Uber Drivers Forum banner
1 - 20 of 23 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,299 Posts
Hmmm, great, so $1 from every uber ride is gifted to the taxi industry because they weren't able to compete. I wonder if there is at least a fixed/finite time frame for this $1, or will it just go on forever, and eventually just get added to the "bottom line"?
I also wonder if Uber will charge this extra $1, and will they submit it, or will the driver submit it, or will the cheating/non gst paying driver just pocket it?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
329 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Hmmm, great, so $1 from every uber ride is gifted to the taxi industry because they weren't able to compete. I wonder if there is at least a fixed/finite time frame for this $1, or will it just go on forever, and eventually just get added to the "bottom line"?
I also wonder if Uber will charge this extra $1, and will they submit it, or will the driver submit it, or will the cheating/non gst paying driver just pocket it?
Still to be determined. There will also be a point-to-point transport commission with broad-ranging powers to demand records, enforcing DAC etc.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,868 Posts
Hmmm, great, so $1 from every uber ride is gifted to the taxi industry because they weren't able to compete. I wonder if there is at least a fixed/finite time frame for this $1, or will it just go on forever, and eventually just get added to the "bottom line"?
I also wonder if Uber will charge this extra $1, and will they submit it, or will the driver submit it, or will the cheating/non gst paying driver just pocket it?
It is years $1 per ride for 5 years . Should be coming out from uber this might why uber increase their commision to 25%
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,299 Posts
Which raises even more questions about what authority this new entity will have to stop random cars which may or may not be currently engaged in ride sharing activities?
A taxi with its light on is obviously working, a vehicle registered with uber or registered to an owner with a dac is not always working, may never get used for Uber, might have stopped 6 months ago etc....
I'm not convinced any of this is going to be a good idea. I thibk Uber needs to jump on this and propose self regulation (which they already do with the ratings and random disabled driver accounts).
On the plus side, it might reduce the number of drivers and therefore the ones left will be busier and more profitable
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
329 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Which raises even more questions about what authority this new entity will have to stop random cars which may or may not be currently engaged in ride sharing activities?
A taxi with its light on is obviously working, a vehicle registered with uber or registered to an owner with a dac is not always working, may never get used for Uber, might have stopped 6 months ago etc....
I'm not convinced any of this is going to be a good idea. I thibk Uber needs to jump on this and propose self regulation (which they already do with the ratings and random disabled driver accounts).
On the plus side, it might reduce the number of drivers and therefore the ones left will be busier and more profitable
It's just another self-serving bureaucracy. It will have the powers to inspect vehicle inspection records, records of trips taken, ensure drivers have proper business registration/CTP etc. You're right, $1 is a hefty tax on an $8 fare...it will be marketed as a necessity to opening up competition blah blah blah. Still, I don't think it will impact passenger demand for either Uber or taxis, so the real problem will be the remittance of the $1 levy - driver or company.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
402 Posts
Don't forget this whole initiative by the state government is about reducing red-tape and encourages more people to eton the platform to do part time work. I don't think there is intention to make things 'harder'.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,868 Posts
Don't forget this whole initiative by the state government is about reducing red-tape and encourages more people to eton the platform to do part time work. I don't think there is intention to make things 'harder'.
No it is the taxi industries that is making it harder for uber , they want an even level of playing field
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,299 Posts
No it is the taxi industries that is making it harder for uber , they want an even level of playing field
Except it isn't even when you are cross-subsidising (ie, uber trips are subsidising the taxi industry)...
What did the government do with all that money they got from selling the taxi licenses in the first place? Or did the government just sell them at a fixed nominal price?
Why does the government need to get involved just because joe bloggs invested in taxi plates instead of Telstra shares? Oh wait, the telstra shares had their own fiasco, oh wait, did the government get involved to compensate all the consumers that bought telstra shares and then lost money?
Investing in any "thing" has risks, and the investor should be able to anticipate those risks (eg, devaluation of taxi plates) and wear the cost of their own decisions, instead of blaming "someone else".
Just my opinions, however, I *do* support medicare and free access to medical treatment for everyone, I think that is money much better spent. Same for the public education system (but not private education).
Ooops, please ignore me, we should not mention politics... move along
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,868 Posts
I totally agree with you on the taxi plate . They call it mum and dad investor . How it is mum dad investor . The majority of these plate owner are corporation who made million Already by renting it out to taxi drivers . But my opinion on the education and Medicare are different . The education system are nothing but train us to be a slaves to the system nothing useful come out of it . As for the medical . You will find that the big pharmaceutical industries is nothing but a money making industries . The medicines are not to cure you but to keep you using it . Repeat mean more money . A lot of illnes can be avoid if you just watch what you are eating .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
329 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
Except it isn't even when you are cross-subsidising (ie, uber trips are subsidising the taxi industry)...
What did the government do with all that money they got from selling the taxi licenses in the first place? Or did the government just sell them at a fixed nominal price?
Why does the government need to get involved just because joe bloggs invested in taxi plates instead of Telstra shares? Oh wait, the telstra shares had their own fiasco, oh wait, did the government get involved to compensate all the consumers that bought telstra shares and then lost money?
Investing in any "thing" has risks, and the investor should be able to anticipate those risks (eg, devaluation of taxi plates) and wear the cost of their own decisions, instead of blaming "someone else".
Just my opinions, however, I *do* support medicare and free access to medical treatment for everyone, I think that is money much better spent. Same for the public education system (but not private education).
Ooops, please ignore me, we should not mention politics... move along
The government didn't give any guarantees about Telstra shares, but the govt restriction of the release of new plates (a guarantee of sorts) is something that is no doubt taken by investors when making a decision to buy plates or not, so I think some compensation should go to plate owners for the govt allowing a new entrant like Uber to muscle in. However! Apparently all the plates in NSW are owned by just 4,000 entities, so mum and dad investors probably have a bit of cash anyway.

The govt itself is actually a loser in all this as well, as the transfer of taxi plates attracts stamp duty, so lower plate values = less stamp duty. They need to make up for that as well, which is probably where the new commission will come in and start sniffing for new revenue streams.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,299 Posts
Icecool education to a certain level is a must, I'd suggest at least year 10,
The government didn't give any guarantees about Telstra shares, but the govt restriction of the release of new plates (a guarantee of sorts) is something that is no doubt taken by investors when making a decision to buy plates or not, so I think some compensation should go to plate owners for the govt allowing a new entrant like Uber to muscle in. However! Apparently all the plates in NSW are owned by just 4,000 entities, so mum and dad investors probably have a bit of cash anyway.

The govt itself is actually a loser in all this as well, as the transfer of taxi plates attracts stamp duty, so lower plate values = less stamp duty. They need to make up for that as well, which is probably where the new commission will come in and start sniffing for new revenue streams.
Well, they limited the number of shares, which is a guarantee of sorts apparently?
How many plates in total? I would suggest that any compensation should only go to people that own less than two plates, and only to "people" not companies/organisations/etc... That would be a good start.
Is that the same stamp duty that they were going to get rid of when they brought in the GST ? Still waiting for that one....
The problem is that the government is good at introducing new fess/taxes/charges, but they never reduce or remove them.
Why not just a straight government voluntary buy back, for the same price they were sold for (ie, a refund), or if you prefer, look at the value of the plates 12 months prior to Uber starting services, and buy them back for 80% of that price (ie, some risk/loss should be worn by the investor).
Also, remove the $1/trip fee as soon as enough money was raised to satisfy the buy back.
Currently it would seem that the taxi plate owners will continue to work as taxis, and *also* get some government top-up. Really, they need to reduce the number of taxis to a point that makes them competitive again, so some can continue to work, while others opt for the buy-back option, and then go do something else (uber drivers perhaps)....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
329 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
Icecool education to a certain level is a must, I'd suggest at least year 10,

Well, they limited the number of shares, which is a guarantee of sorts apparently?
How many plates in total? I would suggest that any compensation should only go to people that own less than two plates, and only to "people" not companies/organisations/etc... That would be a good start.
Is that the same stamp duty that they were going to get rid of when they brought in the GST ? Still waiting for that one....
The problem is that the government is good at introducing new fess/taxes/charges, but they never reduce or remove them.
Why not just a straight government voluntary buy back, for the same price they were sold for (ie, a refund), or if you prefer, look at the value of the plates 12 months prior to Uber starting services, and buy them back for 80% of that price (ie, some risk/loss should be worn by the investor).
Also, remove the $1/trip fee as soon as enough money was raised to satisfy the buy back.
Currently it would seem that the taxi plate owners will continue to work as taxis, and *also* get some government top-up. Really, they need to reduce the number of taxis to a point that makes them competitive again, so some can continue to work, while others opt for the buy-back option, and then go do something else (uber drivers perhaps)....
Limiting the number of shares doesn't give any guarantee about future performance. With Telstra 2, the govt was lucky they could point to the success of T1 for a high sale point. Come T3, they had to make concessions to cover up for the losses made in T2...

Not sure about the number of plates out there, but the govt is issuing no new plates for this year (http://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/operators/taxis/taxi-licences/taxi-licence-release).

The $1 levy should be in place for five years as it currently stands. But how easy would it be to just leave it there....

Reducing the number of taxis would make the situation worse - one common complaint pre-Uber was the difficulty in getting a ride during the notorious shift changeover (3pm?). The industry needs to sort itself out, how about changing shifts. I sometimes take cabs for my full time job, and once I started Ubering, I asked them a lot of questions (they consistently said their pay is about 40% less since Uber came along). One of them went through the costs of leasing all the clunky equipment on the driver's side, it was extremely high, up to $1,000 per month. Surely a smartphone would take care of most of that now, if not all? Then there's the surcharge on credit cards - the taxi industry's response to Uber was to cut it from 10% to 5%. Uber is 0%!

Oh btw: NEVER feel sorry for a cabbie if you take a short fare from the airport to, say, Botany. Yes, they might wait 2 hours to get that fare, but there is something at the airport known as the short fare queue - if a driver gets back within 25 minutes, they can jump the queue in recognition of all the waiting they had to do for a short fare.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,299 Posts
Limiting the number of shares doesn't give any guarantee about future performance. With Telstra 2, the govt was lucky they could point to the success of T1 for a high sale point. Come T3, they had to make concessions to cover up for the losses made in T2...

Not sure about the number of plates out there, but the govt is issuing no new plates for this year (http://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/operators/taxis/taxi-licences/taxi-licence-release).

The $1 levy should be in place for five years as it currently stands. But how easy would it be to just leave it there....

Reducing the number of taxis would make the situation worse - one common complaint pre-Uber was the difficulty in getting a ride during the notorious shift changeover (3pm?). The industry needs to sort itself out, how about changing shifts. I sometimes take cabs for my full time job, and once I started Ubering, I asked them a lot of questions (they consistently said their pay is about 40% less since Uber came along). One of them went through the costs of leasing all the clunky equipment on the driver's side, it was extremely high, up to $1,000 per month. Surely a smartphone would take care of most of that now, if not all? Then there's the surcharge on credit cards - the taxi industry's response to Uber was to cut it from 10% to 5%. Uber is 0%!

Oh btw: NEVER feel sorry for a cabbie if you take a short fare from the airport to, say, Botany. Yes, they might wait 2 hours to get that fare, but there is something at the airport known as the short fare queue - if a driver gets back within 25 minutes, they can jump the queue in recognition of all the waiting they had to do for a short fare.
Exactly my point, if they don't remove it in 5 years. Equally, I don't see why they even need it for 5 years, why not just one year? There must be a lot of trips per day, many millions in one year. How much are they really going to compensate the taxi drivers?
As for changing shifts, surely some taxi driver somewhere might recognise that when all the others are changing over, it is peak period for him? Surely different taxi drivers can just change one hour later/earlier than the others....
Equally, if taxi pay is down 40%, then that suggests to reduce the number of taxis by 40%, and you will get back to your pre-uber income. Probably not far off to be honest. It suggests Uber has a 40% market share (I actually think it is probably more likely around 20%, but whatever).

The problem for taxis is that they are forced to have all that extra gear, ie, driver shields/partitions, cameras, GPS, etc.... and all that does cost extra. However, cost isn't the only complaint for taxis, service, cleanliness, timeliness, politeness, these are all near zero cost issues that can be solved.

Finally, that is awesome info about the airport queue, I'll remember that for next time I'm getting a taxi home from the airport (less than 1km) and I won't feel so bad.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
329 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
Exactly my point, if they don't remove it in 5 years. Equally, I don't see why they even need it for 5 years, why not just one year? There must be a lot of trips per day, many millions in one year. How much are they really going to compensate the taxi drivers?
As for changing shifts, surely some taxi driver somewhere might recognise that when all the others are changing over, it is peak period for him? Surely different taxi drivers can just change one hour later/earlier than the others....
Equally, if taxi pay is down 40%, then that suggests to reduce the number of taxis by 40%, and you will get back to your pre-uber income. Probably not far off to be honest. It suggests Uber has a 40% market share (I actually think it is probably more likely around 20%, but whatever).

The problem for taxis is that they are forced to have all that extra gear, ie, driver shields/partitions, cameras, GPS, etc.... and all that does cost extra. However, cost isn't the only complaint for taxis, service, cleanliness, timeliness, politeness, these are all near zero cost issues that can be solved.

Finally, that is awesome info about the airport queue, I'll remember that for next time I'm getting a taxi home from the airport (less than 1km) and I won't feel so bad.
Agree with most, just don't know if reducing cabs will solve problems for commuters.

I googled the airport queue, and it could be something of a secret judging by how little there is on it, but this article mentions it (with 25 minutes - maybe to allow for the traffic problems they created last year with the new directions): http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...k=bc45f94ea5d8add4e0663859e8aa0c67-1467097916
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
221 Posts
I totally agree with you on the taxi plate . They call it mum and dad investor . How it is mum dad investor . The majority of these plate owner are corporation who made million Already by renting it out to taxi drivers .
this misinformation about big corporations owning all the taxi plates and milking taxi drivers into the ground was first promoted by Uber in the early days when they were trying to get a foothold ... it was a convenient angle to push for their ends but it was, and has been proved, false.... and like all mud, it seems to have stuck .. despite there being a Commission on point to point transport that actually easily assessed the owner statistics from the Dept Transport records and readily developed an ACCURATE profile of ownership ...
for those who are interested in their findings rather than speculation, anecdote and hearsay ... the report found that while a small but significant proportion of plates were owned by the bigger taxi companies like Taxis Combined etc. (who claimed they needed to maintain a significant number to ensure security of service supply .. (but also to regulate lease prices)), the report also confirmed that there were, indeed, very few 'Mum & Dad' investors ... so, in part, Uber spoke the truth ... well, kind of ... of course "mum & Dad" investors would not normally have cash available for the high cab plate prices being asked and, besides, cab plate prices were prone to volatility (but not quite the drastic volatility that occurred in 2015) .. so 'Mum & Dad' investors would lean to real estate for long term capital gain .... Capital Gain was never an attraction for cab plate investors I suspect.
Rather, the report found that the bulk of plate owners were in fact retirees .. usually self-funded .. often ex-blue collar and also commonly originally born overseas. For them, capital gain was less of an issue but rather they needed a regular income from the plate lease to maintain some independence from social security... unfortunately, what they got from the government action was neither. The commission found that the government's conceding to ride sharing has caused a lot of angst amongst these pensioner constituents ...
the review has led to the proposed legislation ... it recognises the dichotomy in the cab plate ownership (taxi companies vs pensioner/super investors) and has tried to discriminate accordingly in the compensation allocation by limiting compensation to owners with less than 2 plates (thereby excluding the "big corporations"??) ..and also making available additional funds for 'hardship' cases... this seems a fair and thoughtful approach ..
The government ( and supported by opposition) wants a fair system for all and is trying to compensate the impacted stakeholders adequately, and then move on with clear conscious, with the new model that incorporates ride sharing and that is obviously supported by the broader community.
The political parties seem united in this approach unlike some of the emotive witch hunts bandied about on social fora .. umm?... like here ...
Uber (and its successors) are here to stay ... we as a community just need to sign off on those that have been trodden over in the stampede .. and evolve together as transport community .... if individuals cant see that then, fortunately, politicians do ...
viva democratica!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,299 Posts
OK, but in order to really help some of the people on social media (ie, this site, and those that are happy to accept facts), other than your opinion, can you provide actual published data on taxi plate ownership, and any reference to the legislation that is designed to limit the funds for multiple plate holders, and also if there is a limit to the total compensation funds provided to any single recipient, and a limit to the total funds that will be collected.
Consider over the next 5 years, Uber dreams that most people will not own a car, so the number of taxi/uber/etc trips will increase dramatically, this would in turn provide a massive increase in the funds collected.
I'd like to believe that our government is not made up of the worst idiots society can provide, but even best intentions can easily go awry, and socialist based programs like this just smell bad (there are always people who will take advantage of it, either lie, cheat, or find a corner case).
 
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
Top