Accountability Now Posted October 7, 2014 Report Share Posted October 7, 2014 There's also a paper trail if you get paid cash. If you're audited you'd have to reconciled every deposit you make. You just pray you aren't. Not really. If I hand out a $20 bill for a tip then there is no trail there. That's why waiters and waitressess don't like the tipping via credit card as they now have to account for tips on their taxes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted October 7, 2014 Report Share Posted October 7, 2014 CRA does not need to audit everybody, they know they can get plenty of income with simply sending a letter threatening to audit. I know this for a fact. It is very effective, and in this case it would be extremely easy to contact every participant.. Yes. I was once told by the CRA that they are too busy catching people who are simply avoiding taxes all together to even look at people somewhat claiming things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 7, 2014 Report Share Posted October 7, 2014 Not really. If I hand out a $20 bill for a tip then there is no trail there. That's why waiters and waitressess don't like the tipping via credit card as they now have to account for tips on their taxes. You don't tip Uber drivers. A 20% gratuity is included in your fare that's paid via the app. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted October 7, 2014 Report Share Posted October 7, 2014 You don't tip Uber drivers. A 20% gratuity is included in your fare that's paid via the app. I know. I was referring to tipping in general...not Uber drivers. When I first used Uber I didn't know that tips were included and gave the guy $5. He looked at me like I was on drugs. Luckily he told me about the tipping and saved me a bunch of akward moments that week. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted October 7, 2014 Report Share Posted October 7, 2014 http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/uber-hiring-staff-in-vancouver-despite-city-moratorium-1.2789802 Vancouver put a moratorium on this for 6 months while they study the "issues" that Uber would cause. Two Ottawa Uber drivers were fined hundreds of dollars because that city has a moratorium as well. I think it's a great thing. Anything to make it more convenient for consumers, and offer competition to the very expensive cabs, is a good thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 7, 2014 Report Share Posted October 7, 2014 the whole cab thing is such a sham. When I was in Montreal, it cost me $48 before the tip to get a lift from the airport to my hotel. If you tip the customary 20%, then you're looking at $58. Who's going to give the driver $60 and ask for $2 back? Kind of petty. Anyway. It's ridiculously steep. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted October 7, 2014 Report Share Posted October 7, 2014 Yes. I was once told by the CRA that they are too busy catching people who are simply avoiding taxes all together to even look at people somewhat claiming things. What people are those that are avoiding taxes altogether? The main targets of CRA are the self employed and small to medium business. Poor/low income people don't pay taxes. Wage and salary earners have few deductions available and few tax dodges and most have already had a bit too much tax deducted at source. Big businesses have better lawyers and accountants than CRA, it is hard, expensive and time consuming to try and defeat them. That leaves,,,, what I said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted October 8, 2014 Report Share Posted October 8, 2014 (edited) the whole cab thing is such a sham. When I was in Montreal, it cost me $48 before the tip to get a lift from the airport to my hotel. If you tip the customary 20%, then you're looking at $58. Who's going to give the driver $60 and ask for $2 back? Kind of petty. Anyway. It's ridiculously steep. If you thought it was such a "sham" then just give dude a $2 tip. Edited October 8, 2014 by Boges Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 8, 2014 Report Share Posted October 8, 2014 If you thought it was such a "sham" then just give dude a $2 tip. Why? It's not like the driver is making the extra money. Some of it goes to airport, some of it goes to the cab company, the person driving the car gets a pittance. Why would I screw him over? He was friendly, courteous, and efficient at navigating Montreal gridlock traffic. He deserved his tip and in any case it's not about the tip. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 8, 2014 Report Share Posted October 8, 2014 http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/10/07/robyn-urback-cities-must-crack-down-on-the-scourge-of-convenient-efficient-taxi-service/National Post had this commentary on Uber. Looks like Ottawa has charged two people over the weekend with a $650 fine each for operating illegal cabs. Toronto is looking at their legal options, saying, "UberX may pose a serious safety risk to the public." What a fear-mongering load of crap. Come on out to the Maritimes where people routinely hitchhike everywhere along the highways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted October 8, 2014 Report Share Posted October 8, 2014 Why? It's not like the driver is making the extra money. Some of it goes to airport, some of it goes to the cab company, the person driving the car gets a pittance. Why would I screw him over? He was friendly, courteous, and efficient at navigating Montreal gridlock traffic. He deserved his tip and in any case it's not about the tip. But you were insinuating that the $48 flat rate mean that it naturally led to having to round up to a more than a 20% tip. If being a cab driver is such a crappy job then why are people so freaked out about Uber? It's kind of like being a Coal Miner. People are so defensive about people trying to ban using coal to generate electricity saying that it will cripple the coal mining industry. Isn't coal mining one of the worst jobs ever? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 8, 2014 Report Share Posted October 8, 2014 A better example of the airport issue is probably Fredericton. It's a small town and the airport is on the outskirts. A 10 minute cab ride from the airport, literally 10 minutes, costs a traveller $36. That's absurd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted October 8, 2014 Report Share Posted October 8, 2014 Not that I oppose the idea of Uber, but isn't stuff like this meant to cut the cost of doing business to the end user just another example of the "Race to the Bottom". It's bad that I go to a Big Box store for all my retail needs but it's OK to try and bankrupt the Taxi industry by having people driving around picking people up on their free time? Just sayin' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 8, 2014 Report Share Posted October 8, 2014 Why is that a race to the bottom, but cutting employees wages and benefits isn't? The fact is they pay their drivers better than the other companies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted October 8, 2014 Report Share Posted October 8, 2014 What people are those that are avoiding taxes altogether? The main targets of CRA are the self employed and small to medium business. Poor/low income people don't pay taxes. Wage and salary earners have few deductions available and few tax dodges and most have already had a bit too much tax deducted at source. Big businesses have better lawyers and accountants than CRA, it is hard, expensive and time consuming to try and defeat them. That leaves,,,, what I said. I don't know as I don't work for the CRA. I'm just repeating what I was told. The first thing that comes to mind is the off shore accounts that the CRA was trying to crack down on with their cheat hotline. Not sure if those guys were evadeing 'altogether' but still signifciant enough. For the most part these guys avoid taxes when sending it off shore and then will renegotiate when they want to bring the money back into Canada. The CRA realizes its better to get something than nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted October 8, 2014 Report Share Posted October 8, 2014 (edited) http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/10/07/robyn-urback-cities-must-crack-down-on-the-scourge-of-convenient-efficient-taxi-service/ National Post had this commentary on Uber. Looks like Ottawa has charged two people over the weekend with a $650 fine each for operating illegal cabs. Toronto is looking at their legal options, saying, "UberX may pose a serious safety risk to the public." What a fear-mongering load of crap. Come on out to the Maritimes where people routinely hitchhike everywhere along the highways. Oh don't you worry, they'll probably be putting a stop to that soon enough too. I get the sense our Nanny is a little torn and confused about this development but I'm confident the state will do the right thing and make our streets and communities safe for capitalism. They'll probably cut a deal with Uber. Edited October 8, 2014 by eyeball Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted October 8, 2014 Report Share Posted October 8, 2014 Not that I oppose the idea of Uber, but isn't stuff like this meant to cut the cost of doing business to the end user just another example of the "Race to the Bottom". It's bad that I go to a Big Box store for all my retail needs but it's OK to try and bankrupt the Taxi industry by having people driving around picking people up on their free time? Just sayin' I would have thought Uber would be celebrated as an innovative competitor, not portrayed as a potential threat to capitalism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted October 8, 2014 Report Share Posted October 8, 2014 I don't know as I don't work for the CRA. I'm just repeating what I was told. The first thing that comes to mind is the off shore accounts that the CRA was trying to crack down on with their cheat hotline. Not sure if those guys were evadeing 'altogether' but still signifciant enough. For the most part these guys avoid taxes when sending it off shore and then will renegotiate when they want to bring the money back into Canada. The CRA realizes its better to get something than nothing. Sure , CRA will have some staff chasing the rich or corporate with offshore stuff. But there is not much reward there relative to hammering the groups I mentioned, and it is much easier. Not so many rich people are dumb enough to risk jail terms to evade(not avoid) taxes. There are so many ways to legally avoid tax altogether. A very popular one is to stop being a legal resident of Canada, and become a legal resident of a country that has a tax treaty with Canada and have much lower taxes. Mexico and Costa Rica are two examples. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 8, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 8, 2014 Not that I oppose the idea of Uber, but isn't stuff like this meant to cut the cost of doing business to the end user just another example of the "Race to the Bottom". It's bad that I go to a Big Box store for all my retail needs but it's OK to try and bankrupt the Taxi industry by having people driving around picking people up on their free time? I don't know that the drivers for Uber make less money than the licensed taxi drivers who work for a few companies. Do you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted October 8, 2014 Report Share Posted October 8, 2014 I don't know that the drivers for Uber make less money than the licensed taxi drivers who work for a few companies. Do you? If that was the case then people would work for Uber full time. As far as I know it's a thing people do casually. Someone is losing money because Uber is popular, They're undercutting the competition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted October 8, 2014 Report Share Posted October 8, 2014 If that was the case then people would work for Uber full time. As far as I know it's a thing people do casually. Someone is losing money because Uber is popular, They're undercutting the competition. I wonder if they are undercutting anybody, really. There is a serious shortage of cabs in Edmonton. At times: rush hour, during bad weather and especially late at night every cab that wants to work is going flat out and could not make more revenue. Adding a bunch of Uber casuals would not make much difference to licensed cabs. But... it would reduce the value of their taxi licenses from $100k + to a lot less than that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted October 9, 2014 Report Share Posted October 9, 2014 (edited) They've only undercut the moguls, by evaporating the practically ill-gotten value of their licences and effectively turning a large aspect of our transportation infrastructure into a giant internet-based co-op. The real trick will be undercutting the ability of regulators and ultimately politicians to come to the rescue of the moguls. This is a serious assault on capitalism as we know it and especially the ability of the powers that be to rig the playing field against consumers. We should be volunteering to pay the fines of people that Nanny busts. Edited October 9, 2014 by eyeball Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted October 9, 2014 Report Share Posted October 9, 2014 This is a serious assault on capitalism as we know it and especially the ability of the powers that be to rig the playing field against consumers. It's not an assault on capitalism but on the cozy relationship between state power brokers and well-connected monopolists. It is the current anti-competitive arrangement that is an affront to capitalism, and now that the disruptive technology exists, it is only a matter of time before the existing regime is thrown out. If the government seriously cracks down on companies that try to do things legitimately and in the open, then alternatives will spring up that do things quietly and under the table and much harder for the government to control or tax. You can't put the lid back on pandora's box, and the wide availability of mobile data combined with the near total proliferation of smartphones will make all kinds of previously strictly monopoly-controlled services democratized. That is the wonder of technological progress. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted October 10, 2014 Report Share Posted October 10, 2014 It's not an assault on capitalism but on the cozy relationship between state power brokers and well-connected monopolists. Which is pretty much capitalism as we know these days.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted October 10, 2014 Report Share Posted October 10, 2014 It's not an assault on capitalism but on the cozy relationship between state power brokers and well-connected monopolists. It is the current anti-competitive arrangement that is an affront to capitalism, and now that the disruptive technology exists, it is only a matter of time before the existing regime is thrown out. If the government seriously cracks down on companies that try to do things legitimately and in the open, then alternatives will spring up that do things quietly and under the table and much harder for the government to control or tax. You can't put the lid back on pandora's box, and the wide availability of mobile data combined with the near total proliferation of smartphones will make all kinds of previously strictly monopoly-controlled services democratized. That is the wonder of technological progress. I don't care about the politics of it all, we can all wank on endlessly and solve nothing. What I would insist on from Uber or any other public carrier is to ensure that public safety is considered first. Any for-hire drivers should be licnsed both by the province for their driviers license and by the city for a local permit. AS it is now, for-hire drivers need a police screening, a fairly clean driving record, and the car must have liability insurance. In addition, vehicles should be safety inspected. Regual;r taxis have this stuff, and anybody carrying passengers for money needs it too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.