government did effectively mandate car
sewers for decades by deciding that car idling and congestion were
environmental impacts that had to be mitigated (with more highway-spec
supersized roads.)

Anyway, all this is to say: give local governments a little credit. Certainly
some of them are bad, and this article shows a particularly disheartening
variant, but in a lot of cases it's an issue of asking mere mortals to prevail
over the huge obstructions built by other governing bodies.

------
mungoid
I haven't read all 400-some comments, but in the several pages worth i read I
haven't seen a single person mention looking out for their own welfare and
keeping their future in their own hands. Just because a line of work has been
around for decades doesnt mean it is always going to be a safe bet.

I've worked hard for the past 10 years to get to my middling-middle class
income. Enough with my wife's to support our family. I could just be content
with that and staying right here for the rest of my life, never wanting to do
any more with myself, but I know things will change and i want to be prepared
for it.

Maybe it's the brain wiring of a software developer, but I refuse to become
complacent with where I am at. I already know I wouldn't last another 10 years
if I don't regularly adapt, learn new technologies, stay current.

I think in a way, this isn't too much different than the housing bubble. Too
many people thinking that everything is just going to keep going its steady
pace forever and if anything bad does happen, someone will come to the rescue.
I want to position myself so I don't need that rescuing.

~~~
ChartsNGraffs
Bro, you're a hero. Change is the only constant and you're wise to prepare for
it. I wish you and your family the best.

------
a_c
If this logic make sense, perhaps AirBnB need to be taxed to support hotel
industry, Iphone should pay to nokia and internet should be taxed to landline

~~~
giaour
Landlines all have a fee that subsidizes service in rural areas. Hotels have
to pay hotel taxes in addition to property taxes, which are often earmarked.

~~~
briandear
I have some properties that I AirBnB in France and we pay the hotel taxes just
like the hotels. So that argument that AirBnB properties don't have to pay
hotel tax isn't true. And the tax isn't even that much. If a hotel is on such
a tight margin that €0.80-€2.10 per occupant per day is a hardship, then they
have bigger problems. We also get to pay property tax, habitation tax as well
as income tax. Yet here in France the hotel business still lobbies against
AirBnB.

------
appleflaxen
When obsolete industries / models / methods become replaced by something
better, the best thing that can happen at a macro level is to have them phased
out as smoothly as possible. If that smoothness can also be fast, then you
will maximize your economic productivity as well.

So this decision is exactly the opposite of what you want... you are going to
prolong the inevitable with a market-distorting subsidy.

It would be much better to tax Uber and require the funds go to taxi cab
retraining scholarships, so that people who couldn't make a living driving a
cab anymore have another option. Better yet: send them to customer service
school, so that they can work as an Uber driver if they wish to do so.

------
lpolovets
Obviously the logic is mystifying, but the math behind this is baffling as
well:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_the_United_States#...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_the_United_States#Boston)
says there are 1825 cabs in Boston. Boston is 10% of Massachusetts'
population, so let's say there are 18k cabs in the state.

[http://www.reuters.com/article/us-massachusetts-uber-
idUSKCN...](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-massachusetts-uber-
idUSKCN10U1ST) says 5 cents/ride-hailing app will go toward taxis, and
Uber+Lyft do 2.5m rider per month.

So, the tax will produce 2.5m rides/mo * 12 months * 5 cents/ride =
$1.5m/year.

That works out to... drum roll... $83 per taxicab per year. How is this
supposed to help taxi drivers with anything? Maybe as ride-sharing increases,
this becomes $200 or $400 per cab per year, but that's still a small sum. I
imagine a few hundred dollars is a small consolation when you lose 50% or 90%
of your business.

~~~
wutbrodo
> there are 1825 cabs in Boston. Boston is 10% of Massachusetts' population,
> so let's say there are 18k cabs in the state.

The number would likely be way lower than this (it doesn't make too much sense
to extrapolate linearly from the densest urban population), but your point
still stands even you double or triple the $/driver. That's pretty weird...

~~~
lpolovets
That's a good point. After Googling some more, it seems like MA has about 8300
"taxi drivers and chauffeurs"
([http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes533041.htm](http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes533041.htm)),
so the $83 should probably be doubled or tripled.

------
owly
The 5¢ should be allocated to public transportation to keep late night bus
service. This is pure corruption.

------
trengrj
I'm in Sydney Australia and we have a one dollar fee for each Uber to bribe
off taxi medallion owners. It feels completely wrong and Uber makes the fee
separate on your card I think in protest.

~~~
mbreedlove
I hope they label the charge "Taxi Bribe".

------
qq66
I think that this makes sense in concept if not in implementation. Taxi
medallions were sold and traded under a certain set of laws which defined
their value. The government decided to change those laws, so "buying out" the
medallions at some fair price, paid for by the beneficiaries of the change in
law, makes sense.

~~~
maverick_iceman
The medallion owners were making an investment. Every investment carries a
risk. If they were profiting from their investments then they were not going
to share those with anyone else. Why then should others share their losses?

~~~
tomdell
Imagine you want to open a restaurant. You know that it will be successful -
you've done your research, whatever, yadda yadda. The government charges you a
hefty initial tax to open your restaurant - it's a steep cost, but you expect
that you'll be able to pay it off, because you know your place is going to do
well. Seriously, you've paid attention to history - these kinds of things -
the way you're doing it, anyway - always do well. Time passes, and your
restaurant does do really well. You get a few negative reviews, though - some
people think the place smells funny, some customers don't like hearing you
(the head chef) screaming at the cooks in the kitchen. A couple years later, a
competitor restaurant opens across the street. Similar price level, cuisine,
prestige - all that. The only thing is, the government doesn't level the same
tax against the competitor that you had to pay. In fact, that tax isn't being
applied to them at all, because, even though you know and everyone else knows
they're really basically a restaurant - despite that, because all the
customers there order the food through an app, the place is legally classified
as something else. The competitor's head chef and owner has paid attention to
what you did poorly - he makes sure his place smells good (he spends a lot of
money on this), and he's careful to keep his speaking voice down while
chastising his chefs. He starts to get good business, and as word spreads, you
start to lose business. Things aren't looking good for you. You're not really
sure you're going to be able to stay open for long enough for that heavy tax
you paid to be worth it.

~~~
hx87
If only taxi medallions were issued in a reasonably fair manner, such as a
fixed fee with no quantity limits, or an annual auction with quantity
limits...

A better analogy would be if the government, starting in 1930, only allowed
there to be 3 restaurants in the city, and sold you one of the licenses for a
sum of 1 cent. Now it's 2015, there are still only 3 restaurants in the city,
and because the license is permanent and transferable, now it's worth $50
million. Then food trucks come and take all your business.

~~~
superbaconman
NY has some pretty fucked up food truck regulations. Because NY won't increase
the number of food vending permits, a huge number are now sold on the black
market.

[http://www.voanews.com/a/black-market-vending-new-york-
city/...](http://www.voanews.com/a/black-market-vending-new-york-
city/3124847.html)

------
IkmoIkmo
I fully understand one may tax a new successful industry, and then use the
proceeds for individual citizens who lose jobs and need some support, training
and job programs to help them back on their feet.

But this is ridiculous. The notion an uncompetitive industry, which is fading
because ordinary people can and do choose a better product or service, gets
money to stay alive with its shittier product, just makes no sense. It doesn't
achieve what we want, and there are good alternatives.

------
MicroBerto
Sounds like time for some politicians to get voted out of office. Voters may
not care about certain things, but they definitely care about their
transportation.

~~~
toomuchtodo
Working class folks care more about their jobs than Uber's profits (rightfully
so).

~~~
yazaddaruvala
There are more working class folks, who this disadvantages than advantages.
I'm sure the people of Mass who use Uber, would look at this as an extra tax
put onto them. And Uber will cost more.

For example, when regulation (which was needed) around driver verification
came out: I remember a very clear message on the Uber app about why the price
of each ride went up $1.

~~~
toomuchtodo
I would absolutely _love_ for someone to leak Uber's user demographic data. I
find it hard to believe it's working class people regularly using it, and not
just upper middle class professionals and above primarily (except on nights
out to the bar; in that case I could see the demo skewed).

~~~
yazaddaruvala
My bad, I should have tried to clarify. It seems we have different definitions
of the working class.

I'm an upper middle class professional, but I consider myself in the "working
class". Otherwise, I'm not sure why I waste 40-60 hours every week on other
people's problems :P

~~~
jacalata
Yes. Your bad. When you are using a term with a common meaning to say
something completely different, you should say that up front.

~~~
ryanlol
You should probably try to look up the common meaning _s_ of "working class",
because there are several and the one used above is one of the more common
ones.

------
alanz1223
this move seems like a desperate attempt to revitalize a dying dream... Taxis
are dead, ride sharing killed it. End of story. Typewriter manufacturers
werent given subsidies when the computer f*cked them over, were they?

------
known
"If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving,
subsidize it." \--Reagan

------
nathan_f77
I hope they're also taxing car manufacturers and giving it to horse owners.

------
quickben
Well, things should be equal. Why should a taxi service have to perform a
regular vehicle inspection and a an uber driver be exempt from it?

Either make the Uber driver go through regular inspections or cancel the
regulation for the cabbies.

~~~
JoshTriplett
None of which has anything to do with this tax. This is directly using
taxation to hand one business a market advantage over another business.

~~~
quickben
Well plenty of things don't make sense at a first glance but it's all
connected.

For example, and I'm going offtopic here, but in USA they have lobbying, which
is basically legalized bribe. Then people wonder why they chose to do the
taxation weirdness from the article. Somebody probably got paid to shave % off
Uber income, and I'd bet it won't stop here too.

When the system if flawed from the bottom up, you really can't be wondering
why some parts of it are illogical. Especially when money are allowed to
directly and openly influence people in power.

------
ruffrey
What prevents taxi drivers from taking Lyft and Uber shifts? Are there some
kinds of restrictions on official taxi drivers? Do they need to keep a certain
number of hours? Do taxi drivers have benefits?

------
intopieces
The weird thing is they don't even have a solid plan for what to do with the
money. Or a plan at all, it seems.

The least they could do is create some kind of MassTrans App that shows a user
options for navigating the state (uber/lyft/cabs/transit/greyhound etc).
Otherwise it seems like collection for the sake of it.

~~~
AndyNemmity
I've never seen a successful government app, certainly there must be one.

Does anyone know of a reasonably useful government app? It's hard enough for
normal tech to create useful apps, let alone the over expensive bogged down
government.

~~~
raziel414
I can provide an example. I live in Seattle, and use "One Bus Away" everyday.
It provides a map showing of all the public bus stops, and real time estimates
for bus arrivals at each stop.

~~~
maverick_iceman
One Bus Away was developed by University of Washington students, not
government bureaucrats.

~~~
function_seven
That's not really relevant to the GGP comment, though. The government can take
the tax money and contract out the development work on an app. Or use cheap
student labor.

~~~
ars
Of course it's relevant. The "government" doesn't make apps directly ever.

The difference is who speced the project, or came up with the ideas.

~~~
function_seven
Sorry, but GGP said they'd never seen a successful government app. GP replied
with an example of one. Parent discounted that example because it wasn't coded
by a government employee (in effect moving the goalposts). My point is that
it's irrelevant whether a government employee or an outside party created the
app. It's still a government app, providing access and information about
government-provided services. Unless you think the Seattle mass transit system
is a private-sector company.

------
nomercy400
Isn't this unfair competition? Government meddeling with free market?

Also, does anybody know if taxi medallions expire?

------
tremendo
Kodak and Polaroid should have thought of that. Get governments to tax digital
photography, cameras and memory cards, in order to save their business and all
those jobs they provided (as opposed those newly created, because pfft!).
Never mind any benefit to the paying public.

------
losteverything
Couldn't a "medallion cab" franchise that licenses tools (technology) to
existing city cab drivers be created? So cabbies in Massachusetts can spend
the tax money on their own uber via a franchise.

The franchise can be repeated all over for the "old industry" \- In every big
city.

So a user could choose their "Dominoes" app and they would be getting a legacy
cab, not uber-lyft. And the customer would support existing men and women
whose jobs are threatened. And like dominoes pizza, behind the scenes is a
local owner (or local group of cabbies) that has to follow their own rules.

A cabbie could be hailed with 4 fingers and a thumb up or via two thumb touch.
Have cake and eat it too.

------
yohoho22
> The 5-cent fee will be collected through the end of 2021. Then the taxi
> subsidy will disappear and the 20 cents will be split by localities and the
> state for five years. The whole fee will go away at the end of 2026.

~~~
randyrand
ah the old 'temporary tax' we hear time to time.

I remember some story about a few WWII temporary taxes that are still taxing
today.

~~~
jdminhbg
Pennsylvanians still pay a "temporary" 18% tax on alcohol instituted to pay
for damage caused by the Johnstown Flood.

... in 1936.

[http://www.post-
gazette.com/opinion/editorials/2016/03/27/Tr...](http://www.post-
gazette.com/opinion/editorials/2016/03/27/Truth-in-pricing-Remove-a-hidden-
tax-from-the-liquor-monopoly/stories/201603230036)

------
chillingeffect
Serious question here: how come taxi organizations haven't leveraged uber/lyft
tech by now? Seems most kinks, tech and laws are figured out now. Why not
upgrade using capital since the returns are obvious!?

~~~
taxicabjesus
> Serious question here: how come taxi organizations haven't leveraged
> uber/lyft tech by now?

They have, but only the largest taxi companies have the financial resources to
do it well, especially in an environment of collapsing revenue. There are off-
the-shelf apps for taxi companies, but these aren't very polished. Large
transportation companies have existing dispatching systems to work with their
existing contracts (Medicaid transportation, etc), and they can't just 'start
over' with a new dispatching system very quickly.

The company that I used to drive for bought the software company that provided
its Electronic Taxi Dispatch v1.0 [1] phone app, and spent a couple million
upgrading it to v1.1, where the passenger is given instantaneous feedback just
like duper's app. It took several months to work out most the bugs - I
frequently filed reports with the developers.

[1] [http://www.taxiwars.org/p/electronic-taxi-
dispatch-v1.html](http://www.taxiwars.org/p/electronic-taxi-dispatch-v1.html)

They were going to replace all the in-cab computers with tablets, to better
interface with their new app, but I don't know if they've done that yet...

Discount Cab's apps:
[https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.treeline.g...](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.treeline.gfc.discount_cab)
[https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/total-transit-
prev.-discount...](https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/total-transit-
prev.-discount/id499063019)

VIP Taxi's apps: [https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/vip-
taxi/id1076304288?mt=8](https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/vip-
taxi/id1076304288?mt=8)
[https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.vip.taxi](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.vip.taxi)

------
punnerud
This is genial! This way we don't need the complains from "the old taxies" and
can gradually reduce the tax when ride-hailing apps are established. This way
we gradually remove the old ones :)

------
halis
They don't even pretend to care about every day consumers anymore.

------
ovatsug25
Interesting excerpt that makes me support the move:

    
    
        The 5-cent fee will be collected through the end of 2021.
        Then the taxi subsidy will disappear and the 20 cents will
        be split by localities and the state for five years.
        The whole fee will go away at the end of 2026.
    

They know they're fucked. The question remains: will they be able to use this
temporary subsidy so they can become more "sovereign individuals" in the
future?

------
finid
The state wants to play Robin Hood.

Hey! Why don't they give the money to me. I can use it.

Next they will want to take money from the likes of Facebook and give it to
struggling newspapers.

------
chmaynard
> "They've been breaking the law," said Larry Meister of the Independent Taxi
> Operators Association.

If so, then the duty of government is to enforce the law (presumably with
fines or prosecution). Imposing a new tax is another matter. It's amusing that
a Republican governor supports a new tax of any kind.

------
40something
Massachusetts is literally run by tyrants. No one cared when the attorney
general trampled over the constitution by banning the sale of built to
compliant "assault" weapons and now this. The disarmed populace has to just
take it. The rulers know best.

------
astrostl
Lots of jokes about horse-drawn carriages in here. Would note that, in order
to legalize casinos in the STL area, they were required to give money to a
dump of a horse track which would have otherwise sped (no pun intended) toward
an even earlier grave.

------
sunshiney
So Wix should be taxed with the proceeds given to developers it has has taken
low-fruit from?

------
chappi42
As long as taxi drivers have higher salaries and are better protected this is
a good move.

I very much salute the innovations uber enabled. Only there should be a law
which guarantees a decent minimum salary for uber riders. No good to allow an
income-race-to-the-bottom for drivers.

~~~
GarrisonPrime
There is a law that guarantees a decent minimum salary for uber drivers. It's
called the law of self interest.

If uber doesn't pay their drivers enough, the drivers leave and find other
work. The fact that they stay is proof that they're being paid enough.

If you disagree, then I suggest your idea of what kind of pay would be
"enough" is highly arbitrary and biased.

------
sevenless
All hail the glorious US free market...

------
kevin_thibedeau
If only the buggy whip industry had been so good at bending government to its
will.

------
samuraibum
This is why people should avoid paying taxes. Taxation is theft and your hard
earned money will always be wasted anyway.

------
z3t4
How do the app taxi buisness work? Are drivers employed by the app-maker or
are drivers registered for VAT?

------
m1sta_
The tax collected should be forced to go directly to buyback of taxi licenses.

~~~
fastball
Or performing background checks of drivers.

------
kasajian
This is so weird. I'm not sure it's legal.

------
cloudjacker
During periods of extremely high surge pricing, I take regulated taxis
instead. At first I think, 'wow I love competition its such a good thing this
alternative service was around' but then I try to pay the cab driver, here is
the experience in 2016:

\- The meter system is broken

\- The cab driver presses buttons frantically on a black box before resorting
to hitting it in hopes that it responds to external stimuli

\- The cab driver is unsure how to process credit cards (or even cash) in the
event this black box does not start responding "Uhhh, ahhhhh, this stupid
thing"

\- If black box does begin responding, then lets advance to the credit card
processing part, which also doesn't work

\- FUTURISTIC WORLD CITIES in the US have taxis with screens in them so the
rider can do the credit card processing on their own, except this doesn't work
either "your screen isn't responding..."

~~~
JoshTriplett
> The cab driver is unsure how to process credit cards

Or, quite frequently, the cab driver doesn't _want_ to process credit cards
and are you _sure_ you don't have cash?

~~~
Azkar
If the taxi even shows up at all...

~~~
scottmf
Or you hail one and they don't want to go where you're going.

It amazes me how consistently poor the service is from old-style taxis across
the world.

Is there a worse industry for consumers?

~~~
maverick_iceman
Not to mention the blatant racism of many taxi drivers.

------
ilostmykeys
When Uber switches to a fleet of self-driving cars (with lower paid drivers,
since they'll just sit and watch 98% of the time), this tax would be
absolutely nothing short of taxing innovation to save an inefficient business
model. Wow. I thought Capitalism was evil. Now I don't know what to think.

~~~
Jach
"The only thing worse than being exploited by capitalism is not being
exploited by capitalism." \--Joan Violet Robinson

------
maverick_iceman
By this logic, Facebook should be taxed to give money to Myspace.

~~~
chuymax
Google should be taxed to give money to Yahoo.

------
xname2
It should be totally opposite:

1) uber drivers are in lower income than taxis drivers

2) uber economy is new and innovative, while taxi is old and dying

~~~
spriggan3
or better

3) uber is a taxi company and should follow the same laws and regulations as
other taxi companies. Which would of course destroy uber's business model
which is based on dodging the law, sorry, "disruption".

~~~
xname2
uber is not a taxi company

~~~
AndyNemmity
Just googled Taxi Service. Uber is the third listing under Yellow Cab, and
Discount Cab.

Looking at Uber's SEO, they have a lot of listings like "Request taxi cabs
from your phone with uberTAXI" on their home page in the source. 52 entries.

Strange for a company that isn't a taxi company to advertise their taxis.

~~~
Dylan16807
Wanting to show up when you search for taxi doesn't tell you if it's a taxi.
Like a cable company showing up when you search DSL, it's not strange at all.

UberTAXI gets you non-uber taxi cars, more or less. That's not their main
service, and doesn't tell you whether their main service is a taxi service.

~~~
AndyNemmity
I don't get any cable companies that show up when I search DSL.

~~~
Dylan16807
Okay?

It's just an example of a product with a close substitute product.

I'm having trouble prodding google into showing many ads, but personally when
I search for dsl service I see an ad for home 4G internet.

~~~
AndyNemmity
I don't get ads, I have them all blocked in a hosts file.

------
jbmorgado
I would understand if the state imposed this tax in order for this money to
provide some social security to the drivers of Uber/Lift/etc. But taking this
money away from them and giving them to the taxi lobby sounds almost like
state imposed robbery.

------
douche
Taxachusetts strikes again. Rather than let a shitty industry that already
enjoyed monopoly protections, fail and be replaced with something more
efficient, let's prop them up with a misguided subsidy/tax scheme.

------
tiatia
They should tax cars and give the money to horse carriages

------
meira
As a transition solution, this is genius!

------
xyzzy4
As a lifelong resident of Massachusetts, color me unsurprised. This is a
tangent but I've also spent some time in India, and a $1.50 Uber ride there
would be about $10 in Massachusetts. That has to do with other factors though
such as PPP, birth rates and age demographics, immigration policies, number of
skilled vs unskilled workers, etc.

~~~
robbiep
And by the big mac index, the cost of living in India is 50% less (at a
minimum) than in the US. Direct price comparisons between countries are
useless

~~~
xyzzy4
It's not useless. If something is too expensive in one place (5x-10x in
Massachusetts compared to India) then it's evidence of some serious problems.
My own theory is that the immigration policies of the US prevent enough
unskilled workers from filling the roads with lots of Uber drivers.

~~~
mahyarm
How much is the average GDP per captia in india? Rent? Food? How much is the
average low-skill worker make in india vs mass? Is it also 5-10x less?

------
joshmn
I'm all for taxing the rich to help the poor but not like this.

------
contemporary2u
Food for thought:

I am working on AI robot that will ultimately replace human
programmers/coders/software engineers. It will make human programmers
obsolete.

What will most of you do? Will you go back to school to get a new
degree/profession? Open a coffee shop perhaps? or apply for peace corps?

It is coming.. just remember that eventually anyone could be the next "taxi
cab" driver with his or her job going away to automation.

Our society will have no choice but to adopt in more ways than one.

~~~
GarrisonPrime
That doesn't mean we should forcibly grind all progress to a halt just to
avoid hurting feelings or avoid having to go through the uncomfortable process
of change.

I, for one, am glad we as a society decided to leg go of our reliance on
horse-and-buggy transportation technology.

------
thesumofall
I believe they have a point. The traditional taxi industry _can_ be rescued.
Living in Germany I use myTaxi which is basically providing the same interface
as Uber but connects you with professional taxis that are regulated, insured,
and being paid proper wages. There is simply no difference in convenience
(even the opposite: you can book taxis in advance) and the driving experience
itself is typically by far better than any Uber I've ever taken in the US
(inexperienced drivers, often old cars,...)

So I would argue that the tax could help achieve a similar scenario in MA if
invested properly and if Uber is forced to raise prices by bringing them to
uphold professional standards. I was long enough in MA to know that regular
taxis have a long way to go but there is hope

~~~
briandear
Define a 'proper' wage please? I don't know what that means apparently. I
would think it would be a wage at which the supply curve and the demand curve
meet for your particular skill.

However if seems that you're implying that people ought to get paid more than
the demand curve for their services would support, which is why I ask the
question because that would be absurd. That would mean that someone else would
have to subsidize this person by paying a higher price which would reduce
demand for the product.

Only the market can raise wages in any real way.

~~~
thesumofall
I define a proper wage as such that for jobs that society deems necessary
(e.g., taxi drivers) people are able to live a life above the poverty line.
The textbook definition of supply and demand is a bit too simplistic here.
Uber has artificially increased supply to starve of competition and to create
network effects for the sake of them, they lowered prices by creating
externalities that others have to pay for, and they lured (sometimes barely
educated drivers) into a job that paid less and less over time.

~~~
GarrisonPrime
Society deems things necessary based on what people want, what can be provided
to them, and at what price it can be provided.

If society isn't willing to pay taxi drivers enough for them live above the
poverty line, then society doesn't really want taxi drivers that much, does
it?

------
mrerrormessage
I haven't read all the comments in this thread, but I'm surprised at the
outrage over a one-nickel tax. This seems like a fairly simple,
straightforward rule. Is anyone going to decide not to Lyft/Uber over 5 cents?
I don't think so.

Let's also not forget that these ride hailing services are MASSIVELY
subsidizing the cost of rides in order to attract drivers/users. That hurts
business for taxis. In my mind, this is a sort of protection that ensures
taxis stay in business as another, publicly regulated option. What happens in
other areas of Uber/Lyft kill all the taxis and then decide doing business
isn't profitable and leave (or all their drivers leave I've subsidies end)?
This might seem like a farfetched scenario, but remember that Uber is still
sitting in a large cash reserves. What will change when they need to turn a
profit every quarter? If they have established a monopoly (even locally), they
can charge users as much as they want. If they've established a monopsony on
drivers, they can lower wages. In my opinion, subsidizing a long-standing
industry from a monopolistic competitor with gobs of money to throw at the
market looks like a good move.

