Uber, another company sucking money out of the UK.

[alfredmizen]

Good point about the money staying in the economy. Can't really argue with that.

I totally understand how hard it is for good, honest, hard working taxi drivers to make a living. It's hard for everyone. I'd be pissed off if my industry suddenly turned on it's head and I began losing custom to some new kid on the block.

But the sad fact is that driving a taxi in 2015 need not be about skill or knowledge. I could fly to a city I've never been to in my life, grab myself an iPhone, buy an Audi and start working as an Uber driver. That's tragic really. But the technology has rendered knowledge of city streets far less valuable that it was 10 years ago.

Taxi drivers have to compete for the first time since forever. People will choose them if they feel they're getting a good deal. Right now, they're horrendously over priced in London and people seem to love the fixed price model of Uber. You know exactly how much it's going to cost you before you choose to order the taxi and you don't have to stop at a bloody cashpoint on the way. It's just easier.

Rightly or wrongly, most people couldn't give a shit who pays tax where, how the livelihood of the drivers has been affected or what's best for the local economy. Most people want to get from a to b for as little money and hassle as possible. Right now, Uber is winning on both of those fronts in a lot of cases.

And your i phone will tell you where restaurants, embassies, theatres , hospitals, famous shops are without you stopping and typing into your phone ?(very inconvenient in london with its lack of of parking and restrictions ) will it also know the best way to go when you meet road closures and roadworks etc ?? ........in short it doesnt compare.

 

[alfredmizen]

wouldnt use uber. why is everything "over priced" or a "rip off"? Generally, things are what they cost plus a little bit more on top and people work hard. I am always wary of people who throw the rip off or over priced phrases around, sitting in a cab jockeying people around all day who think you are somehow fleecing them rather than you just trying to make a living cannot be much fun.

Good luck to you if you want a race to the bottom just so you can get a taxi (of sorts) rather than the bus your wallet and your mentality is telling you to.


Theres loads of people nicking a living in Britain but cabbies tend not to be them.

It's not Uber that will kill black cabs, its us. Good luck to you if you think chipping away at a great institution is OK as you cannot bear to pay someone a living wage, or you expect me to subisdise your cheap uber taxi through tax credits, but I wont be part of it.

this, absolutely spot on.

 

[alfredmizen]

 

[TWOCHOICEStom]

And your i phone will tell you where restaurants, embassies, theatres , hospitals, famous shops are without you stopping and typing into your phone ?(very inconvenient in london with its lack of of parking and restrictions ) will it also know the best way to go when you meet road closures and roadworks etc ?? ........in short it doesnt compare.

No computer will ever be a substitute for a human's brain. But what I'm saying is that in 2015, the value of a cabbie knowing his area inside out is far less than it was 10 years ago. Times have changed.

Companies like Uber have made it easier for almost anybody to become a relatively competent cab driver. The user places a pin on a map where they want to go and the app guides the driver there. Simple.

Everything you've listed in that post is almost irrelevant. The user chooses exactly where they want to go from and to and the Uber driver takes them. It's not quite the same as jumping in a cab and trying to get the quickest/best route to keep the meter cost down.

To make it clear. I'm not 100% in favour of Uber, I just think that some of the criticism they're getting is sour grapes from an industry who've been able to get away with shite, overpriced service for too long.

 

[Bozza]

View attachment 67228

Stupid game to play - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-fell-asleep-taxi-nights-jailed-10-years.html

 

[Nibble]

so what about the wider corporate tax exports, say VW, Apple, Sony. they send their revenues and taxes abroad too, maybe not all in all cases (Apple bad example: they are doing the opposite sitting on massive cash piles rather than repatriate them to US, to avoid tax). and many UK companies import their foreign revenues and taxes here, often overlooked. secondly, you make a massive assumption that there are profits to tax. i'll agree you'd expect them to, but looking around there's little evidence of profit at this point. as much as i find that astonishing, if they are spending the cash, where is it spent? probably mostly marketing, so revenue is pouring back into the economy.

so in short, we dont really know that Uber is "sucking money of the UK", and if they are, if its much to worry about.

Quite a scattergun approach to points there but I think I've sifted through it.

Yep, Uber are amongst a number of corporations that avoid paying UK tax.

They are not obliged to declare their UK profit. So neither you nor I know how much profit they make in the UK. However, a reasonable accountant or indeed the average man on the Clapham Omnibus, in looking through their figures for the rest of the world, would be quite safe in predicting it is a lot of money and that they certainly are making profit in the UK. To argue otherwise, while hard to back up a counter argument, is, in my opinion an argument for the sake of argument. Google and Goldman Sachs are not in the business of investing in no-profit organisations.

So, they spend money on marketing? They put money back into the economy. Now, try not paying your income tax for a couple of years using the defence that you spend money on the local high street.

 

[alfredmizen]

No computer will ever be a substitute for a human's brain. But what I'm saying is that in 2015, the value of a cabbie knowing his area inside out is far less than it was 10 years ago. Times have changed.

Companies like Uber have made it easier for almost anybody to become a relatively competent cab driver. The user places a pin on a map where they want to go and the app guides the driver there. Simple.

Everything you've listed in that post is almost irrelevant. The user chooses exactly where they want to go from and to and the Uber driver takes them. It's not quite the same as jumping in a cab and trying to get the quickest/best route to keep the meter cost down.

To make it clear. I'm not 100% in favour of Uber, I just think that some of the criticism they're getting is sour grapes from an industry who've been able to get away with shite, overpriced service for too long.

No its not at all, you want to go to the finnish embassy , but you dont know where it is , try 'placing a pin ' and getting there then.

 

[TWOCHOICEStom]

I feel sorry for the cabbies who are represented by those terrible posters.

It's cheaper: yay!
No passenger insurance: I didn't know taxis even had this. What am I covered for?
No knowledge of London: I don't care.
No CRB checks: I don't care. If you do care and put your kid in a taxi alone you should always check this. How many people does this affect?
8000 complaints of sexual abuse: Well that's great. Because every single one of those 8000 journeys is logged in a computer system. The path, the driver, the passenger. Everything. How many people know the name of the taxi driver before they jump in a cab?

There are so many better arguments that this.

 

[Buzzer]

I feel sorry for the cabbies who are represented by those terrible posters.

It's cheaper: yay!
No passenger insurance: I didn't know taxis even had this. What am I covered for?
No knowledge of London: I don't care.
No CRB checks: I don't care. If you do care and put your kid in a taxi alone you should always check this. How many people does this affect?
8000 complaints of sexual abuse: Well that's great. Because every single one of those 8000 journeys is logged in a computer system. The path, the driver, the passenger. Everything. How many people know the name of the taxi driver before they jump in a cab?

There are so many better arguments that this.

You sure? I dare say that there's a fair amount of swapping of drivers unofficially with a scheme like this. And the chance of assault or sexual abuse might not be of concern to you but it is to the other half of the population. I think most women would prefer a journey knowing that they weren't going to be attacked at all rather than if it did happen then there's a better chance of getting the culprit. I say better because the conviction rates for sexual assault in this country are shockingly low. And I dare say that if the woman is plastered she'll either have trouble recalling exactly what happened or fighting back.

Fair enough, Uber is cheaper and if that's what your main criteria is then go for it but for the sake of a few extra quid I'd prefer it if my girlfriend came how in a proper cab than one of these Uber jobbies.

 

[willyfantastic]

Of course, the problem with them abroad, fine if your on a business trip and want to get somewhere quick, no fuss, etc but I've had some great experiences abroad by talking to and subsequently employing the driver for a few days. Meals at their family house, trips out to restaurants only locals know about, driven to nightclubs and all night bars only the local drivers know about.
Quick and convenient, yes. Interesting and making the most of being abroad, no.

i don't go on holiday to share dinner with the local cabbie though - fair enough if that's what you enjoy though, but don't try and play that I'm boring because i don't....

 

[StonehamPark]

No its not at all, you want to go to the finnish embassy , but you dont know where it is , try 'placing a pin ' and getting there then.

As far as I'm aware, the customer enters the desired destination on the app/website and the driver automatically gets GPS/Satnav directions.
It's dummy-proof. As someone else said earlier, you could fly to any City, jump in a car, get a smartphone, sign up to Uber and have the instructions in front of you for every single fare.

 

[TWOCHOICEStom]

I just typed 'Finland Embassy, London' into the app. It found it. "American Express Stadium" found it. It seems as good as Google Maps though I don't know what tech is behind the scenes.

Like it or not. It's easier to "pretend" to be a cabbie than it's ever been. Uber is taking advantage of that, which you can't blame them for. If not them, then someone else would.

 

[Bozza]

Quite a scattergun approach to points there but I think I've sifted through it.

Yep, Uber are amongst a number of corporations that avoid paying UK tax.

They are not obliged to declare their UK profit. So neither you nor I know how much profit they make in the UK. However, a reasonable accountant or indeed the average man on the Clapham Omnibus, in looking through their figures for the rest of the world, would be quite safe in predicting it is a lot of money and that they certainly are making profit in the UK. To argue otherwise, while hard to back up a counter argument, is, in my opinion an argument for the sake of argument. Google and Goldman Sachs are not in the business of investing in no-profit organisations.

More out and out guesses.

There is nothing anywhere that indicates Uber are currently profitable. In fact, it is highly likely that they are not given they keep on taking hundreds of millions of dollars in fund-raising rounds and that, at the moment, they are in a hyper-growth phase. Growing the business is more important than turning a profit. Profits can wait until tomorrow (or next year or the year after). It costs them a LOT of money to recruit drivers and a LOT to acquire new customers (£20 free first ride on us etc) and every time they enter a new city they have to spend big in order to try to scale quickly.

VCs including Google Ventures et al nearly always invest in companies that are losing money, and rarely in companies that are profitable, at the point the investment is made. They do so because of their belief that the company will grow and they will be able to secure a decent ROI if the company they have invested in is bought or floats. Sometimes that happens, sometimes the company fails and the VC loses all they invested.

 

[beorhthelm]

They are not obliged to declare their UK profit. So neither you nor I know how much profit they make in the UK. However, a reasonable accountant or indeed the average man on the Clapham Omnibus, in looking through their figures for the rest of the world, would be quite safe in predicting it is a lot of money and that they certainly are making profit in the UK. To argue otherwise, while hard to back up a counter argument, is, in my opinion an argument for the sake of argument. Google and Goldman Sachs are not in the business of investing in no-profit organisations.

a reasonable accountant might pay attention to what they themselves are apparently telling investors. they'll raise an eyebrow to ask "how come", but that's modern company finance for you.

and please so silly to confuse income tax with company tax, we know that they are different.

 

[Nibble]

There are many advantages to Uber at present. They wouldn't be so popular if they didn't represent some form of value/convenience etc. All I'd ask is that they stop avoiding UK tax. If they have such a strong business model it should be able to stand paying the fair amount of tax, like we all have to.

 

[Nibble]

a reasonable accountant might pay attention to what they themselves are apparently telling investors. they'll raise an eyebrow to "how come", but that's modern company finance for you.

and please so silly to confuse income tax with company tax, we know that they are different.

I'm not confusing Company tax with income tax, behave. I used income tax compared to corporation tax because the average man doesn't pay CT but will pay IT. It is, ultimately tax that one owes the HMRC.

I know you are absolutely desperate to find a fault here as it's me posting and RB on the video. Two things you hate. However, unless you agree companies operating and earning profit in the UK shouldn't pay UK tax then you have no argument.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

You sure? I dare say that there's a fair amount of swapping of drivers unofficially with a scheme like this. And the chance of assault or sexual abuse might not be of concern to you but it is to the other half of the population. I think most women would prefer a journey knowing that they weren't going to be attacked at all rather than if it did happen then there's a better chance of getting the culprit. I say better because the conviction rates for sexual assault in this country are shockingly low. And I dare say that if the woman is plastered she'll either have trouble recalling exactly what happened or fighting back.

Fair enough, Uber is cheaper and if that's what your main criteria is then go for it but for the sake of a few extra quid I'd prefer it if my girlfriend came how in a proper cab than one of these Uber jobbies.

The argument would be though, that the very fact that the drivers / passengers / routes are 100% logged and traceable, should MASSIVELY reduce the number of such incidents from ever occuring, compared with 'a woman' getting into 'a cab' with 'a driver' at 2am.

 

[Nibble]

More out and out guesses.

There is nothing anywhere that indicates Uber are currently profitable. In fact, it is highly likely that they are not given they keep on taking hundreds of millions of dollars in fund-raising rounds and that, at the moment, they are in a hyper-growth phase. Growing the business is more important than turning a profit. Profits can wait until tomorrow (or next year or the year after). It costs them a LOT of money to recruit drivers and a LOT to acquire new customers (£20 free first ride on us etc) and every time they enter a new city they have to spend big in order to try to scale quickly.

VCs including Google Ventures et al nearly always invest in companies that are losing money, and rarely in companies that are profitable, at the point the investment is made. They do so because of their belief that the company will grow and they will be able to secure a decent ROI if the company they have invested in is bought or floats. Sometimes that happens, sometimes the company fails and the VC loses all they invested.

Guessing? No, just taking all into consideration it is highly unlikely Uber are not making profit. Even if they were not making profit, which they are, their tax system is set up to avoid paying UK tax. You're clutching at straws now really. I'd expect more from you.

 

[Buzzer]

The argument would be though, that the very fact that the drivers / passengers / routes are 100% logged and traceable, should MASSIVELY reduce the number of such incidents from ever occuring, compared with 'a woman' getting into 'a cab' with 'a driver' at 2am.

Of course it's traceable but with police and council checks on Hackney licences before a driver can tout for business the passenger is safe in the knowledge that assault is far less likely in the first place and I'm not sure that drunk women are any safer from sexual assault just because the driver's route is known.

 

[beorhthelm]

I know you are absolutely desperate to find a fault here as it's me posting and RB on the video. Two things you hate. However, unless you agree companies operating and earning profit in the UK shouldn't pay UK tax then you have no argument.

i count a third, people not even trying to understand economics getting on a high horse about tax. when they show a profit, we can come back to how much they should be paying in the UK. as it is the only argument Mr Brand has (and i assume you share) is that they are owned by Google/Goldman Sachs, have an employee connected to the PM, therefore they must be bad.

i assume you must have not followed the link - $470m losses reported. of course, it could be that they don't have any losses in the UK market.