Seeing how much these companies lose and throw more money at to gain market share means you won't get more tax. Their revenue might be that high but not their profits.

What you should target them with is (1) anti-competitive behaviour and (2) employment rights for drivers. They have completely abused all systems and their drivers to get where they are but they are probably not breaking tax laws. It's an unsustainable model.

On the other side, the likes of McDonalds gain massively from the extra sales and probably do lots more of the dodgy stuff tax wise...

[–] BalpeenHammer@lemmy.nz 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

As I said elsewhere, it's easy to rig the numbers to show low profits. For example by paying your parent company in another country high franchise fees.

[–] Auth@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

thats not "rigging" and you have no proof thats being done. There is regulation that states payment for services from a parent by a subsidiary must be market rate. If that didnt exist susidaries would be able to get free services from a parent company and that would be anti competitive and generate less tax.

[–] BalpeenHammer@lemmy.nz 4 points 1 week ago

I don't have access to it but the proof is supposedly there in the tax filings. Having said that there is 100% probability they are paying their parent companies license fees and franchise fees.

in any case 402 million in revenue for a business who does nothing but clip tickets means there should be lot more profit and lot more taxes paid.

[–] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 9 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Paywalled.

[–] gila@lemmy.zip 6 points 1 week ago

https://archive.md/Pxhh3

[–] BalpeenHammer@lemmy.nz 2 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Headline says it all though.

[–] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 11 points 1 week ago (1 children)

No it doesn’t. You don’t pay tax on revenue, you pay it on profit. From what I can see before the paywall text shows, they barely made any profit.

[–] BalpeenHammer@lemmy.nz 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Profits are easy to fudge. You just pay your parent company some license fee or something and voila no profits.

[–] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 7 points 1 week ago

Sure, but the headline doesn’t say it all because you don’t pay tax on revenue.

[–] ProbablyBaysean@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Not quite. Net income could be small due to paying nz drivers so the taxable amount may only be 7m. 1m taxes off of 7m seems higher.

Also shifting income to another jurisdiction is considered "good management" by management. I hate it, but the rule is "if you can explain solid business logic in front of a judge with a straight face then the judge can't find issue with it". The law may be different in nz.

Most parent companies in the usa have hq in the tiny state of Delaware and massive "rent" payments from the "subsidiaries that do all the actual business" to the parent. Many states get into agreements for waste management to be taken over by a private company and all profits go to the local government... and the local subsidiary never turns a "profit". Sigh ...

[–] BalpeenHammer@lemmy.nz 2 points 1 week ago (34 children)

I guess if you can make up numbers about profits then it might make sense.

It's more likely tax evasion as you described. That's on us. We are too fucking stupid to prevent this kind of tax evasion. Well maybe not stupid, just corrupt as shit because they grease the palms of the parties and politicians to make sure they don't get taxes properly.

load more comments (34 replies)

[–] deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

So they had a company tax bill of $1m which would have been from a profit of $3m, so their expenses would have been $399m.

That's just accounting and that headline is just rage bait.

Or to put it another way, less than 1% profit, a bad investment.

[–] BalpeenHammer@lemmy.nz 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It's just not believable that a ticket clipping service which charges both the consumer and the restaurant is only making 1% profit. It's not like they are investing in equipment or holding inventory or anything like that.

[–] deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Oh totally. I don't doubt Uber is inflating their expenses.

Shifty journalism just bugs the hell out of me.

[–] BalpeenHammer@lemmy.nz 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

What are their expenses anyway? They don't have many employees, they don't have inventory, they probably have a decent sized amazon bill but I doubt it's that much given how small NZ market is.

[–] deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz 1 points 1 week ago

"Franchise fees".

[–] passwordforgetter@lemmy.nz 4 points 1 week ago (2 children)

If you use Uber, you're reducing restaurant profits. You might pay an extra $4 as a consumer, but the restaurants pay more than that. Better to dine in and give a tip in cash!

[–] BalpeenHammer@lemmy.nz 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I didn't know they charged the restaurants. I am surprised they would accept that deal.

[–] passwordforgetter@lemmy.nz 4 points 1 week ago

It gives restaurants access to more customers, but at a % cost. If you like a restaurant, you'll support it directly.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 1 points 1 week ago

Obviously it's better to find in lol what?

load more comments