Uber.gov – It’s Time to Let the Government Drive

Re:Uber.gov – It’s Time to Let the Government Drive by blazespin on Wednesday December 03, 2014 @02:02AM (#8692259)

Uber and friends need to pay a tax which pays back (at least in part) all those who've invested in the current infrastructure based on assurances from Government. I'm not saying they have to get paid back for anything they have done that is speculative, but they need to get paid back something. Is it really that huge a tax to pay? I'm sure they could pay it back over 20 years or something and the government can write bonds against it to pay back taxi drivers immediately.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Uber.gov – It’s Time to Let the Government Drive by cheald on Wednesday December 03, 2014 @02:08AM (#8692284)

Just so we're clear, you're saying that a monopoly should be granted tax revenues to cover the loss of revenue incurred by a viable competitor emerging in the market, because they didn't anticipate that competitor emerging?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Uber.gov – It’s Time to Let the Government Drive by learc83 on Wednesday December 03, 2014 @02:25AM (#8692344)

I think the OP is saying that they need to be paid back because they made a purchase based on the government's promise to enforce a monopoly.

If I paid a million bucks for a taxi medallion, and then 6 months later medallions aren't necessary--either because the government changes the law or because the government fails to enforce the law--I'm going to want a refund.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Uber.gov – It’s Time to Let the Government Drive by cheald on Wednesday December 03, 2014 @03:15AM (#8692494)

If I make any business decision that turns out poorly for me, I'm going to want a refund. It doesn't mean I should be entitled to one.

This is, ostensibly, what contracts should cover. The medallion issuer should be subject to a series of conditions under which the medallion purchaser is entitled to some sort of recompense if the issuer breaches those conditions. Entering into a purchase contract for an item that is literally the life and death of your career, agreeing to terms in which the other party basically says "trust us, we'll do what we promise so you aren't completely ruined" is a terrible way to do business.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Uber.gov – It’s Time to Let the Government Drive by msellout on Wednesday December 03, 2014 @03:42AM (#8692543)

The chance of repeal or lack of enforcement should be factored into the price of the medallion. It's a free market, as they say.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Uber.gov – It’s Time to Let the Government Drive by icebraining on Wednesday December 03, 2014 @04:41AM (#8692738)

Whether they should be refunded is a valid question. But why should Uber pay for it? They weren't involved in that contract.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Uber.gov – It’s Time to Let the Government Drive by yzzxy on Wednesday December 03, 2014 @02:41AM (#8692399)

I just realized taxi medallions could be an good preview of what cap-and-trade will look like.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Uber.gov – It’s Time to Let the Government Drive by TimCinel on Wednesday December 03, 2014 @08:50AM (#8693683)

I cannot agree. No investment should be exempt from risk, not even government-enforced monopolies.

[ Parent | on HN ]