IS UBER GOOD FOR US?
It is easy enough to appreciate why people like Uber, the car service. After all, what is there not to like? Ordering transport is now as easy as ordering takeout pizza online. It is a relatively simple and convenient point of sale platform that brings together commuters and vehicles for hire that also provides for a cashless payment system. No negotiations, no hassles.
Offhand, it seems that Uber is an idea whose time has finally come. It is the convergence of need, opportunity, and technology.
Uber is not for everybody, however. For one, it can be more expensive at times than most public transportation.
To the occasional commuter, who has both the technology and the finances for it, the system is a blessing. To those who have tried Uber, feedback has been generally positive. It is, in my opinion, a very viable and convenient alternative to driving on your own. And while cost is higher than being self- driven, convenience makes up for it particularly during heavy traffic.
However, I do have some misgivings about how the system is set up, and whether or not the service benefits the public in general — as opposed to just the middle- to upperclass segment of the commuting public. More Uber cars on the road also means greater competition for limited road space, but at the same time “moving” fewer commuters as opposed to mass transit.
I honestly believe that in Metropolitan Manila, mass transit is still the way to go, may these be more commuter trains or light rail transits. This will be matched by doubledeck buses in certain routes.
But jeepneys will have to go as having become outmoded technology, the same goes for tricycles and pedicabs.
Obviously, one can easily argue that such strategy is anti- poor. To that I reply, yes and no. It can be antipoor only if single deck buses, jeepneys, tricycles, and pedicabs will be unilaterally removed without a viable and efficient mass transit in place. After all, even the poor can afford to take the train — if there is a train to take.
But going back to Uber, my issue is more in line with regulation. I have checked the system, and it seems anybody with a car and a valid driver’s license can apply to be an Uber car and driver. It doesn’t seem like any other government regulatory standard or permit is required. This, to an extent, puts Uber cars farther from the reach of the law.
Secondly, who pays the tax on all the income from the service? When you request for Uber service, you pay the fare electronically. A receipt is sent to you via e-mail. And it appears, the service is not taxed: no VAT or sales tax paid. Considering that public transport is not subject to such taxes, there is still the common carriers tax and income tax to be reckoned with. Who pays for these?
The Uber car owner derives income from the service. How and where does he declare his income for tax purposes? The Uber driver derives incomes from the service as well. Again, how and where does he declare his income for tax purposes? Last but not least is Uber itself, which is presumably earning a “commission” from the service. How and where does it declare income and pay tax?
Third, do Uber cars carry liability insurance much like other public transportation? Or, are these “private” cars all privately insured by their owners? If so, these Uber cars are not being used “commercially” and not just privately. Doesn’t this invalidate their insurance coverage, comprehensive or otherwise? In case of accident, and claim denied, who then answers for these cars’ liabilities?
Such insurance coverage also carries compulsory and maybe voluntary third party liability. Compulsory Third Party Liability ( CTPL), of course, is required for motor vehicle registration. But isn’t using the private car “commercially” for Uber service also effectively invalidates such CTPL coverage? If so, can it still be questioned if the car’s registration can be invalidated as well?
Fourth, public transport drivers are supposed to be “professional” drivers possessing professional driver’s licenses. But what about own-er-driven Uber cars? Are all these “owner-drivers” holding professional licenses? Have they undergone proper training and orientation as public transportation drivers?
Last but not least is “surge” pricing or charging a premium during off- hours and peak hours. Surge pricing is supposedly driven by supply and demand, and rates automatically go up when demand is high or supply is low, or both. But the system is transparent and fully accountable. The commuting public does not see or know the formula or algorithm used, so they surge may or may not be “justified.” And yet it is charged.
Don’t get me wrong, I am definitely not anti- Uber. Neither am I pro- taxi or pro anything. I am an occasional commuter and I find Uber convenient and practical. However, I cannot help but wonder whether Uber is really a good thing for us. I see some downside, especially when there are complaints, negative incidents, or accidents.
I cannot offer suggestions as to how to resolve these questions. But I still believe they need to be asked and clarified if only to ensure the full protection of the public from abuse or plain profiteering. And I will hate to learn later on that some people are evading taxes while the rest of us are made to pay them. abor mobility and migration across countries and continents is a result of push and pull factors in both the labor exporting and labor importing or receiving countries. Labor-surplus countries generally have lower wages and labor skills due to limited employment opportunities while labor-deficit countries generally have higher wages and skills training.
If labor migration is heavily restricted via multiple regulations and permits, taxes and mandatory contributions — if not prohibited outright — the wage gap and income inequality between the labor- surplus and labor- deficit countries will worsen.
If labor migration is less restricted, then the wage gap and income inequality between the two group of countries will narrow or lessen. And if such migration is fully allowed and assured, then global wages per industry and sub-industry, wages per skills levels — other things being equal or held constant — will move towards equilibrium or near-equality.
Remittances of nationals who are working abroad are among the biggest sources of revenues of both governments and households for many countries in the world today. The top five in remittance inflows worldwide are India, China, Philippines, Mexico, and France. (See Table 1)
In Southeast Asia, learning the trade of labor migration rather quickly aside from the Philippines are Vietnam and Indonesia. From 2004 to 2014 or in just one decade, Vietnam’s remittances have expanded 5.2 times while Indonesia’s have expanded 4.6 times over the same period. Impressive.
In South Asia, besides India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Nepal are also learning the ropes as well. Nepal in particular is very dependent on remittances, which comprise nearly 30% of its GDP in 2014.
In Africa, Nigeria’s remittances have expanded nearly 10 times from 2004 to 2014 and Egypt’s have expanded nearly 6 times. In Europe, Ukraine’s remittances increase over the same period was the fastest in the world, expanded by almost 18 times.
The Philippines’ remittances expansion over the same period was no longer huge as the big jump was experienced in the 80s and 90s. There are differences in the figures by the World Bank ( WB) and the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP).
For instance, based on BSP data: 2014 remittances reached $24.35B (vs WB’s $28.4B).
For 2015, BSP’s forecast is $ 25.3B while WB’s forecast is $ 29.7B. The difference could be due to different accounting method used by the WB that applies to other countries in its global database.
It should be noted that the numbers are only for remittances that pass through the formal banking and remittance centers. They do not include money that are brought in personally by the migrant workers when they come home, or via relatives and close friends coworkers returning home.
Estimates of total remittances in the Philippines via formal financial channels + personal/informal channels range from $35 to $40 billion in 2015 alone.
The Center for Indonesian Policy Studies (CIPS), a new and
More Uber cars on the road also means greater competition for limited road space, but at the same time “moving” fewer commuters as opposed to mass transit.