tommy1808 wrote:

Here aiding and embedded tax evasion and social security fraud is not looked kindly upon, just like we wouldn´t vote for someone bragging to use all possible tax loopholes.

We do have persons that work both sides at once like That top FDP guy from Schleswig Holstein. He is not alone.
Long history of dorking the state as a lawyer and mealy mouthed politician voting legislation into action.

tommy1808 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

LJ wrote:

You fail to understand the basic concept of law. A radio is a radio if it meets the specifications of a radio which are mentioned in a law or directive. These specifcations can differ and whilst something may be a "radio" in the US, it doesn't have to a "radio" in the EU. The same for what's defined as a "taxi service". It's not what you or I think it is, it's what a regulator determines it is. If your work involves working with government regulation or any other supervisory institution you'll have to deal with this on a daily basis (sometimes very frustrating).

No I get it, and this whole thread is about what is and is not a taxi sevice. I don't think the Uber App is the end all be all of a taxi service, especially when it's contractors can drive for Lyft or any other app at the same time as an independent contractor.

The EU wants to force Uber into the mode of being a taxi service in order to organize their contracted taxi drivers as employees.

Which is problematic, especially in the states as many folks contract with Uber and Lyft, and set their own hours.

Which is exactly what taxi drivers do when they work with a taxi service. It is exactly the same. Every time you are describing what Uber does and doesn´t do, you are describing what a Taxi Service does and doesn´t do. By your own argument, Uber is a taxi service. The ECJ just happens to agree with you, you only resist the conclusion, simply because you don´t want to. But no matter how you twist and turn, the ECJ didn´t rule Uber is a Taxi company, which you constantly try to debunk, they rules it is a taxi service, what you are in perfect agreement with.

And YOU agree that Uber does exactly what a taxi service does.

Just because you insist that word doesn´t have the same meaning in the US doesn´t change the meaning it has here. You will probably notice that many legal terms have different meaning in Europe, other parts of the world and the US.

Here aiding and embedded tax evasion and social security fraud is not looked kindly upon, just like we wouldn´t vote for someone bragging to use all possible tax loopholes.

best regards
Thomas

And that is why Europe winds up with more expensive servifes than the rest of the wold. Uber is not the taxi service. It is a piece of software on a phone that is connected to servers that facilitate peopel getting rides and those providing them. At the end of the day, Uber doesn't have the car, and doesn't take the payments. and doesn't provide the actual taxi service. It only makes those transactions more efficient.

Perhaps in the overly regulated world of the EU it makes sense to call that a taxi service, but it does not do justice to what is actually occurring, and it does not provide a better framework for establishing a proper taxing and reporting scheme for independent taxi drivers and consumers that are using the Uber or Lyft services to make the taxi service possible. All it does is further an antiquated system from the old days with old rules.

Round and round and round and round we go, where it stops, only casinterest knows.

Mainly because only casinterest can decide to educate themselves on the topic, and stop spouting the same, tired, empty rhetoric that has been disproven time and again in this thread.

casinterest wrote:

And that is why Europe winds up with more expensive servifes than the rest of the wold.

yeah, tell that to the doctor asked 10 times the fare of a legal Taxi.

Uber is not the taxi service

it is. Repeating a false statement doesn´t make it true, not matter how often you repeat it.

It is a piece of software on a phone that is connected to servers that facilitate peopel getting rides and those providing them.

Which is exactly what a taxi service does.

At the end of the day, Uber doesn't have the car,

which is exactly what a taxi service doesn´t have

and doesn't take the payments.

exactly like a taxi service

and doesn't provide the actual taxi service.

which means it does provide a taxi service. They are not a taxi company, but then again, no one is claiming they are.

It only makes those transactions more efficient.

BS, there are plenty of legal taxi services via apps that are just as efficient as Uber.

Perhaps in the overly regulated world of the EU it makes sense to call that a taxi service,

that is because it is a taxi service. You keep repeating the definition of a taxi service over and over and over again when you describe what Uber is doing.

but it does not do justice to what is actually occurring,

It is exactly what is occurring, as you have pointed out yourself time and time again. When you describe what Uber does, you describe a taxi service.

and it does not provide a better framework for establishing a proper taxing and reporting scheme for independent taxi drivers and consumers that are using the Uber or Lyft services to make the taxi service possible. All it does is further an antiquated system from the old days with old rules.

That is actually correct, neither Uber nor Lyft provide any better framework over existing systems. You should stopp to assume that just because Taxi services in the US sucked before Uber came along, that Taxi services sucked elsewhere as well. They didn´t. They worked fine, work fine and are a hell of a lot more reliable than Uber or Lyft.

They have a small price advantage because they aid and embedd tax evasion, social security fraud and below legal insurance and maintenance standards for commercial passenger transport. But those costs are only shifted towards society, so net benefit is zero. Well, actually it is a worse than zero, because Uber charges its contract drivers more for the fare than other taxi services. So much for being efficient.....

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

And that is why Europe winds up with more expensive servifes than the rest of the wold.

yeah, tell that to the doctor asked 10 times the fare of a legal Taxi.

Uber is not the taxi service

it is. Repeating a false statement doesn´t make it true, not matter how often you repeat it.

It is a piece of software on a phone that is connected to servers that facilitate peopel getting rides and those providing them.

Which is exactly what a taxi service does.

At the end of the day, Uber doesn't have the car,

which is exactly what a taxi service doesn´t have

and doesn't take the payments.

exactly like a taxi service

and doesn't provide the actual taxi service.

which means it does provide a taxi service. They are not a taxi company, but then again, no one is claiming they are.

It only makes those transactions more efficient.

BS, there are plenty of legal taxi services via apps that are just as efficient as Uber.

Perhaps in the overly regulated world of the EU it makes sense to call that a taxi service,

that is because it is a taxi service. You keep repeating the definition of a taxi service over and over and over again when you describe what Uber is doing.

but it does not do justice to what is actually occurring,

It is exactly what is occurring, as you have pointed out yourself time and time again. When you describe what Uber does, you describe a taxi service.

and it does not provide a better framework for establishing a proper taxing and reporting scheme for independent taxi drivers and consumers that are using the Uber or Lyft services to make the taxi service possible. All it does is further an antiquated system from the old days with old rules.

That is actually correct, neither Uber nor Lyft provide any better framework over existing systems. You should stopp to assume that just because Taxi services in the US sucked before Uber came along, that Taxi services sucked elsewhere as well. They didn´t. They worked fine, work fine and are a hell of a lot more reliable than Uber or Lyft.

They have a small price advantage because they aid and embedd tax evasion, social security fraud and below legal insurance and maintenance standards for commercial passenger transport. But those costs are only shifted towards society, so net benefit is zero. Well, actually it is a worse than zero, because Uber charges its contract drivers more for the fare than other taxi services. So much for being efficient.....

best regards
Thomas

Uber drives more folks to use Taxi's. It is not a taxi service. It is a tool of the trade. No more than a quickbooks is an accounting service.

There are more people taking transport options becuase of Uber and Lyft, because they bring a necessary service and lower the barriers to entry into markets for actual taxi services. Regulating Uber as the EU wants too changes the business model into a conforming system of cars that still need taxi stands to operate, when Uber does not need taxi stands or advertisements for the driver's or the customers.

My argument is that their is a better framework to regulate Uber/Lyft under. And it is not under the taxi service as that is for the actual drivers. Uber and Lyft are platforms for the consumers as well.

casinterest wrote:

Uber drives more folks to use Taxi's. It is not a taxi service. It is a tool of the trade. No more than a quickbooks is an accounting service.

You keep seeing everything through a very narrow glass. In my country (Spain) after a lengthy court battle Uber is operating under the legal form of "rental car with driver" (basically the same figure limo services and airport shuttles use).

It is up to Uber to provide their services in each country following local laws. Lobby for them to be changed by all means, but follow the law.

I mean, I work in agrochemicals. Do you think I could sell my stuff in the US without passing through FDA? Not a chance. "I work like this in a dozen countries" will get me laughed out of the door.

JJJ wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Uber drives more folks to use Taxi's. It is not a taxi service. It is a tool of the trade. No more than a quickbooks is an accounting service.

You keep seeing everything through a very narrow glass. In my country (Spain) after a lengthy court battle Uber is operating under the legal form of "rental car with driver" (basically the same figure limo services and airport shuttles use).

It is up to Uber to provide their services in each country following local laws. Lobby for them to be changed by all means, but follow the law.

I mean, I work in agrochemicals. Do you think I could sell my stuff in the US without passing through FDA? Not a chance. "I work like this in a dozen countries" will get me laughed out of the door.

But then how will the EU regulate the following? They will wind up with regulations upon regulations for a company that does more than just Taxi Service.


https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/24 ... 0a107bfe24
https://rush.uber.com/how-it-works

casinterest wrote:

But then how will the EU regulate the following? They will wind up with regulations upon regulations for a company that does more than just Taxi Service.

No need to regulate, there are plenty of companies that are more than just a taxi service, for example they are often taxi companies at the same time, or logistics companies or whatnot.

All done decades ago.

best regards
Thomas

casinterest wrote:

JJJ wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Uber drives more folks to use Taxi's. It is not a taxi service. It is a tool of the trade. No more than a quickbooks is an accounting service.

You keep seeing everything through a very narrow glass. In my country (Spain) after a lengthy court battle Uber is operating under the legal form of "rental car with driver" (basically the same figure limo services and airport shuttles use).

It is up to Uber to provide their services in each country following local laws. Lobby for them to be changed by all means, but follow the law.

I mean, I work in agrochemicals. Do you think I could sell my stuff in the US without passing through FDA? Not a chance. "I work like this in a dozen countries" will get me laughed out of the door.

But then how will the EU regulate the following? They will wind up with regulations upon regulations for a company that does more than just Taxi Service.


https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/24 ... 0a107bfe24
https://rush.uber.com/how-it-works

For the 2nd link, there are several companies delivering passengers and parcels at the same time. Most of Uber's competitors (Cabify, MyTaxi, etc.) offer it already mostly because transporting parcels doesn't have much in the way of regulations unlike transporting passengers which have a lot of issues concerning public safety and consumer protection.

As far as autonomous passenger transport goes, regulation is on the way.

tommy1808 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

More of a yellow pages for linking clients with service providers. in this case a Taxi provider. Uber itself does not maintain the cars or the drivers. Meerly the connection between the two.

Do you call the yellow pages to get a carpenter or do you call the carpenter? Do you pay to yellow pages or do you pay the carpenter? If the craftsmanship wasn't good, do you contact yellow pages customer service or the carpenter?

Does yellow pages decide who can be a carpenter?

Uber is in no way like the yellow pages. There are plenty of apps out there that do work like the yellow pages, and somehow those are not having much legal trouble.

Best regards
Thomas

Excellent bit of logic!

casinterest wrote:

And that is why Europe winds up with more expensive servifes than the rest of the wo(r)ld.

Did you think the highest standard of living came for free? You see, I don't actually mind paying a bit extra on the odd occasion I embark on a taxi ride, because I know it's what it takes to make it a job you can live off as a driver.

As for the rest of your tirade, please check your settings - you seem to be looping.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

More of a yellow pages for linking clients with service providers. in this case a Taxi provider. Uber itself does not maintain the cars or the drivers. Meerly the connection between the two.

Do you call the yellow pages to get a carpenter or do you call the carpenter? Do you pay to yellow pages or do you pay the carpenter? If the craftsmanship wasn't good, do you contact yellow pages customer service or the carpenter?

Does yellow pages decide who can be a carpenter?

Uber is in no way like the yellow pages. There are plenty of apps out there that do work like the yellow pages, and somehow those are not having much legal trouble.

Best regards
Thomas

Excellent bit of logic!

The items you are worried about are not jobs of a Taxi service, but of a payment and consumer report department. Any company, and any that contracts has those issue. It still doesn't make Uber a "taxi service" . Their business model is not to hire drivers. Their business model is connecting taxi drivers with customers. That is not a taxi service. That is a value added feature to those involved in the taxi service. Uber could cease operations tommorow and all the drivers could pick a different app to drive under , as well as the consumers. They are not a material part of the actual service other than creating a value to the connection.

I get that the ECJ doesn't see it that way, but in areas with Right to Work laws, this model works fine, and actually excels in rural areas of the US where taxi's just do not exist.

B777LRF wrote:

Did you think the highest standard of living came for free? You see, I don't actually mind paying a bit extra on the odd occasion I embark on a taxi ride, because I know it's what it takes to make it a job you can live off as a driver.

I have driven myself,ridden in taxis, and limos, and ridden in Uber. I have yet to have an Uber experience that did not excel over a taxi. It might happen, but at half the cost, I doubt it. Driving a Taxi or other ridesharing device is not a career. It is a job, and it should be a transient or supplemental one. If people want to be a true professional in driving, they should drive a Limo ,Bus , or Semi.

casinterest wrote:

No I get it, and this whole thread is about what is and is not a taxi sevice. I don't think the Uber App is the end all be all of a taxi service, especially when it's contractors can drive for Lyft or any other app at the same time as an independent contractor.

If you read the verdict you would understand that the ECJ doesn't care if contractors can drive for anyone else. First, the ECJ ruling focussed on UberPop where Uber claimed it was merely acting as a platform. However, the ECJ argued that the app used is inheretly tied to linking individuals to non-professional drivers providing a transportation service. This shouldn't be a problem if Uber wouldn't have influence over the conditions under which those drivers provide the service. The ECJ ruled that Uber does have significant influence on those conditions and thus the UberPop serivce can be seen as a transportation service. Thus, a) this only applies to UberPop (which is forbidden in many parts of the EU anyway) and b) local regulation can deviate from that perspective if their local definitions are otherwise. This means, that instead of bashing the EU, you should bash Spain as it's the absence of any law regulating UberPop which ensures that UberPop can be considered a taxi service. Again, the main argument is based on the fact that Uber has significant influence on the way UberPop drivers have to provide their service. If Uber wouldn't have significan influence, then it's the digital platform it claimed to be.

BTW don't work in areas where you have to deal with supervisors or governments if you can't comprehend this. It's very frustrating especially when you have 5 different regulators defining the same thing differently. Personally I like it ensures I have a job. But it remains frustrating.

LJ wrote:

casinterest wrote:

No I get it, and this whole thread is about what is and is not a taxi sevice. I don't think the Uber App is the end all be all of a taxi service, especially when it's contractors can drive for Lyft or any other app at the same time as an independent contractor.

If you read the verdict you would understand that the ECJ doesn't care if contractors can drive for anyone else. First, the ECJ ruling focussed on UberPop where Uber claimed it was merely acting as a platform. However, the ECJ argued that the app used is inheretly tied to linking individuals to non-professional drivers providing a transportation service. This shouldn't be a problem if Uber wouldn't have influence over the conditions under which those drivers provide the service. The ECJ ruled that Uber does have significant influence on those conditions and thus the UberPop serivce can be seen as a transportation service. Thus, a) this only applies to UberPop (which is forbidden in many parts of the EU anyway) and b) local regulation can deviate from that perspective if their local definitions are otherwise. This means, that instead of bashing the EU, you should bash Spain as it's the absence of any law regulating UberPop which ensures that UberPop can be considered a taxi service. Again, the main argument is based on the fact that Uber has significant influence on the way UberPop drivers have to provide their service. If Uber wouldn't have significan influence, then it's the digital platform it claimed to be.

BTW don't work in areas where you have to deal with supervisors or governments if you can't comprehend this. It's very frustrating especially when you have 5 different regulators defining the same thing differently. Personally I like it ensures I have a job. But it remains frustrating.

I get what happened. I just don't think it should have. IUber's influence over Uberpop only extends to the extent that someone looks at the contract and accepts it. I used to work with many contractors that worked in the same place for 3 years, doing the same job, but at the end of the day, they took the advantages of being a contractor over a full time employee. Some changed their mind eventually, but some companies only hired contractors. The downfall of contractors for most businesses is loyalty and dedication are a bit lost. However, for some folks it works to their advantage to have random hours set by themselves.


I work in a world of supervisors and regulations. However in my world by the time a standard or a regulation is finally agreed upon, it is outdated and outmoded by a new process, software or bug. Most regulations wind up costing more in time and effort than they are worth. This is especially true if your regulation is too encompassing. This is my main gripe in calling Uber a taxi service. On some level, Uber may need to be regulated, but it shoudn't be thrown in with another broad group just because the courts don't know what to do with it.

Are regulations and safety standards needed? Of course. However many of the regulations for Taxi Drivers arose in a world, where they crowd the space at one juncture such as a busy arena/airport or queue up waiting for someone to flag them down. Uber allows drivers and customer to avoid most of that, and the new apps for Taxi dispatches help avoid it as well. Some of the regulations themselves are out modeled by technology, but now one goes back to move those regulations or examine what value they still provide, if any.

Well, it is not ecause you call Uber a banana that we can't see it's an apple

casinterest wrote:

I work in a world of supervisors and regulations. However in my world by the time a standard or a regulation is finally agreed upon, it is outdated and outmoded by a new process, software or bug. Most regulations wind up costing more in time and effort than they are worth. This is especially true if your regulation is too encompassing. This is my main gripe in calling Uber a taxi service.

Oh yeah. We're so cool and innovative laws don't apply to us. This is progress!

As if everyone else follows the law by choice. Laughable.

In every industry regulation has a time gap with innovation, companies lobby and pressure but ultimately adapt and wait for the right moment because otherwise they're breaking the law. And breaking the law means fines, suspended licenses and maybe even some time out for yourself.

UberPop has been banned years ago in countless countries, including mine (France), so that ruling just goes along with that situation.

Here we only get UberX (or is it called Black ?) and Uber shuttle or something like that.

It's more expensive than a taxi, not cheaper. Yet drivers barely meets end, so personally I wouldn't use it if I needed a ride. My brother and sister in law who live in Paris and don't have a car use taxis on a regular basis, once I was with them and suggested Uber, they looked at me funny, said they will never use it.

JJJ wrote:

In every industry regulation has a time gap with innovation, companies lobby and pressure but ultimately adapt and wait for the right moment because otherwise they're breaking the law. .

Look at Audi, first car manufacturer that has a fully autonomous car for certain driving situations and is willing to take the liability for its use, but they can't sell it since there is no regulation for it. Not in Europe, not in the oh-so-progressive USA.

I think much of the "anger" regarding Uber comes from the disillusion that Uber isn't an innovative company, but merly put some prior art into an app.

The only "innovation" is charging the driver a hell lot more than other taxi services do, which is why the average fare is not remotely as low as it should be considering how much cost evasion they have build into their criminal business model.

I wonder, if someone made an app bringing drug dealer and consumer together, if we'd here the same arguments of them just being digital providers...

BlaBlaCar is half a decade older than Uber.... and cheaper (ok, no inner city fares).

Best regards
Thomas

I have a feeling that governments can be replaced quite easily if they don't allow people to use Uber.

Flighty wrote:

I have a feeling that governments can be replaced quite easily if they don't allow people to use Uber.

What makes you think that in the face of overwhelming data to the contrary? Uber is illegal in most countries they ever started, and those government are stable thank you very much.

Best regards
Thomas

Flighty wrote:

I have a feeling that governments can be replaced quite easily if they don't allow people to use Uber.

Well, I have a feeling that the non-availability is just about the last thing on anybody's mind come election day. To wit, no government in Europe has been overturned due to them banning Uber - and there's been quite a lot of bans and elections.

I would seriously question the priorities of anyone who would vote based on the availability, or otherwise, of something as inconsequential as Uber.

casinterest wrote:

The items you are worried about are not jobs of a Taxi service, but of a payment and consumer report department. Any company, and any that contracts has those issue. It still doesn't make Uber a "taxi service" . Their business model is not to hire drivers. Their business model is connecting taxi drivers with customers. That is not a taxi service. That is a value added feature to those involved in the taxi service. Uber could cease operations tommorow and all the drivers could pick a different app to drive under , as well as the consumers. They are not a material part of the actual service other than creating a value to the connection

The whole thing seems like regional providers in the US--for example UA wants to control all the branding and service delivery and leverage the cost advantage of express carriers, but when things go wrong, ie Colgan #3407, they want to outsource responsibility. It all pushes the limits of credulity.

Aesma wrote:

It's more expensive than a taxi, not cheaper. Yet drivers barely meets end, so personally I wouldn't use it if I needed a ride. My brother and sister in law who live in Paris and don't have a car use taxis on a regular basis, once I was with them and suggested Uber, they looked at me funny, said they will never use it.

This is what I don't get: if drivers are barely making ends meet at Uber, why are they driving for Uber? And on the other hand, if the surge pricing is so outrageous, why do people agree to it? As an economics experiment, Uber is interesting, especially seeing where common economic tenets--like a rational behavior--get turned on their head.

Flighty wrote:

I have a feeling that governments can be replaced quite easily if they don't allow people to use Uber.

Or governments can force Uber on people that voted to ban them, in TX' case

MaverickM11 wrote:

This is what I don't get: if drivers are barely making ends meet at Uber, why are they driving for Uber?

Simple, because it's a job you can start easily, without needing to be assessed by anyone, no racist employer will reject your application, and at first you could earn a nice amount of money (working a lot). Then Uber hiked its commission and lowered its prices, making it much less financially interesting. That, combined with a saturation of the market (unlike taxis who are limited in numbers) created the current situation.

Aesma wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

This is what I don't get: if drivers are barely making ends meet at Uber, why are they driving for Uber?

Simple, because it's a job you can start easily, without needing to be assessed by anyone, no racist employer will reject your application, and at first you could earn a nice amount of money (working a lot). Then Uber hiked its commission and lowered its prices, making it much less financially interesting. That, combined with a saturation of the market (unlike taxis who are limited in numbers) created the current situation.

I get the appeal but unless you buy a car to join, you have no long term commitment to Uber as far as I understand, so if it's not working, why not stop?

Uber is obviously not a taxi company by any reasonable definition. Trying to hammer them into current laws doesn't change what they are, it simply forces them to conform to an inappropriate set of rules.

But, there are plenty of people who don't care about any of this for political reasons and their own economic interests and who will fight the idea of Uber tooth and nail.

MaverickM11 wrote:

Aesma wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

This is what I don't get: if drivers are barely making ends meet at Uber, why are they driving for Uber?

Simple, because it's a job you can start easily, without needing to be assessed by anyone, no racist employer will reject your application, and at first you could earn a nice amount of money (working a lot). Then Uber hiked its commission and lowered its prices, making it much less financially interesting. That, combined with a saturation of the market (unlike taxis who are limited in numbers) created the current situation.

I get the appeal but unless you buy a car to join, you have no long term commitment to Uber as far as I understand, so if it's not working, why not stop?

I'm not an expert or anything but every TV segment I've seen featured a guy having bought, or usually leased, a brand new sedan.

In France people don't really drive sedans except some old folks, so you can't start with your daily driver.

As long as they earn some money they'll continue, unless they can find better. They can't get unemployment benefits since they haven't paid into that system.

MaverickM11 wrote:

Aesma wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

This is what I don't get: if drivers are barely making ends meet at Uber, why are they driving for Uber?

Simple, because it's a job you can start easily, without needing to be assessed by anyone, no racist employer will reject your application, and at first you could earn a nice amount of money (working a lot). Then Uber hiked its commission and lowered its prices, making it much less financially interesting. That, combined with a saturation of the market (unlike taxis who are limited in numbers) created the current situation.

I get the appeal but unless you buy a car to join, you have no long term commitment to Uber as far as I understand, so if it's not working, why not stop?

Uber tied in a loooooot of people in the US to leases designed specifically to be targeted at drivers with poor credit ratings, even when the prospective earnings of the driver didn't cover the vehicle lease (and the lease payments were deducted from Uber earnings), and the payments back to Uber meant drivers were paying a significant premium for cars ($7,000 over book for a 2015 Honda Civic, plus $5,000 residual to own the car at the end for a total of around $30,000 - this is compared to $18,000 book value).

Uber is a nasty nasty company.

tommy1808 wrote:

Which is exactly what taxi drivers do when they work with a taxi service. It is exactly the same. Every time you are describing what Uber does and doesn´t do, you are describing what a Taxi Service does and doesn´t do. By your own argument, Uber is a taxi service. The ECJ just happens to agree with you, you only resist the conclusion, simply because you don´t want to. But no matter how you twist and turn, the ECJ didn´t rule Uber is a Taxi company, which you constantly try to debunk, they rules it is a taxi service, what you are in perfect agreement with.

And YOU agree that Uber does exactly what a taxi service does.

Just because you insist that word doesn´t have the same meaning in the US doesn´t change the meaning it has here. You will probably notice that many legal terms have different meaning in Europe, other parts of the world and the US.

Here aiding and embedded tax evasion and social security fraud is not looked kindly upon, just like we wouldn´t vote for someone bragging to use all possible tax loopholes.

best regards
Thomas

Uber is a livery service, I don't think there is much to it. As for tax evasion just think of all the bitcoin profiteers and how they don't pay taxes.

Aesma wrote:

I'm not an expert or anything but every TV segment I've seen featured a guy having bought, or usually leased, a brand new sedan.

moo wrote:

Uber tied in a loooooot of people in the US to leases designed specifically to be targeted at drivers with poor credit ratings, even when the prospective earnings of the driver didn't cover the vehicle lease (and the lease payments were deducted from Uber earnings), and the payments back to Uber meant drivers were paying a significant premium for cars ($7,000 over book for a 2015 Honda Civic, plus $5,000 residual to own the car at the end for a total of around $30,000 - this is compared to $18,000 book value).

I thought the buying/leasing was just for the higher end Uber car services like Uber black. versus the cheaper products that are just existing personal cars. I didn't know they overcharged for cars but I'm certainly not surprised.

Like I said upthread UberPop is illegal in France so we only have Uber Black/X.

There were a lot of Uber drivers early on with very fancy cars. I suspect those guys had trouble running a profitable operation, which is why you see more modest “average” cars today. Makes a lot more sense.

You live and you learn.

casinterest wrote:

The items you are worried about are not jobs of a Taxi service, but of a payment and consumer report department. Any company, and any that contracts has those issue. It still doesn't make Uber a "taxi service" . Their business model is not to hire drivers. Their business model is connecting taxi drivers with customers. That is not a taxi service. That is a value added feature to those involved in the taxi service. Uber could cease operations tommorow and all the drivers could pick a different app to drive under , as well as the consumers. They are not a material part of the actual service other than creating a value to the connection.

Using that definition, the two largest taxi companies in my home town are not taxi services either.

Bostrom wrote:

casinterest wrote:

The items you are worried about are not jobs of a Taxi service, but of a payment and consumer report department. Any company, and any that contracts has those issue. It still doesn't make Uber a "taxi service" . Their business model is not to hire drivers. Their business model is connecting taxi drivers with customers. That is not a taxi service. That is a value added feature to those involved in the taxi service. Uber could cease operations tommorow and all the drivers could pick a different app to drive under , as well as the consumers. They are not a material part of the actual service other than creating a value to the connection.

Using that definition, the two largest taxi companies in my home town are not taxi services either.

Most taxi companies where I lived in the UK did not own the cars, did not pay the drive drivers, and only providde a service where they linked the drivers to the passengers. This was normal practice in the 90's. The only difference is that Uber has an APP! ( apps didn't exist in the 90's)