In message , at 00:33:03 on Wed, 22
May 2019, JNugent remarked:
On 21/05/2019 18:01, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 17:00:44 on Tue, 21
May 2019, JNugent remarked:

With Uber (which I have used only twice, neither time in the UK),
the* charges are payable to Uber. If UK VAT applies to their
charges in the* UK, it will have to be paid to Uber, presumably at
20% of the charge.* How Uber divide up the charge (ex-VAT) is up
to them, but all of it* will be liable to the tax if any of it is.

*The theory is that with taxi drivers below the £85k VAT limit,
they can't charge their riders VAT.

That's taxi-driving for you.

With Uber, the charge is not paid to the driver (and the drivers are
not taxi-drivers just as the cars are not taxis). The rider's sole
contract is with Uber itself.
Unless Uber is an agency and you are booking with the successfully
bidding driver, and as part of the agency agreement Uber pass your
money to them. Separately charging the driver a commission.

You have more or less described what we might call a "traditional
minicab" (traditional since 1960, that is). The driver gets paid by the
passenger and the driver pays a commission or radio circuit rent to the
operator. The operator's turnover consists of the aggregate of the
radio rent commissions paid to them by the drivers.

But it definitely isn't what happens with Uber. There, the passenger
pays Uber, and Uber pays a part of the charge to the driver.

Alternatively, the Uber pays [on paper] the whole charge to the driver,
but registers the fact that a commission is due, and at the end of the
day (or week or month or whatever their accounting period is) deducts
one from the other before handing over the *cash*.

It's 180 degrees the other way round from the Welbeck Minicab model.

*All* of the money is therefore part of Uber's turnover. And that's
before a penny of it reaches the driver, the driver merely being one of
Uber's overheads.

As this is a railway group, is the turnover of a booking site like
Trainline the whole of the fares they sell, or just the what? 9%
commission they get paid.
--
Roland Perry

On 22/05/2019 10:01, Roland Perry wrote:

on Wed, 22 May 2019, JNugent remarked: On 21/05/2019 18:01, Roland Perry wrote: JNugent
remarked:
With Uber (which I have used only twice, neither time in the UK),
theÂ* charges are payable to Uber. If UK VAT applies to their
chargesÂ* in theÂ* UK, it will have to be paid to Uber, presumably
at 20% ofÂ* the charge.Â* How Uber divide up the charge (ex-VAT) is
up to them,Â* but all of itÂ* will be liable to the tax if any of it
is.

Â*The theory is that with taxi drivers below the £85k VAT limit,
theyÂ* can't charge their riders VAT.

That's taxi-driving for you.

With Uber, the charge is not paid to the driver (and the drivers are
not taxi-drivers just as the cars are not taxis). The rider's sole
contract is with Uber itself.

Â*Unless Uber is an agency and you are booking with the successfully
bidding driver, and as part of the agency agreement Uber pass your
moneyÂ* to them. Separately charging the driver a commission.

You have more or less described what we might call a "traditional
minicab" (traditional since 1960, that is). The driver gets paid by
the passenger and the driver pays a commission or radio circuit rent
to the operator. The operator's turnover consists of the aggregate of
the radio rent commissions paid to them by the drivers.
But it definitely isn't what happens with Uber. There, the passenger
pays Uber, and Uber pays a part of the charge to the driver.

Alternatively, the Uber pays [on paper] the whole charge to the driver,
but registers the fact that a commission is due, and at the end of the
day (or week or month or whatever their accounting period is) deducts
one from the other before handing over the *cash*.

Is that what happens?

My impression is that Uber's accounting model is open and available and
matches what I suggested. All of the turnover, irepective of how it is
subsequently disbursed to the accounts of drivers or to any other
recipient, is Uber's turnover.

It's 180 degrees the other way round from the Welbeck Minicab model.

[The famous pioneer "minicab" firm which operated fleet and owner-driven
cars, but in whose business model, the drivers were paid in cash by the
passengers.]

*All* of the money is therefore part of Uber's turnover. And that's
before a penny of it reaches the driver, the driver merely being one
of Uber's overheads.

As this is a railway group, is the turnover of a booking site like
Trainline the whole of the fares they sell, or just the what? 9%
commission they get paid.

Uber do not get paid a commission of any percentage whatsoever. They pay
their drivers a commission / proportion / share of the turnover.

The only money the driver receives is from Uber. Even a tip if the
passenger decides to add one to Uber's charges.

In message , at 17:31:04 on Wed, 22
May 2019, JNugent remarked:
On 22/05/2019 10:01, Roland Perry wrote:

on Wed, 22 May 2019, JNugent remarked:
On 21/05/2019 18:01, Roland Perry wrote: JNugent
remarked:
With Uber (which I have used only twice, neither time in the
UK), the* charges are payable to Uber. If UK VAT applies to
their charges* in the* UK, it will have to be paid to Uber,
presumably at 20% of* the charge.* How Uber divide up the charge
(ex-VAT) is up to them,* but all of it* will be liable to the tax if any of it is.

*The theory is that with taxi drivers below the £85k VAT limit,
they* can't charge their riders VAT.

That's taxi-driving for you.

With Uber, the charge is not paid to the driver (and the drivers
are not taxi-drivers just as the cars are not taxis). The rider's
sole contract is with Uber itself.

*Unless Uber is an agency and you are booking with the successfully
bidding driver, and as part of the agency agreement Uber pass your
money* to them. Separately charging the driver a commission.

You have more or less described what we might call a "traditional
minicab" (traditional since 1960, that is). The driver gets paid by
the passenger and the driver pays a commission or radio circuit rent
to the operator. The operator's turnover consists of the aggregate of
the radio rent commissions paid to them by the drivers.
But it definitely isn't what happens with Uber. There, the passenger
pays Uber, and Uber pays a part of the charge to the driver.
Alternatively, the Uber pays [on paper] the whole charge to the
driver, but registers the fact that a commission is due, and at the
end of the day (or week or month or whatever their accounting period
is) deducts one from the other before handing over the *cash*.

Is that what happens?

My impression is that Uber's accounting model is open and available and
matches what I suggested. All of the turnover, irepective of how it is
subsequently disbursed to the accounts of drivers or to any other
recipient, is Uber's turnover.

Does that mean Uber gets all of the "surge pricing", or does some get
fed through to the driver? From driver anecdotes I think they do get a
wedge (because they arrange their shifts to be available at such times).

*All* of the money is therefore part of Uber's turnover. And that's
before a penny of it reaches the driver, the driver merely being one
of Uber's overheads.
As this is a railway group, is the turnover of a booking site like
Trainline the whole of the fares they sell, or just the what? 9%
commission they get paid.

Uber do not get paid a commission of any percentage whatsoever. They
pay their drivers a commission / proportion / share of the turnover.

This page says they take 25% commission:

https://www.uber.com/en-GH/drive/resources/payments/

The only money the driver receives is from Uber. Even a tip if the
passenger decides to add one to Uber's charges.

Less perhaps a small handling fee from Uber - the 25% mentioned above?
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 17:31:04 on Wed, 22
May 2019, JNugent remarked:
On 22/05/2019 10:01, Roland Perry wrote:

on Wed, 22 May 2019, JNugent remarked:
On 21/05/2019 18:01, Roland Perry wrote: JNugent
remarked:
With Uber (which I have used only twice, neither time in the
UK), theÂ* charges are payable to Uber. If UK VAT applies to
their chargesÂ* in theÂ* UK, it will have to be paid to Uber,
presumably at 20% ofÂ* the charge.Â* How Uber divide up the charge
(ex-VAT) is up to them,Â* but all of itÂ* will be liable to the tax if any of it is.

Â*The theory is that with taxi drivers below the £85k VAT limit,
theyÂ* can't charge their riders VAT.

That's taxi-driving for you.

With Uber, the charge is not paid to the driver (and the drivers
are not taxi-drivers just as the cars are not taxis). The rider's
sole contract is with Uber itself.

Â*Unless Uber is an agency and you are booking with the successfully
bidding driver, and as part of the agency agreement Uber pass your
moneyÂ* to them. Separately charging the driver a commission.

You have more or less described what we might call a "traditional
minicab" (traditional since 1960, that is). The driver gets paid by
the passenger and the driver pays a commission or radio circuit rent
to the operator. The operator's turnover consists of the aggregate of
the radio rent commissions paid to them by the drivers.
But it definitely isn't what happens with Uber. There, the passenger
pays Uber, and Uber pays a part of the charge to the driver.
Alternatively, the Uber pays [on paper] the whole charge to the
driver, but registers the fact that a commission is due, and at the
end of the day (or week or month or whatever their accounting period
is) deducts one from the other before handing over the *cash*.

Is that what happens?

My impression is that Uber's accounting model is open and available and
matches what I suggested. All of the turnover, irepective of how it is
subsequently disbursed to the accounts of drivers or to any other
recipient, is Uber's turnover.

Does that mean Uber gets all of the "surge pricing", or does some get
fed through to the driver? From driver anecdotes I think they do get a
wedge (because they arrange their shifts to be available at such times).

Yes, the surge pricing is designed to encourage more drivers to be
available to cope with increased demand. So the drivers certainly get a big
chunk of the higher price, perhaps even more than of the normal charge.
After all, if Uber is simply a matching service, its costs don't double if
demands are higher.

As an aside, we know Uber subsidises drivers in some cases, paying them
more than it collects from the customers. I think this again suggests that
the drivers are closer to being employees than independent contractors
merely linked through Uber's matching service.


*All* of the money is therefore part of Uber's turnover. And that's
before a penny of it reaches the driver, the driver merely being one
of Uber's overheads.
As this is a railway group, is the turnover of a booking site like
Trainline the whole of the fares they sell, or just the what? 9%
commission they get paid.

Uber do not get paid a commission of any percentage whatsoever. They
pay their drivers a commission / proportion / share of the turnover.

This page says they take 25% commission:

https://www.uber.com/en-GH/drive/resources/payments/

The only money the driver receives is from Uber. Even a tip if the
passenger decides to add one to Uber's charges.

Less perhaps a small handling fee from Uber - the 25% mentioned above?

From what I've read, Uber passes on the whole tip to the driver.

In message , at 15:40:11 on Fri, 24 May
2019, Recliner remarked:
My impression is that Uber's accounting model is open and available and
matches what I suggested. All of the turnover, irepective of how it is
subsequently disbursed to the accounts of drivers or to any other
recipient, is Uber's turnover.

Does that mean Uber gets all of the "surge pricing", or does some get
fed through to the driver? From driver anecdotes I think they do get a
wedge (because they arrange their shifts to be available at such times).

Yes, the surge pricing is designed to encourage more drivers to be
available to cope with increased demand. So the drivers certainly get a big
chunk of the higher price, perhaps even more than of the normal charge.
After all, if Uber is simply a matching service, its costs don't double if
demands are higher.

As an aside, we know Uber subsidises drivers in some cases, paying them
more than it collects from the customers. I think this again suggests that
the drivers are closer to being employees than independent contractors
merely linked through Uber's matching service.

Now that model *would* break the "driver gets passenger payment less
25%" model. Unless it's done via some kind of defined top-up, or
'guaranteed minimum' payment; in which case the driver might still get
the 75%, but plus a separate incentive payment from Uber.

There's also something complicated going on when Uber hands out "free
trip vouchers" to passengers, so the passenger isn't paying any cash.
But that could be rolled into such a minimum payment scheme.

*All* of the money is therefore part of Uber's turnover. And that's
before a penny of it reaches the driver, the driver merely being one
of Uber's overheads.
As this is a railway group, is the turnover of a booking site like
Trainline the whole of the fares they sell, or just the what? 9%
commission they get paid.

Uber do not get paid a commission of any percentage whatsoever. They
pay their drivers a commission / proportion / share of the turnover.

This page says they take 25% commission:

https://www.uber.com/en-GH/drive/resources/payments/

The only money the driver receives is from Uber. Even a tip if the
passenger decides to add one to Uber's charges.

Less perhaps a small handling fee from Uber - the 25% mentioned above?

From what I've read, Uber passes on the whole tip to the driver.

And so they should. Although a small fee to reflect the extra credit
card commission wouldn't be outrageous.
--
Roland Perry

On 24/05/2019 16:12, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 17:31:04 on Wed, 22
May 2019, JNugent remarked:
On 22/05/2019 10:01, Roland Perry wrote:

on Wed, 22 May 2019, JNugent remarked:
On 21/05/2019 18:01, Roland Perry wrote: JNugent
remarked:
With Uber (which I have used only twice, neither time in the
UK),Â* theÂ* charges are payable to Uber. If UK VAT applies to
theirÂ* chargesÂ* in theÂ* UK, it will have to be paid to Uber,
presumablyÂ* at 20% ofÂ* the charge.Â* How Uber divide up the
charge (ex-VAT) isÂ* up to them,Â* but all of itÂ* will be liable
to the tax if any of itÂ* is.

Â*The theory is that with taxi drivers below the £85k VAT limit,
theyÂ* can't charge their riders VAT.

That's taxi-driving for you.

With Uber, the charge is not paid to the driver (and the drivers
areÂ* not taxi-drivers just as the cars are not taxis). The rider's
soleÂ* contract is with Uber itself.

Â*Unless Uber is an agency and you are booking with the successfully
bidding driver, and as part of the agency agreement Uber pass your
moneyÂ* to them. Separately charging the driver a commission.

You have more or less described what we might call a "traditional
minicab" (traditional since 1960, that is). The driver gets paid by
the passenger and the driver pays a commission or radio circuit rent
to the operator. The operator's turnover consists of the aggregate
of the radio rent commissions paid to them by the drivers.
But it definitely isn't what happens with Uber. There, the passenger
pays Uber, and Uber pays a part of the charge to the driver.
Â*Alternatively, the Uber pays [on paper] the whole charge to the
driver,Â* but registers the fact that a commission is due, and at the
end of theÂ* day (or week or month or whatever their accounting period
is) deductsÂ* one from the other before handing over the *cash*.

Is that what happens?

My impression is that Uber's accounting model is open and available
and matches what I suggested. All of the turnover, irepective of how
it is subsequently disbursed to the accounts of drivers or to any
other recipient, is Uber's turnover.

Does that mean Uber gets all of the "surge pricing", or does some get
fed through to the driver? From driver anecdotes I think they do get a
wedge (because they arrange their shifts to be available at such times).

How Uber allocates their turnover is not relevant to the question of
what their turnover is.

Any business which pays out more than it previously did in wages or
overheads reduces profitability, but turnover only vchanges if turnover
changes.

*All* of the money is therefore part of Uber's turnover. And that's
before a penny of it reaches the driver, the driver merely being one
of Uber's overheads.
Â*As this is a railway group, is the turnover of a booking site like
Trainline the whole of the fares they sell, or just the what? 9%
commission they get paid.

Uber do not get paid a commission of any percentage whatsoever. They
pay their drivers a commission / proportion / share of the turnover.

This page says they take 25% commission:

https://www.uber.com/en-GH/drive/resources/payments/

That might be how they explain it. It is how a "normal" minicab company
works.

But:

The only money the driver receives is from Uber. Even a tip if the
passenger decides to add one to Uber's charges.

Less perhaps a small handling fee from Uber - the 25% mentioned above?

See above.

In message , at 18:05:47 on Fri, 24
May 2019, JNugent remarked:

How Uber allocates their turnover is not relevant to the question of
what their turnover is.

It is if the main way they "allocate" the funds is by sending 75% to the
drivers (on a booking agency basis) and keeping 25% commission.

Any business which pays out more than it previously did in wages or
overheads reduces profitability, but turnover only vchanges if turnover
changes.

The only overhead that the Uber that's paying 75% to drivers (and the
drivers paying all their costs like renting and insuring vehicles,
paying themselves a wage etc) has, is running its booking platform.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 18:05:47 on Fri, 24
May 2019, JNugent remarked:

How Uber allocates their turnover is not relevant to the question of
what their turnover is.

It is if the main way they "allocate" the funds is by sending 75% to the
drivers (on a booking agency basis) and keeping 25% commission.

Any business which pays out more than it previously did in wages or
overheads reduces profitability, but turnover only vchanges if turnover
changes.

The only overhead that the Uber that's paying 75% to drivers (and the
drivers paying all their costs like renting and insuring vehicles,
paying themselves a wage etc) has, is running its booking platform.

I think it's a bit more than that. For example, Uber has to vet its
drivers, something else that suggests that it's more than just a booking
platform.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/uber-drivers-forced-to-have-new-criminal-record-check-zf6ctss07?shareToken=3fc2ded3581dd027f86d8376f2e03 46d

On 24/05/2019 21:11, Roland Perry wrote:

JNugent remarked:

How Uber allocates their turnover is not relevant to the question of
what their turnover is.

It is if the main way they "allocate" the funds is by sending 75% to the
drivers (on a booking agency basis) and keeping 25% commission.

How?

They are still turning the money over, no matter how it is sliced up
after receipt.

It goes through their bank account. It is all part of the turnover.
That's what turnover *means*. They could pay the drivers 99% of the
turnover, but it's still turnover.

If it were otherwise, any small enterprise on the verge of the
compulsory VAT registration turnover quantum could, by sleight of hand,
deduct the amounts they are liable to pay out for wages (that's the
biggy), business rates, fuel duties and VAT, national insurance, etc,
and claim not to be turning over enough to be forced to register.

Any business which pays out more than it previously did in wages or
overheads reduces profitability, but turnover only vchanges if
turnover changes.

The only overhead that the Uber that's paying 75% to drivers (and the
drivers paying all their costs like renting and insuring vehicles,
paying themselves a wage etc) has, is running its booking platform.

The amount of their overheads isn't important. The principle *is*.

If they want to avoid VAT liability on turnover, they need to let the
drivers collect the fares (like a real private hire operation) and avoid
making it part of their revenue.

In message , at 20:50:20 on Fri, 24 May
2019, Recliner remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 18:05:47 on Fri, 24
May 2019, JNugent remarked:

How Uber allocates their turnover is not relevant to the question of
what their turnover is.

It is if the main way they "allocate" the funds is by sending 75% to the
drivers (on a booking agency basis) and keeping 25% commission.

Any business which pays out more than it previously did in wages or
overheads reduces profitability, but turnover only vchanges if turnover
changes.

The only overhead that the Uber that's paying 75% to drivers (and the
drivers paying all their costs like renting and insuring vehicles,
paying themselves a wage etc) has, is running its booking platform.

I think it's a bit more than that. For example, Uber has to vet its
drivers, something else that suggests that it's more than just a booking
platform.

Getting drivers through a credential check when joining the scheme is
one of the components of running the booking platform, just like doing
the billing. Those aspects are driver-facing, whereas the public mainly
sees the passenger-facing ones.

--
Roland Perry