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

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

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 11:56:16 on Sat, 25
May 2019, JNugent remarked:
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 you look at a company like TheTrainline, the turnover they quote is
just the commission from the Train Operators (and some fixed transaction
fees from customers) [in the region of £150 million], not the total of
all the fares people buy [in the region of £2 billion].

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.

You are fatally confusing gross profit margin with turnover.

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.

I don't think credit card companies include the total value of things
purchased with their cards in their turnover. But they do collect the
money from buyers, deduct a commission, they pay the balance to
vendors. And like no doubt Uber, they don't pay the whole amount out and
then send an invoice asking for the commission back whenever the trader
feels like it.
--
Roland Perry

On 26/05/2019 18:21, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:56:16 on Sat, 25
May 2019, JNugent remarked:
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.
Â*It is if the main way they "allocate" the funds is by sending 75% to
theÂ* 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 you look at a company like TheTrainline, the turnover they quote is
just the commission from the Train Operators (and some fixed transaction
fees from customers) [in the region of £150 million], not the total of
all the fares people buy [in the region of £2 billion].

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.

You are fatally confusing gross profit margin with turnover.

That is exactly what I am not doing.

Turnover is turnover. Profit, whether gross or net, is something other
than turnover and somewhat less in size.

Profit is not the deciding factor when it comes to VAT registration.
Only turnover counts.

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

Â*The only overhead that the Uber that's paying 75% to drivers (and
theÂ* drivers paying all their costs like renting and insuring
vehicles,Â* 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.

I don't think credit card companies include the total value of things
purchased with their cards in their turnover. But they do collect the
money from buyers, deduct a commission, they pay the balance to
vendors. And like no doubt Uber, they don't pay the whole amount out and
then send an invoice asking for the commission back whenever the trader
feels like it.

I don't now about you, but I pay money to my credit card issuers.

They don't pay money to me.

They pay out money *for* me, but really, it's about as bad an analogy as
you could have chosen. The relationship structure is completely
different from that of Uber. In order to get it to look similar, you'd
have to posit the credit card issuer getting my income paid into their
bank account instead of mine and then letting me have some, but not all,
of it.

In message , at 22:53:38 on Sun, 26
May 2019, JNugent remarked:
On 26/05/2019 18:21, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:56:16 on Sat, 25
May 2019, JNugent remarked:
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 you look at a company like TheTrainline, the turnover they quote
is just the commission from the Train Operators (and some fixed
transaction fees from customers) [in the region of £150 million], not
the total of all the fares people buy [in the region of £2 billion].

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.
You are fatally confusing gross profit margin with turnover.

That is exactly what I am not doing.

Turnover is turnover. Profit, whether gross or net, is something other
than turnover and somewhat less in size.

Profit is not the deciding factor when it comes to VAT registration.
Only turnover counts.

The turnover for someone like Uber or TheTrainline being the commission
element, not including the money that passes straight through to the
drivers and Train Companies respectively.

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


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.

I don't think credit card companies include the total value of things
purchased with their cards in their turnover. But they do collect the
money from buyers, deduct a commission, they pay the balance to
vendors. And like no doubt Uber, they don't pay the whole amount out
and then send an invoice asking for the commission back whenever the
trader feels like it.

I don't now about you, but I pay money to my credit card issuers.

That's what I wrote. They collect the money you pay to them, and channel
it through to the merchants.

They don't pay money to me.

I didn't suggest they did. They pay money to merchants. But that's money
from you to the merchant, and isn't part of the card issuer's turnover.

They pay out money *for* me,

Just like Uber pays money *for* the passengers, to the drivers (well,
that's the accounting model we are exploring).

but really, it's about as bad an analogy as you could have chosen. The
relationship structure is completely different from that of Uber. In
order to get it to look similar, you'd have to posit the credit card
issuer getting my income paid into their bank account instead of mine
and then letting me have some, but not all, of it.

I's not about the flow at your end, but at the driver's end.

Yes, the card issuer pays money it has derived from you, into the
merchant's bank account, while deducting a small commission (my
financial model here is that they don't pay it all up front, and then
expect the merchant to pay them back the commission later).
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 22:53:38 on Sun, 26
May 2019, JNugent remarked:
On 26/05/2019 18:21, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:56:16 on Sat, 25
May 2019, JNugent remarked:
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.
Â*It is if the main way they "allocate" the funds is by sending 75%
to theÂ* 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 you look at a company like TheTrainline, the turnover they quote
is just the commission from the Train Operators (and some fixed
transaction fees from customers) [in the region of £150 million], not
the total of all the fares people buy [in the region of £2 billion].

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.
You are fatally confusing gross profit margin with turnover.

That is exactly what I am not doing.

Turnover is turnover. Profit, whether gross or net, is something other
than turnover and somewhat less in size.

Profit is not the deciding factor when it comes to VAT registration.
Only turnover counts.

The turnover for someone like Uber or TheTrainline being the commission
element, not including the money that passes straight through to the
drivers and Train Companies respectively.

Yes, Uber refers to Gross Bookings and Revenue. The latter slipped to about
21.3% of the former in Q4 2018.

"Compared to the entire fiscal year of 2017, Uber’s gross bookings
increased 45 percent, to $50 billion in 2018. That resulted in a GAAP
revenue increase of 43 percent, from 2017 to $11.3 billion. Losses also
improved (decreased) from $2.2 billion in adjusted EBITDA losses in 2017 to
$1.8 billion in 2018. "

https://techcrunch.com/2019/02/15/uber-reports-3b-in-q4-revenue-rising-operating-losses/

On 28/05/2019 15:08, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 22:53:38 on Sun, 26
May 2019, JNugent remarked:
On 26/05/2019 18:21, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:56:16 on Sat, 25
May 2019, JNugent remarked:
On 24/05/2019 21:11, Roland Perry wrote:

JNugent remarked:

How Uber allocates their turnover is not relevant to the question
ofÂ* what their turnover is.
Â*It is if the main way they "allocate" the funds is by sending 75%
toÂ* theÂ* 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.
Â*If you look at a company like TheTrainline, the turnover they quote
isÂ* just the commission from the Train Operators (and some fixed
transactionÂ* fees from customers) [in the region of £150 million],
not the total ofÂ* all the fares people buy [in the region of £2
billion].

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.
Â*You are fatally confusing gross profit margin with turnover.

That is exactly what I am not doing.

Turnover is turnover. Profit, whether gross or net, is something other
than turnover and somewhat less in size.

Profit is not the deciding factor when it comes to VAT registration.
Only turnover counts.

The turnover for someone like Uber or TheTrainline being the commission
element, not including the money that passes straight through to the
drivers and Train Companies respectively.

If Uber only received a commission or circuit fee from the driver, that
would be correct and I would certainly not argue with your proposition.

But how can that correct be in the circumstance where they also turn
over the whole of the fare collected from the passenger (account-holder)
on the spot?

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

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

The amount of their overheads isn't important. The principle *is*.
If they want to avoid VAT liability on turnover, they need to let
theÂ* drivers collect the fares (like a real private hire operation)
andÂ* avoid making it part of their revenue.

I don't think credit card companies include the total value of things
purchased with their cards in their turnover. But they do collect the
money from buyers, deduct a commission, they pay the balance to
vendors. And like no doubt Uber, they don't pay the whole amount out
andÂ* then send an invoice asking for the commission back whenever the
traderÂ* feels like it.

I don't now about you, but I pay money to my credit card issuers.

That's what I wrote. They collect the money you pay to them, and channel
it through to the merchants.

They don't pay money to me.

I didn't suggest they did. They pay money to merchants. But that's money
from you to the merchant, and isn't part of the card issuer's turnover.

Indeed. They are financial trading entities operating as registered /
recognised banks licenced by the state. They lend money (part of their
capital assets) and only the fees and charges they receive are their
turnover.

Does that apply to Uber?

They pay out money *for* me,

Just like Uber pays money *for* the passengers, to the drivers (well,
that's the accounting model we are exploring).

but really, it's about as bad an analogy as you could have chosen. The
relationship structure is completely different from that of Uber. In
order to get it to look similar, you'd have to posit the credit card
issuer getting my income paid into their bank account instead of mine
and then letting me have some, but not all, of it.

I's not about the flow at your end, but at the driver's end.

Yes, the card issuer pays money it has derived from you, into the
merchant's bank account, while deducting a small commission (my
financial model here is that they don't pay it all up front, and then
expect the merchant to pay them back the commission later).