Am not sure that this should be seen as an Uber victory. They accepted the previous ruling by TfL, that they were not fit and proper, was correct and have had to pay costs. They have now been granted a temporary licence on condition that they change their working practices. Surely a TfL victory in that case?
Meanwhile, trouble is far from over for tax avoiding Uber:
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author
Ah Jolyon Maugham - an activist lawyer using a
crowdfunder to create a campaign against Uber, Ā£20,000 of which comes from an organisation āconnected with the black cab tradeā
Uber is a service that connects drivers with customers. Drivers pay all the tax due in the U.K.
They generally earn less than Ā£85K (less than black cabs), so Uber drivers are not required to register for VAT.
It would not make sense for an app developer to pay VAT on behalf of people that use the app.
If Iām a photographer and use a photography app, it would not make any sense for the developer of the photo app to pay the VAT on photos I sell to my customers.
But if you were also the developer of the app, then you should. Uber are avoiding billions of tax pounds.
This was a report by the Times. Rather than attacking one of the sources for it, why not address the issues?
I did address the issue. There are plenty of things I could say about Maugham but elected not to, as weāre not in @general_politics and I donāt want to lower the tone.
Iām not sure what you mean? The Uber driver is not the developer of the app. The photographer in my example is not the developer of the app.
If the app was sold for Ā£5 to Uber drivers or customers, I would fully expect Uber to pay Ā£1 VAT to the U.K. treasury.
But the app is free, so why should Uber pay VAT?
Because it is selling a service as a broker. Not only does the app add value but it is arguable that the business couldnāt happen without it. They could, as a licensed cab hire company, ply their business via a different channel, but choose not to.
AFAIK brokers (eg IFAs, Insurance brokers etc) are not liable for collecting VAT on the services they link clients with. It is the service provider that collects VAT if liable.
Insurance is exempt from VAT. This isnāt insurance.
Our MP asked a question in the House yesterday relevant to Uber.
What it impressed me the most was the calm and direct way she asked the question. And the calm and direct answer she received from the Minister. From each no political point scoring. No avoidance. No one-liners designed for social media. And shouting from the benchesā¦ though granted there was hardly anyone at work.
Wonderful.
I wonder about impacts of possible govt intervention on both Uber and Black Cabs - because in both cases the drivers are self employed.
I also choose to be self employed because it works best for me and my way of working. Like Uber drivers, I have flexibility to work as and when I want to. I hope the government will not intervene and prevent people from working the way they want to.
If any Uber driver wanted to become an employee of a company, they are at liberty to find a private hire company that will offer this arrangement.
IMO it is none of our business how Uber or drivers operate, provided they offer a safe and fair service to consumers.
ETA: I just spotted this is in the main forum. Happy for mine and @Starmanās comments to be moved to #general-politics
Really the whole thread should be there. Bear in mind that the thread was started with a link to an Evening Standard article. Who happen to be paid handsomely to write nice things about Uber (and others):
Oh dear. The organiser of the Sadiq balloon and the anti-Sadiq rally (proposed for September 1st) is linking Londonās violent sexual crime and terrorism to Uber driversā¦ and blaming Sadiq for permitting them on the streets. Thereās even a t-shirt.