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