[Sixstrings]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SeaGypsy', '6'), who told you 1/ uber drivers 'work for free' & 2/ uber is a 'monopoly'? Neither are true.

[SeaGypsy]

This has to come to a head. Taxi companies will soon be able to demand refund of car licenses if government refuses to protect them.

I know a couple of taxi drivers who went over to uber or similar, because the money works out very similar but the condition of being able to be at home studying & just take local start fares, to become a preferred driver, to not have to sit around in a uniform at a rank for hours on end, is why.

[MD]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SeaGypsy', '
')
MD, uber & it's competition are not completely unregulated. Vehicles have to be less than 10 years old, regularly inspected & fully insured. Drivers have to produce the same police clearance as for taxi drivers, so really not much different for the passenger.

[SeaGypsy]

Well how I described it is how it operates here, only thing for safety in taxis uber don't have is in car cameras. I agree with your conclusion though. Most places the taxi license is 3-4 times the vehicle cost. Uber etc not having to compete is obviously not fair. Soon a major economy will jump on this & '$40 billiom' will fall to penny stock on a company only able to operate in the developing world. That, or they will be forced onto a level playing field, which utterly contradicts their business model. More likely the founders will flog off their app & go make another app.

[Outcast_Searcher]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', 'B')ecause of the level of control they exert. A contractor decides the hours, methods, tools etc. to complete the assignment, an employee has those things decided by the employer.

[Newfie]

I was just discussing this with a taxi driver the other day. He drives a cab, his sons gave up cabs and went to Uber.

Some observations of his. Not sure all are correct

Uber is illegal in Philadelphia ( I think this is correct) but the ban is not enforced, so it continues.

Medallion prices have lost 75% of their value, from over $200,000 to about $50,000.

The rider can request a certain kind of vehicle. Then Uber dispatches a driver. The rates are set by Uber and depend upon the type of vehicle.

His kids bought high end SUVs.

Apparently the cost of a Uber ride is MORE than a regular taxi, and with the SUVs substantially more. He was quoting specific prices from Uber zones in town to the airport, so he sure sounded authoritative. If correct, even the cheap Uber rides were more than a cab.

His theory is that Uber is not about efficient or cost, it is about STYLE. FOlks get Uber because it is the kool thing to do and/or because they can get a more stylish ride. A big SUV, not a ratty of yellow Crown Vic ex patrol car. Cost be damned, they are out for a night of drinking and partying and living big.

Just reporting one mans thoughts.

P.S. in thinking this through I'm wondering if it really isn't a scam to avoid paying taxes? I presume Uber reports payments to the IRS, but does not collect with holding? Leaving it to the IRS to track down thousands upon thousands of small time tax dodges.

[Newfie]

Not sure of how the laws are interpreted but...once upon a time the Feds decided to crack down on fishermen and how they treated crew. Traditionally a bloke could walk down to the dock and hang around and get on a boat. Many boats had regular crew but fishermen are kinda notorious for being irregular folks so crew would come and go pretty often.

The Captains considered the crew as "independent contractors" so they just paid them off, period. The Feds considered them as "employees" making the Captain/Owner resoonsible for all that hurrah that comes with having staff. So a guy with a boat and a three man crew may have upwards of a dozen or so "employees" during the course of a year. A very large burden indeed for a guy who may not have finished HS.

I'm not sure how it all worked out in the end or how things are handled today. My time on boats ended before this when all transactions were simple cash.

[Newfie]

OK, so here is how the IRS figures it out on fishing boats.

Simple see

http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Bus ... #ch1-bkgrd
........

Chapter 3 – Employment Classification
Examiners and other IRS representatives are sometimes faced with the difficult task of making a determination as to the classification of workers who provide services for others. The status of a worker as either an independent contractor or employee must be determined accurately to ensure that workers and businesses can anticipate and meet their tax responsibilities timely and accurately. The tax obligations of an employer of employees include income tax withholding, Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA), and Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) taxes (collectively, employment taxes).
In determining a worker’s status, the primary inquiry is whether the worker is an independent contractor or an employee. Generally, where the owner of a vessel contracts with the captain, who staffs and provisions the vessel and manages its day-to-day operations, both the captain and crew are employees of the owner. See United States v. Webb, Inc., 397 U.S. 179 (1970), (holding that the employment status of captain and crew is determined under the standards of maritime law, which is the common law of seafaring enterprises); Cape Shore Fish Co. v. United States, 330 F.2d 961 (Ct. Cl. 1964) (holding that the captain and crew were employees of the boat owner when the boat owner had control over the performance of services). An exception to this general rule is where the owner of a vessel surrenders entire command and possession of the vessel, and consequent control over its navigation, to the charterer. See The Norland, 101 F.2d 967 (9th Cir. 1939) and Webb, 397 U.S. at 192. In this case, the captain would be the employer.
Where the owner of the vessel is also the captain, and the captain contracts with the processor to provide services for a fee or a share of the catch, the examining agent should consider whether the captain is an independent contractor under the standard set forth in Webb. If the captain is an independent contractor, the crewmembers are probably employees of the captain. However, if the crewmembers are paid by the processor, IRC § 3401(d)(1) may operate to make the processor the employer for employment tax purposes.

Under IRC § 3401(d)(1), a person other than the common law employer (that is, the person with direction and control over the services) will be treated as an employer for employment tax purposes if (a) the common law employer does not have control of the payment of the wages; and (b) the third party does have control of the payment of the wages. "Control" over the payment of the wages for purposes of IRC § 3401(d)(1) means legal control. See Treas. Reg. § 31.3401(d)-1(f). See also Winstead v. United States, 109 F.3d 989 (4th Cir. 1997).
Once it is determined that the workers are employees, it must be determined whether the employees ' services are excepted from the definition of employment for employment tax purposes. IRC § 3121(b)(20) provides an exception from the FICA definition of employment for service on a catcher vessel that normally has fewer than ten crewmembers where the crewmembers are only paid a share of the boat 's catch, Exceptions from the definition of wages for purposes of income tax collection at the source and from the FUTA tax definition of employment are made by cross-references to IRC § 3121(b)(20) found, respectively, in IRC §§ 3401(a)(17) and 3306(c)(18). If the services of crewmembers are excepted from the definition of employment, then the workers are deemed to be self-employed for purposes of the Self-Employment Contributions Act (SECA). See IRC §1402(c)(2)(F).
The employer must issue a Form W-2 to each employee whose service is not excepted from the definition of employment and a Form 1099-MISC to all other payees.
Crewmembers
Individuals who work on fishing vessels as crewmembers are considered employees based on the standard common law rules. Crewmembers’ duties involve assisting with the functions of the fishing operation in the taking and catching of aquatic life. Under IRC § 3121(b) (20), these crewmembers may be considered self-employed for purposes of health insurance, pension plans, and employment taxes.
Under IRC § 3121(b)(20), a crewmember who would otherwise be classified as an employee is considered self-employed for purposes of self-employment taxes, health insurance, and pension plans, only if he meets all of the following conditions:
He does not receive any cash remuneration for his work, other than his share of the catch or of the proceeds from the sale of the catch, unless the pay meets all of the following conditions:
He does not get more than $100 per trip;
He is paid the additional amount only if there is some minimum catch;
He is paid solely for additional duties (such as for services performed as mate, engineer, or cook) for which additional cash payments are traditional in the fishing industry.
He receives a percentage share of the catch or a percentage share of the proceeds from the sale of the catch.
His share depends on the amount of the catch (percentage).
He receives his share from a boat (or from each boat in the case of a fishing operation involving more than one boat) with an operating crew that is normally made up of fewer than ten individuals. This requirement is considered to be met if the average number of crewmembers on trips the boat made during the last four calendar quarters was less than ten.
Example 1. A boat owner hires a captain, a mate, an engineer, a cook, and five other crewmembers to work on his fishing boat. The proceeds from the sale of the catch offset boat operating expenses such as bait, ice, and fuel. The owner divides 60% of the balance among the captain, the mate, and the crewmembers. He divides the other 40% between himself and the captain. The mate, the engineer, and the cook also each receive an extra $100 for each trip that brings back a certain minimum catch. The crewmembers do not receive any additional pay between voyages, but they must do certain work, such as repairing nets, splicing cable, and transporting the catch.
For purposes of employment and self-employment taxes, each crewmember (including the captain, mate, engineer, and cook) is considered self-employed. The owner must file Forms 1099-MISC to report amounts paid to them.


.......

OK, you get the picture, so I won't post the rest. BTW, I started at Chapter 3.

[Loki]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Outcast_Searcher', 'i')t would seem HIGH time for the courts to (reasonably comprehensively) legally codify what the difference is between a contractor and an employee,

[Newfie]

I suspect the IRS is the agency that will get after them, eventually.

[Loki]

Newfie, I'll admit to not reading all of your snippet of the law on contractor vs. employee with regards to fishing, but the overly complicated nature of it reminds me of working on a farm, something I do have experience with. Farmers are exempt from many of the labor regulations that other workers benefit from, most notably overtime. Doesn't matter if you work on the same farm year round, the owner can demand you work 50, 60, 70 hours a week at straight wage. This was what my former boss was doing, one of the main reasons I quit and found another job.

Sounds like the fishing industry has similar exemptions going back, no doubt, to the 19th century. I think all industries should be subject to the same rules. If some smaller players can't compete under these rules, too bad.