Airport surcharges should just be a toll gate (E-ZPass) when you enter and exit the airport. Same for roads, ideally. A single fee schedule for everyone.
Parking shouldn't be free. Someone with 3 cars on Turo shouldn't be penalized any more than someone with 3 cars who doesn't rent them on Turo and just leaves them parked most of the time.
I use Turo and Getaround. With Turo, I always end up meeting or interacting with the car owner. I'm not renting luxury vehicles, but in my experience the owners are always regular middle-class people. From what I've seen, "Tesla fleet" Jason Chan from this article is not representative of the average Turo renter. Except perhaps in niche luxury markets, Turo rentals won't be massively profitable because renters are competing against Zipcar, Enterprise, Uber, etc. and there is maintenance, cleaning, depreciation, etc. you have to handle for the cars.
I think we can all agree that regulations and taxes should be fairly and equitably applied. I'm fine with my Turo charges going up to comply with this. But I don't think this article is very balanced. It spends a lot of time talking about Turo without acknowledging the massive inefficiencies in traditional car rental business models, as well as the big difference in customer experience.
I get what you mean, so this is not a dunk on you, the words "fairly" and "equally" are at odds in this sentence. "Equally" implies a steady disinterest in marginal utility and situational value; it's where we get Anatole France's "the law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread." I would suggest "equitably" over "equally".
I agree with the general thrust of your point. But this is the door through which nasty shit sometimes sneaks.
I get roughly the same pricing from big car companies anyway.
The article didn't go into it that much, is the current issue that Turo is arguing that, as just a "platform", that hosts are the ones responsible for taxes and fees and they're just not collecting or paying them? Similar to what AirBnB said in the early days? Because I don't understand why existing laws would apply only for traditional rentals but not peer-to-peer rentals.
What you most often are looking at is corporations exploiting benefits to the public for their profit.
I think the taxes on rental cars are often a type of "tourist tax". Politicians seem to find it easy to approve taxes on people who can't vote in their reelection campaigns.
A tourist also pays taxes from VAT and other sources,but do not benefit from them. So it evens out I presume.
But tourist tend to generate economic activity. A benefit that locals would want more of. The taxes a tourist pay is disencentivizing.
So traditional rental companies are pissed off because they have to pay for the space.
They’ve been approached numerous times with more innovative uses of their fleet and they’ve turned up their noses so many times at it because they felt they didn’t have to change.
Three or fewer, like the guy his own mini-fleet of two Tesla 3s and an X mentioned earlier in the article? I doubt many people have 3 cars to "share" without having bought at least one purely as a rental. And how many people can afford to buy/lease more than 3 vehicles for their fleets? I'll bet that 95% would be much lower if we looked at "one or two vehicles" instead.
These negative-externality-based "Uber/Airbnb for X" companies are getting ridiculous. Has someone started one for prescription drugs yet? "We're not a pharmacy, we're just a platform facilitating transactions between patients and independent drug contractors." (Or was that Silk Road's business model?)
Let's at least stop using "sharing" to describe what these companies do.
They are implying benevolence when there is none. Especially on the part of the hucksters.
1.have a portion of (something) with another or others.
"he shared the pie with her"
synonyms:split, divide, go halves in/with;
edit: seems like a lot of people have the same misconception that sharing implies free of charge, here is a link to the definition for those who are unfamiliar: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/share
1. pay someone for the use of (something, typically property, land, or a car).
"they rented a house together in Spain"
synonyms: hire, lease, charter
I'd say rent is a better word. Because you're paying. Share definition says nothing about paying. Plus, when you share, the other party keeps what was shared. Otherwise it's borrowing.
Words have meanings for a reason.
Yep and just because you don't like them doesn't mean you can change them. Share is being used correctly and you have a massive misunderstanding thinking that it has something to do with the company profit, but it doesn't. Not interested in continuing discourse with someone who is willfully ignorant, go believe what you want I couldn't care less. Cheers!
I don't think anyone is getting confused here at having to pay for use of the car. If people are getting confused and the meaning is being totally lost, then perhaps it's worth arguing semantics (e.g. in the case of "Autopilot").
Initially, I was going to argue that the existence of random taxes on car rentals and other mostly benign services is already an arbitrary unfair practice for state governments to raise more revenue.
Then I looked at my own state's, Colorado's, rental tax - it's $2 on top of sales tax which seems pretty reasonable. $2 seems pretty reasonable and small to the overall rental cost especially when tha artical says they can add up to an extra 30% on the car. Would I be happier if the extranalities of car rentals were collected some other way? Absolutely but I don't think the extra $2 is what car rentals are complaining about.
If the users of these apps are cheating and not paying the sales tax and rental tax, then the rental companies have a 100% valid point but I have a hard time thinking they just want these ride sharing/lending apps.
On the other hand, I would much rather have no random excise taxes on arbitrary services and more taxes on the actual externalites they produce such as taxes on fuel and conjestion pricing in dense areas.
This has nothing to do with protecting rental companies and everything to do with states being pissed they aren’t getting their cut.
Double in 3 years? That seems excessive.
They can't be trusted at all.