Uber in Waterloo Region

[ookpik]

The difference is that Uber accepts payment only by credit card. Unlike taxis there's always an electronic record of every payment. Also unlike taxis, there's no tipping. So in theory Uber drivers can't hide cash payments.

From what I've read in the media and on their website Uber pays a percentage of the fare revenue each driver generates. Presumably there must be some sort of statement that comes with each payment that lists all the trips made, dates/times, distances travelled, fares collected, etc. So if CRA should suspect that an Uber driver isn't reporting all earned income they should be able to ask for copies of such statements.

[panamaniac]

I imagine we'll start seeing periodic CRA crackdown audits of the sort that squeeze taxes from restaurant waitstaff. Same for AirBnB and similar rentals. The paper trail for Uber drivers would be pretty clear, between credit card receipts and the driver's log that I understand they are obliged to keep.

[ookpik]

I imagine CRA is monitoring the ride-sharing industry and will eventually introduce record-keeping and remittance rules for them just as they did a few years ago with online auction sites like eBay.

See e.g.
Airbnbers and Uber drivers be warned: your income is taxable
Important information for Canadian eBay members who were high-volume sellers in 2006, 2007 or 2008

Note also a separate Uber GST/HST Issue that may apply depending on what GST registration threshold applies to ride-sharing:

So what this means is that Uber drivers, if required to register for HST/GST, are actually being paid much less than they think. For example, if an Uber driver makes $100 nightly driving for Uber, in reality, (in Ontario), the Uber driver has actually made $87 and $13 of HST/GST which must be remitted to the federal government.

[kps]

So in theory Uber drivers can't hide cash payments.

Not having used it… what happens if you cancel the Uber request when the car arrives, and pay the driver a discounted cash fare?

[panamaniac]

So in theory Uber drivers can't hide cash payments.

Not having used it… what happens if you cancel the Uber request when the car arrives, and pay the driver a discounted cash fare?

Wouldn't that risk having the driver "blackball" you as an Uber passenger, if his ethics were better than yours?  I ask this without knowing since I'm not an Uber user.

[ookpik]

Not having used it… what happens if you cancel the Uber request when the car arrives, and pay the driver a discounted cash fare?

Wouldn't that risk having the driver "blackball" you as an Uber passenger, if his ethics were better than yours?  I ask this without knowing since I'm not an Uber user.

I'm not an Uber user (yet) either but I would think that less ethical drivers are also at risk of being blackballed—by Uber.  After all their app knows the passenger's current location and destination when they booked the ride. So Uber could tell if a ride gets cancelled but the vehicle then goes to the destination location anyway. That would suggest the driver and passenger made alternate payment arrangements that cut out Uber.

Also, depending on how this new ride-sharing insurance works, the insurer could insist that only fares paid through Uber would be insured.

Ain't all this new technology great? 

[panamaniac]

Wouldn't that risk having the driver "blackball" you as an Uber passenger, if his ethics were better than yours?  I ask this without knowing since I'm not an Uber user.

I'm not an Uber user (yet) either but I would think that less ethical drivers are also at risk of being blackballed—by Uber.  After all their app knows the passenger's current location and destination when they booked the ride. So Uber could tell if a ride gets cancelled but the vehicle then goes to the destination location anyway. That would suggest the driver and passenger made alternate payment arrangements that cut out Uber.

Also, depending on how this new ride-sharing insurance works, the insurer could insist that only fares paid through Uber would be insured.

Ain't all this new technology great? 

Good point.  Assuming insurance is in place, the absence of a paper trail would likely disqualify the driver from making a claim, leaving both driver and passenger at risk.  Maybe a case of technology that is both disruptive and self-enforcing, once all the kinks are worked out.

[ookpik]

Speaking of technology it's interesting to note that Google introduced Maps ~2006. At that time many pundits couldn't understand the point of online maps for general use. What few smartphones existed back then generally lacked GPS. (The iPhone for example didn't get GPS until the 3G model in ~2009.)

Who could have imagined back them what a clever company like Uber could accomplish with those two technological building blocks?

[Section ThirtyOne]

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/toront...police-say

Not related to Uber in Waterloo Region per se, but things getting a bit spicier for the Toronto taxi industry. They really don't need this type of negative publicity right now.

[ookpik]

More re Aviva. I caught part of an interview with an Aviva representative on CBC radio yesterday afternoon. He said that in order to get their Uber policy you must have personal auto insurance through them. They base their rate for ride-sharing coverage on whether you'll drive 0-10 or 10-20 hours per week. (More than 20 hrs and you're considered a commercial driver.) When asked how they'd enforce the hours estimate the rep said that when someone makes a claim they'll investigate with Uber.

So much for the concept of getting this sort of data on a regular basis and charging insurance based on the actual number of hours driven. So much for using all that wonderful technology for charging insurance on kilometers actually driven.

[nms]

So much for the concept of getting this sort of data on a regular basis and charging insurance based on the actual number of hours driven. So much for using all that wonderful technology for charging insurance on kilometers actually driven.

Baby steps are better than no steps at all.

[mpd618]

So much for the concept of getting this sort of data on a regular basis and charging insurance based on the actual number of hours driven. So much for using all that wonderful technology for charging insurance on kilometers actually driven.

There's a local company, Intelligent Mechatronic Systems, that offers these kinds of solutions to insurance companies.

[tomh009]

So much for the concept of getting this sort of data on a regular basis and charging insurance based on the actual number of hours driven. So much for using all that wonderful technology for charging insurance on kilometers actually driven.

It's the same as personal auto insurance, where rates are (partly) based on the length of the commute.  They don't ask for any evidence when you buy the policy, but they can do that when you make a claim.

[ookpik]

It's the same as personal auto insurance, where rates are (partly) based on the length of the commute.  They don't ask for any evidence when you buy the policy, but they can do that when you make a claim.

Yes, of course. But there's no ubiquitous technology for recording personal vehicle use. (Yes, as mpd618 points out the technology exists. But it's not widely used. Yes, some insurers now offer discounts if you let them install an OBDII-based monitor in your car. But again this isn't yet in wide use.)

The point I'm trying to make is that with Uber and other ride-sharing systems the necessary data is already being recorded for every driver. There's no added cost to install a monitor, to obtain that data, and there's no added invasion of privacy. It's already happening. So why not use that data rather than rely on the driver's best guess? Using this data would allow the insurer to charge premiums that most accurately reflect the risks they're insuring. Surely that's to the benefit of all parties involved. Why revert to previous century underwriting protocols?

A secondary point is my general aversion to post-claim underwriting, i.e. the practice of doing underwriting due diligence only after the client makes a claim, then denying that claim on any flimsy pretext. This is grossly unfair because it exposes the insured to the risk of claim denial for not having filled out the application form correctly or for failing to notify the insurer of some change of use even if this was inadvertent or due to a misunderstanding. I can understand why this was necessary in the previous century. But as our Prime Minister recently observed, maybe we should change old practice "because it's 20156." (Same thing with travel medical insurance. They take your money up-front. Then when you make a claim they look for "pre-existing conditions" and other facile excuses to deny your claim.)

[tomh009]

Yes, I do agree that it would make sense to use the technology. Assuming (1) Uber is willing to share the data with insurance companies and (2) the insurance companies are able to utilize that. I don't know whether either one is true at the moment, but I should hope to see this happen in the next year or two as Uber becomes a part of the standard business landscape.