Faced with scooter seizures, Bird pays property tax bill months late | Hacker News Reader

Faced with scooter seizures, Bird pays property tax bill months late

kut.org

37 pointsreaperducer83 comments

For those of us not from Texas, this article informs us that Travis County, which covers Austin, charges ~2.5% annual property tax on personal property owned by businesses.

Bird owns personal property (scooters) worth about $6M in Travis County.

That's wild. They want to punish businesses that make physical things?

yeah that seems insane

well, it's not true, as noted in other comments here. i, too, can make up hypothetical scenarios that seem insane.

Personal property taxes/business property taxes are fairly common.

If you ever want to pull your hair out, look at how BPOL (a different type of tax) is charged in Virginia, and more than that, which debt it is servicing.

Things that a business makes in order to sell are not 'business property', and not (in most places) subject to business property taxes.

But things a business uses to run its own business (e.g. laptops) are.

Bird doesn’t make the scooters, they just allow them to sit on the sidewalk clogging the pedestrian space and making life miserable for wheelchair users.

For reference, the equivalent tax rate in SF is 1.1801%

No state taxes in Texas, so local jurisdictions that want to provide services have higher fees and taxes. (oversimplified)

Yup. I wasn't clear:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31675797

California also has a state income tax up to 12% (!!) and a sales tax of 7%. Texas has no state income tax and a sales tax of 6%.

Yep, sorry, my comment didn't express what I was thinking.

My point was not that the rate here in SF is lower, but that SF also taxes the same thing.

This was surprising to me, as I'm from the UK, where:

- businesses don't pay ongoing taxes just for having stuff, and

- businesses claim back VAT on things they buy for business use

This is a pretty standard government shakedown, done nationwide. Small businesses get hit with assessments annually on "property" values. Businesses with expensive machinery get hit really hard.

If the assessor is not permitted inside a location, the assessor will assign an estimated value of property (which is usually higher than actual). Then, the business must go through an audit to show what property / equipment exists at their locations.

One time, L.A. county looked to go as far as taxing taxing satellites orbiting in space, because the owners were based in the county. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1006-los-angeles-plan... I don't believe this passed though.

Businesses get hit with endless fees and taxes from the gov :(

> Businesses get hit with endless fees and taxes from the gov :(

So do people.

Show me businesses being taxed > 40% of revenue.

I don't know where you came up with that number or what kind of point you're trying to make, so I don't have any examples for you. I'm merely referring to the myriad of taxes and fees you have to stay on top of as a business.

Individuals' income taxes.

I guess it doesn't make sense to me to compare individual taxes vs corporate. They are completely different structures and rates.

But businesses are people, too!

And if they are, shouldn't they pay comparable taxes?

Why? Profits are taxed to the individuals that own the company. Should a corp pay 40%+ in taxes and then the individual pays another 40% of what flows down?

Let's say a small to med size Corp profits 1M. Take away your theoretical 40%. Then another 10% for the state (CA as an example). Then 5% for property taxes. Then 5% for payroll taxes. You're now left with 400k that flows to owners.

From that you take another 40 + 10% in income tax and you're left with 200K.

An 80% effective rate would seem a high wouldn't it?

You can make an argument, and I think many people have, that only rich people should be taxed and not corporations, because only some of the stakeholders in corporations are rich.

But there are two questions that I can think of raised by eliminating taxation of corporations.

One is, will the revenue be made up by increasing taxes on rich individuals; and,

Two, how can we prevent wealthy individuals from using corporations to shelter their income from taxes, if they are all tax free? I'm not sure it is a simple problem.

Plus, do the complaints about "double taxation" really make much sense in the big picture? Money flows around and around in the economy and gets taxed an unlimited amount of times in the long run.

Maybe there are reasons for aspects of the current system that seem kludgy at first glance.

If I, as a "natural person", hire someone to clean my back yard, then I expect to pay taxes on that income as it comes to me, and I expect the person I'm hiring to pay taxes on it as it comes to them.

And if corporations want to "be people too", then they should be prepared to pay comparable taxes as "natural persons" do.

Otherwise, corporations should be corporations, and people should be people, and you don't mix the two up.

My personal tax rate is in excess of 40%.

Self-employed are technically businesses. So every self-employed in Germany. Progressive rate but ends up at 42%.

> If the assessor is not permitted inside a location, the assessor will assign an estimated value of property (which is usually higher than actual). Then, the business must go through an audit to show what property / equipment exists at their locations.

Well isn't the solution here to just permit the assessor inside all locations?

And i find complaining about fees and taxes companies have to pay a short time after governments directly demonstrated what companies are getting in return (Covid relief funds), on top of the less visible stuff like education, infrastructure, security, etc. really funny.

Ah, thank you very much

> Travis County's tax office has collected about 99% of 2021 property taxes

I'm impressed that a government agency publishes tax collection rates.

I'm also impressed that they are so high - I was imagining that they'd only manage to collect ~80% after fraud, bankruptcies, missing/wrong property data, people uncontactable/missing/dead, etc.

I also wonder if the number is 99% of dollars or 99% of entities.

I suspect it's 99% of dollars because property tax on houses is really easy to track down, but some other property taxes would be more fluid (especially if "off the books" in some matter).

As long as home values are rising, it's real easy.

Pay up, or forclose and sell.

Travis County - and all counties in Texas - makes their property tax rates, appraisals, and other germane information public by default.

For Travis County, the information is at traviscad.org ("cad" = "County Appraisal District"); for Williamson County, wcad.org; and so on with variations on county name.

As to the 99% rate: most people are paying a combined escrowed property tax + mortgage combo, so I'm not surprised at such a high number - no tax collected means you've got bigger problems.

When I first started started reading HN well over a decade ago I knew to expect some pretty far-reaching topics. I have never been disappointed in that regard. However, I am humble enough to admit I never expected to see the phrase “scooter seizures” in an HN headline.

I wonder who evaluates how much those scooters are "worth." Like, where does the $6 million figure come from? As the tax office points out, how would you even sell $149k in rental scooters? Who is the market for seized Bird scooters?

If they are relatively cheap and chargers are available I'm sure there is a market, people use privately owned electric scooters for transport.

Who is the market for seized Bird scooters?

In my neighborhood, every night at 7pm a few people set up tables on corners and in parking lots with hand-written cardboard signs "renting" out dozens of stolen, repainted scooters from these companies.

The rate is $20/hour. Cash and Venmo only.

Considering that the scooters are stolen to begin with, I don't think they care if they get returned or not, as their investment is pretty much $10 for a magic marker and a bucket of house paint.

What prevent there users to never return?

Nothing at all. That's why I wrote, "I don't think they care if they get returned or not, as their investment is pretty much $10 for a magic marker and a bucket of house paint."

The market absolutely exists. They'd sell out within a week.

Did not see a single upright scooter in Austin this weekend. Littered all over the sidewalk. Must suck for the blind.

Can we start charging car owners 2.5% when they leave their personal property on public streets

Sounds like a deal. I'm pretty sure I'm paying a lot more than that every year.

And if you leave it longer, someone might hijack it and hold it hostage for towing fees. Why shouldn't commercial scooters be subject to the same?

because electric scooters have a better carbon footprint compared to ICE vehicles and most cities have failed to implement reasonable public transportation therefore solutions like the scooters should be encouraged, not discouraged.

What’s your thought about the random distribution of scooters in sidewalks that visually impaired or wheelchair-bound people are trying to navigate?

Or the one that knocked me out right onto the street, in front of oncoming traffic and caused six stitches on my face?

Don’t get me started on that! When I grew up bikes had to observe traffic rules and had to stay off the sidewalk. I would prefer that practice be restored, and for scooters to follow those rules too.

These scooters are not part of any solution, but rather the result of a successful brainstorming session to determine what money-losing idea can receive investment money. In theory, they are a practical way to travel 0-3 miles while overpaying, not being able to bring much, and introducing high risk of personal injury. Bicycles fit these use-cases much better.

2.5% of the value of the vehicle? Last time I checked, I paid 9.x% sales tax + >1% per year in registration taxes, and who knows how much in fuel or electricity taxes.

I’m pretty sure anyone buying a scooter would also be paying sales tax, plus taxes on fuel and electricity.

The only difference is a property tax of 2.5% assessed every year.

That being said, I would be surprised if this 2.5% property tax didn’t apply to car rental companies cars as well.

Fuel is taxed explicitly to fund roads.

Property tax likewise to pay for roads and how they're used.

Electricity taxes don't go to fund roads or sidewalks, sales tax is likewise not for that.

Y’know, could probably replace metered parking, public (municipal-owned) garage fees and parking permits with this.

I think we might have a deal.

I don't get why these aren't free-for-all. You abandon property on the sidewalk, seems like littering to me at best (something worse if you're doing it as part of some coordinated effort or plan). In most jurisdictions, you lose your claim to trash once it's discarded. So....

The scooters were never abandoned. They had GPS and a whole network of people to service them. At best they were "mislaid". See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost,_mislaid,_and_abandoned_p...

Dumping scooters in the street is much more akin to a public nuisance if you want to get litigious.

I'd argue its a public good, its an alternate mode of transport that is very useful and reduces the number of car trips and their associated negative externalities. Certainly scooters take up less space than parked cars which seem to have been grandfathered in and getting rid of parking is fiercely opposed.

Bicycles are safer:

https://newatlas.com/urban-transport/study-e-scooters-injury...

Bicycles and even some buses are more environmentally friendly:

https://news.ncsu.edu/2019/08/impact-of-e-scooters/

Almost half of the trips are replacing healthier and safer walking trips:

https://www.itv.com/news/westcountry/2021-07-31/e-scooters-r...

I haven’t even mentioned the rental prices, which are crazy high compared to a public bus ride.

On top of that, scooters left on sidewalks are ugly and invade public space.

I’m fine with people using scooters but they should have to own and take care of them, and if scooter sharing companies are operating they should be required to ensure they are left in proper places or perhaps in designated docks. They shouldn’t be effectively stealing public land for their for-profit service.

> I’m fine with people using scooters but they should have to own and take care of them, and if scooter sharing companies are operating they should be required to ensure they are left in proper places or perhaps in designated docks. They shouldn’t be effectively stealing public land for their for-profit service.

Exactly this. If they'd paid for land to install racks/docks and taken measures to ensure the scooters ended up there, or partnered with local governments to create same (as in municipal bike rental racks) I'd have no problem with it. It's completely bizarre to me that it's fine to leave your crap all over the public sidewalk as long as you're a company with a scheme to make money off it.

Throwing something on the curb is the same as abandoning it, at least at most cities I've been in. Completely fair game.

Just because it has GPS in it doesn't mean it wasn't abandoned

How are people to know this? Stickers on them, sure, but anyone can attach a sticker saying anything on whatever they like, so how legitimate is that? Can I just toss all kinds of shit on the sidewalk if I attach a sticker first saying that it's cool and other people shouldn't mess with it? If they do mess with it, is that theft or vandalism? Doesn't seem like it ought to be. Seems more like I ought to have a fine coming my way, regardless of what happens to the junk I left lying around or what kinds of words I put on it first.

I'd not have known WTF these were when they showed up in my city, if not for reading HN. They look like a company intentionally littering all over public spaces.

Car owners are already way too over-charged with various taxes. At least here, in our country.

What makes you think that? Are the fees excessive for the amount of infrastructure they require and negative externalities they cause?

Yes, the fees are way too excessive. Most of them also disappear no one knows where.

The fact that they are basically taxes not tied to income is pretty annoying. If you're barely scraping by, the state should not be taxing you as heavily on a gallon of gasoline as a doctor that barely blinks as they fill up their Sclass.

The way to fix this is to give extra cash directly to everyone without strings and then let people make rational choices about how to spend it, not artificially reduce the price of activities which are already priced far below their costs.

You'll need to elaborate so I can refute that point by point.

I want that written on a t-shirt.

Auto infrastructure takes up 52% of cities like Houston.

If autos were taxed their fair share - they should be taxed more than Real Estate - yet property taxes are a much larger portion of municipal revenues...

Gas taxes in most states have a very small percentage (or none) of municipal budgets (52% of the city that is roads and parking lots).

Gas taxes mainly pay for state routes (state level) and highways (federal level). This is a VERY small percentage of the total road network.

Property taxes also go to infrastructure to access the property.

With modern zoning laws, that means car infrastructure.

Car owners are subsidized more by the state than pretty much any other group. Direct road construction and maintenance, public construction of parking spaces, construction and zoning laws requiring car infrastructure and parking, petroleum subsidies, petroleum transport infrastructure, anti-competitive policy blocking other forms of transportation, shields from liability for large-scale death (for both drivers/owners and manufacturers) and local pollution, etc. etc.

The negative externalities from driving far outweigh what automobile drivers directly pay in cash.

Automobiles clearly also provide great benefits. But they are a great example of a system with mostly personal/private gains based on mostly public/socialized costs.

In California the registration fees you pay every year already includes personal personal taxes. (That's the reason why you can deduct that portion of registration fees in SALT.)

My car is according to the state worth $0, but I still pay a sizable registration fee and gas taxes.

assuming you're in ca, $200/year for a tag and $0.50/gallon is not sizable

If you're driving in CA with an average car and average number of miles, gas taxes will be another $400 per year (and it's $0.68 per gallon not $0.5)

On top of that if you bought an average priced car, the 7.5% sales tax would be another one time $4000 charge

Is $4000 + $600 per year on average not sizable?

$7000 for five years of unlimited access to californian roadways and vehicle infrastructure? Ignoring the damage done to the environment and community health, the state is on the hook for $70b in maintenance in the same amount of time. So no, not really

30 million vehicles registered in a recent year, about half of which are “automobiles” and commercial vehicles which are heavier get taxed a lot more

So yeah i think it’s an adequate tax

If you ever priced out how much is costs to store a vehicle on private property, the states taxes and fees are a good deal.

exactly. The taxpayer shouldn't be subsidizing good deals on parking

Isn't it? An average car gets ~25mpg and travels ~14,000 miles per year. That then adds up to a total of $480. Hard to estimate the average value of a car on the road, the average used car sales price is probably a good proxy (misses some value for first-owner cars, overvalues last-owner cars) which gives $28000 (2021 was likely abnormally high and this'll actually drop some, but still). So then, you're talking 1.7% when parent was asking for 2.5%. I wouldn't call that "not sizable".

You got yourself a deal. That's way cheaper than it is currently.

Many/most counties do charge an excise tax on vehicles every year.

That said, TFA is about a property tax which only applies to businesses.

they don't say in article it's property tax for spots taken by scooters, so it's unrelated, could be as well their office buildings or whatever, this is equivalent of you not paying property tax for your house and gov seizing your car

Sounds like Bird was trying to Disrupt property taxes.

(Seriously why do companies like this not just pay their bills)

"Move fast and don't pay taxes" or something. I think that's how the startup mantra goes.

Maybe it was "Break laws and avoid jail".. no hm...

Almost all of these companies have a single business model. Regulation arbitrage.

They break laws and regulations and then count on either having those changed in hindsight or having a valuation as a result of breaking those laws and regulations that is much greater than the fine they will negotiate down later anyways.

That’s the Uber model. Along with passing on unwitting costs to their employees, and not paying them enough because they call them gig workers.

Because it's worked well for Amazon (ignore sales taxes), Uber (ignore... everything), AirBNB (ditto), and a long list of other "existing thing, but on a computer" businesses.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com