Everybody knows Uber is lying about being a “ridesharing” company. The reason for this deception is to avoid spending money on essential safety costs that reputable and regulated for-hire vehicle services incur. These safety essentials include proper insurance, law enforcement conducted criminal background checks and regular vehicle inspections.
Worthy candidates take responsibility for their actions. By avoiding the high cost of appropriate insurance, Uber transfers its risk to its drivers, passengers, third parties such as pedestrians on the street, victims of property damage, cities, states, hospital emergency rooms, and even other private drivers paying increased personal insurance premiums.
Licensed taxicab and limousine companies pay licensing, operating and inspection fees, as well as corporate taxes, among other costs. Candidate Uber doesn’t. By claiming to be an Internet-based technology company—despite the fact that Uber physically places for-hire vehicles on local streets—the company avoids paying its fair share of local fees. Because Uber refuses to submit to taxicab regulations in the vast majority of cities in which it operates, Uber does not pay licensing fees and local taxes to most local communities.
Finally, there is the question of whether Uber has joined the “tax inversion.” Tax inversion, which many see as unpatriotic, involves establishing a foreign headquarters in order to avoid US corporate taxes on foreign profits. Uber, which began in San Francisco, has established its headquarters in the Netherlands. Has Candidate Uber joined the tax inversion?
If you care about your local community, would you vote for a candidate who had undertaken these actions—selfish, irresponsible and deceitful at every opportunity?