ChrisPaul3
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2011
- Messages
- 1,229
- Reaction score
- 224
I guess I don't see how that's unique to Uber. Thousands of companies are funded by money from successful large companies that offshore revenue for tax purposes. Are tech companies sitting on tons of cash? Sure. So are lots of other international companies. And if they were sitting on half as much after paying more taxes would they still invest in Uber? Absolutely. You can't paint Uber as some unknown non-profitable startup. They're already profitable in almost every major city they started in. They were early innovators, not bullies. They started as a more expensive option to cabs, not "the Walmart of ride sharing."
Then there's the "in some markets Uber pricing doesn't cover the cost of fuel and car depreciation" nonsense. That's just absurd. A 10 mile trip costs like $1 in fuel and 80 cents in depreciation. Let me know when Uber starts charging less than $2 for rides into DC...
In the meantime Lyft is expecting to be profitable in 2016 with $1 billion in revenue forecasted. They've raised tons of money and somehow Google and the other Uber investors haven't squashed them with their willingness to "lose billions" to unfairly kill competition.
Just an absurd argument. If you wanted to be a successful ride sharing company you probably should have had the idea yourself instead of waiting 3 years, bandwagoning the idea and crying about how hard it is to get funding. I'm sure their next idea, FantasyFootballforMoney.com will unfairly lose out to DraftKings and FanDuel because of "taxes" as well...
Didn't read this cause its too long but totally agree