Uber licence in London refused

Good I hadn't appreciated that as I don't keep up to date with stuff like that these days.

So still not sure if it is classed as a supply of services which is taking place in the U.K. They don't pay vat on it. Or am I getting muddled?

I think they can afford to do things more ethically.

13. Uber Is Uber-Rich. According to its most recent stock valuations, Uber is valued at around $60 to $70 billion, not bad for a company that’s just eight years old. It’s even more impressive when you consider that Uber is more valuable than both Ford (worth $60 billion) and GM ($55 billion). In fact, it’s the world’s most richly valued private company.

"7. Uber deducts a fifth of a driver’s income, which is already low. According to a GMB union member who works exclusively for Uber in London was paid £5.03 net per hour for 234 hours driving during the August calendar month. This is £1.47 per hour below the current national minimum wage of £6.50 per hour. For each hour he worked, he paid £2.65 to Uber, equating to 53 per cent of his net pay per hour. "

How can Uber do this if they are self-employed?

If Uber drivers were self-employed, they would not need to use Dutch VAT rates, because, as you say, no driver would ever have a turnover of £85,000 to pay VAT.

www.itv.com/news/london/2017-09-22/20-things-you-didnt-know-about-uber/

From this link. Some of the other things need looking at, too.

But they were told that their drivers were not separate businesses. They were told they employed them.

www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/28/uber-uk-tribunal-self-employed-status

Not sure of the VAT thing.

I think it is a supply for services taking place in the U.K.

That should be vat at standard rate.

But how uber get out of it is to claim that all their drivers are separate businesses. Vat gets paid on services on any individual earning more than I think £85k.

That will be what HMRC will be closely looking at and is a problem with so many businesses.

Hopefully they will get their practices right from now on, and then they can have their licence back.
I hope they also start paying their taxes here, too, so there is a level playing field for all taxi companies in the UK.

Uber has apologised

Not asking you to comment on EU VAT. You must have realised that - or are you just pretending not to know?

Uber processes all its work through its Dutch subsidiary.
That means all those who work for Uber in London do not have to charge VAT, because the money you pay them is not subject to UK VAT.
That is why Uber prices are so much cheaper.
The EU wants country- by- country reporting, which would mean that any work done in the UK would be subject to UK tax.
Do you think that is fairer?
Of course, if we left the EU, Uber could carry on doing what it wants.
It could not do EU tax, but it could arrange its tax affairs so it did it through the BVI.
Do you think it fair that a company that has 40,000 drivers, with millions of journeys each year, should be able to get away with not paying VAT?
I am sure you have not said that on any thread to do with DWP. I am sure you are completely against people cheating the system.

Uber acknowledges they were in the wrong.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41384499

I'm not sure why you've asked me to comment on EU VAT anomalies! I don't know why the Dutch have designed their tax system in that way to be honest, perhaps that's a loophole that will be more difficult to exploit after Brexit?

An interesting point from your link is the reference to 'Lyft' being preferred by drivers. They don't currently operate in the UK, so I'm not sure where ITV are getting their information from. Lyft do seem to be talking to TfL though, so it's interesting that the company crops up again.

Anyway, off out now, will take an Uber and see what my driver thinks of all this malarkey

" Uber’s tax arrangements are highly contested. Uber processes its jobs through its Dutch subsidiary, Uber BV, which allows Uber to charge a lower VAT rate. The Dutch VAT rate is 0 per cent for entrepreneurs conducting foreign businesses from the Netherlands; in the UK it’s 20 per cent. This allows Uber to offer super-low prices."

For those who don't like looking at links.

Do you think Uber should be allowed to do this, Primrose?

www.itv.com/news/london/2017-09-22/20-things-you-didnt-know-about-uber/

Look at the tax arrangements.

If the Times article today is accurate, I imagine Uber will have no problems with their challenge.

Data released under the Freedom of Information Act showed that TfL conducted ten inspections at Uber’s London headquarters and ruled that it “satisfied regulatory requirements”. In April Uber also successfully passed its annual compliance audit, which is thought to have involved 20 officials from TfL’s licensing department reviewing thousands of documents over two days.

Yesterday it emerged that Uber’s biggest competitor may be aiming to set up in London. Lyft, which operates only in the US, has spoken with TfL five times since last November.
[Uber] has had only one previous meeting with senior management at TfL this year and bosses refused to discuss the licensing process. A series of other meetings, including some with Mr Khan, were cancelled.

From what I have read, and I assume it is is largely accurate, these drivers are badly paid and pretty badly treated.

If it is correct that around 90% of the workforce are from an ethnic minority, it seems to me that the company could be open to allegations of exploitation. I don't think the phrase "playing the race card" is particularly acceptable in any circumstance but especially not when it is used in this situation where the company is responsible for vetting employees and setting out terms of working.

It is not, in my opinion, acceptable to employ possibly unfit, unsuitable and unsafe people or underpay and mistreat employees in order to achieve rock bottom prices
in order to seriously undercut any competitors in order to gain control of the market.

To say that if Uber is closed down these drivers will have no work is not a reason for continuing with bad and possibly unsafe practices. Using that argument, the flouting of any sort of health and safety regulations could be justified on the grounds that "at least they've got a job".

labourlist.org/2017/09/uber-has-its-licence-revoked-in-london-labour-movement-reacts/

"Of course it is absolutely disgraceful that Uber as a company hasn't cracked down on its terrible record of drivers committing sexual offences. But is putting 40,000 people's livelihoods at stake – people who are largely from ethnic minority backgrounds and who we can safely assume are from relatively unprivileged backgrounds – going to stop sex crimes?"

From the article. It looks to me here as though he's saying it's okay for Uber drivers to commit sex crimes as it saves jobs for BME drivers.
And to actually complain about Khan being responsible for stopping 40,000 BME people working?
They can get jobs working for other taxi companies, ones that follow the laws properly.

Yes, I read that too petra. It wasn't Uber according to the Standard, it was Iqbal Wahhab, former chairman of the Department of Work and Pensions Ethnic Minority Advisory Group who brought it to light. In an article for the International Business Times (but I have not read that).

www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2017/09/23/why-uber-deserves-to-lose-its-london-licence/

All they have to do is obey the laws that they claim to be obeying. Then they can keep their licence.

They are a very litigious company so I wouldn't be surprised if they went for anything they can find.

What rubbish. Where did you read that, petra?
It should make them more aware of the regulations and wanting to fit in.
Uber is a US company and tries to flout the regulations elsewhere.
Time they were shown that doesn't work here.

Ahhha - so that exempts them from following regulations?

I've just been reading that Uber could play the race card as 90% of their workers are from ethnic minorities.

Uber lost their licence in Sweden. A lot of drivers had no background checks at all.

The government wants to get rid of such regulations because they are no longer the Tory Governments of old but are being pushed by their neoliberal wing. Margaret Thatcher imposed neoliberalism on this country and people need to think about just how much good that has done on housing, etc., and, of course, trickle-down.

The very regulations that the government wants to get rid of when we leave the EU and the ECJ.

People criticise the Labour party for being close to the Tories as far as Brexit is concerned, but the biggest difference is in labour laws, which Corbyn wants to strengthen when they are imported.