# Uber pay your taxes AB5 is the law!!!!!!



## AB5 (Mar 29, 2020)

Dara you own lot of taxes. AB5 is law. Vote a big NO on Prop 22!!!! Drivers are not Uber Serfs. Stop surfing for Uber. We are EMPLOYEES!!! AB5 for live. Lorena Gonzalez for President


----------



## The Gift of Fish (Mar 17, 2017)

Well, I'm glad that I will no longer have to look for surfing memes and photos. I guess that's progress!


----------



## Fusion_LUser (Jan 3, 2020)




----------



## AB5 (Mar 29, 2020)

No on Prop 22.


----------



## The Gift of Fish (Mar 17, 2017)

Fusion_LUser said:


> View attachment 506558


The dude knows how to spell serf now, though. Surfing no longer applies.


----------



## AB5 (Mar 29, 2020)

Prop 23 end the government and let companies control everything. Prop 24 end Social Security. Prop 25 end Medicare. Prop 26 End workmans comp. Prop 27 end employment

Oh wait that already is all in Prop 22.


----------



## Wildgoose (Feb 11, 2019)

AB5 said:


> Dara you own lot of taxes. AB5 is law. Vote a big NO on Prop 22!!!! Drivers are not Uber Serfs. Stop surfing for Uber. We are EMPLOYEES!!! AB5 for live. Lorena Gonzalez for President


Uber and Lyft will never make drivers as their employees. There are a lot of alleged sexual assault laws suit by women on Uber and Lyft. Meanwhile, They can sway away from these kind of law suits by point out drivers are independent contractors. If Drivers were their employees, they are going to loose money for sure. So, dream on becoming an employee. There is no way it is going to happen.


----------



## NicFit (Jan 18, 2020)

AB5 is nothing more then a way for California to collect taxes and it was never about the workers. Uber and Lyft have been popular since at least 2014, if not earlier and if they were doing something illegal they would of stopped it right then and there when it first started. To wait 6 years or more is not because it’s illegal it’s because they want to make more money off of it

Vote Yes on Prop 22


----------



## The Gift of Fish (Mar 17, 2017)

NicFit said:


> Uber and Lyft have been popular since at least 2014, if not earlier and if they were doing something illegal they would of stopped it right then and there when it first started. To wait 6 years or more is not because it's illegal it's because they want to make more money off of it


Nobody is saying that misclassifying employees as IC was illegal in 2014. It should be easy to understand that the legislation prohibiting misclassification did not exist before it was passed, in the same way that nothing exists before it exists.

Laws generally define actions that are illegal. Therefore, before a law existed it is possible that the specified actions were legal. Take cocaine, for example. The law that made it illegal had an effective date of March 1, 1915. On February 28, 1915, you could have walked up to a policeman and snorted cocaine right in front of him. He might have thought you a little odd, but you could have done it without repercussion. However, if you did the same thing the next day on March 1, you would have been arrested. Why? Because using cocaine was legal on February 28 but illegal on March 1.

It is the same with AB5. Its effective date was January 1, 2020. It was legal in California for companies to misclassify employees as contractors before this date, and it became illegal to do so on this date.

You may ask why California lawmakers waited until 2019 to pass AB5. It is because AB5 is simply the codification of the 2018 Supreme Court ruling in the Dynamex case, which laid out the framework for deciding the classification of workers. That case had been ongoing since 2005 and it was necessary for that case to be decided before legislation such as AB5 could happen.

On a different but related note, there is the question of whether AB5 will be made retroactive so that employees who have been misclassified as employees can recover unpaid wages and benefits prior to January 1, 2020. The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on that.


----------



## NicFit (Jan 18, 2020)

The Gift of Fish said:


> Nobody is saying that misclassifying employees as IC was illegal in 2014. It should be easy to understand that the legislation prohibiting misclassification did not exist before it was passed, in the same way that nothing exists before it exists.
> 
> Laws generally define actions that are illegal. Therefore, before a law existed it is possible that the specified actions were legal. Take cocaine, for example. The law that made it illegal had an effective date of March 1, 1915. On February 28, 1915, you could have walked up to a policeman and snorted cocaine right in front of him. He might have thought you a little odd, but you could have done it without repercussion. However, if you did the same thing the next day on March 1, you would have been arrested. Why? Because using cocaine was legal on February 28 but illegal on March 1.
> 
> ...


It seems like AB5 killed independent contractors that want to work in conjunction with a company. California is just being haters at this point, here's an interesting story too

https://capitolweekly.net/dynamex-ruling-roils-workforce/
Problem is that some people want to be independent contractors and some don't, I want cash instead of benefits, plus the flexibility to reject jobs and work when I want. I don't think anything will solve this and California is just saying no more independent contractors so they don't have to listen to anymore crybabies

This was also in the article so I know part of this is about the cash

"The misclassification of independent contractors also costs California an estimated $7 billion per year in payroll tax revenue, according to the state Department of Industrial Relations."


----------



## AB5 (Mar 29, 2020)

NicFit said:


> It seems like AB5 killed independent contractors that want to work in conjunction with a company. California is just being haters at this point, here's an interesting story too
> 
> https://capitolweekly.net/dynamex-ruling-roils-workforce/
> Problem is that some people want to be independent contractors and some don't, I want cash instead of benefits, plus the flexibility to reject jobs and work when I want. I don't think anything will solve this and California is just saying no more independent contractors so they don't have to listen to anymore crybabies
> ...


Uber and Dara pay your TAXES!!!! Follow the law!!!!


----------



## NicFit (Jan 18, 2020)

AB5 said:


> Uber and Dara pay your TAXES!!!! Follow the law!!!!


Screw that, I want the money, not the state

Vote Yes on Prop 22 &#128405;


----------



## The Gift of Fish (Mar 17, 2017)

NicFit said:


> It seems like AB5 killed independent contractors that want to work in conjunction with a company. California is just being haters at this point, here's an interesting story too
> 
> https://capitolweekly.net/dynamex-ruling-roils-workforce/
> Problem is that some people want to be independent contractors and some don't, I want cash instead of benefits, plus the flexibility to reject jobs and work when I want. I don't think anything will solve this and California is just saying no more independent contractors so they don't have to listen to anymore crybabies
> ...


I've said before that the classification criterion of the worker being in the same line of work as an indicator of employment is incorrect. In your example, just because a titty bar is in the business of dancing and the dancers are in the business of dancing, this IMO has nothing to do with employment vs. IC. Of course establishments should be able to hire genuine independent contractors to work at their venue, in exactly the same way as a music hall should be able to book acts to go and perform at its venue. AB5 got this aspect entirely wrong. Other, more advanced countries, that are further along the employee/IC analysis path do not have this "same line of work" criterion.

However, to cite this as a reason to abandon AB5 is akin to saying that you are going to scrap your car because it has a flat tyre. A better solution would be to fix the problem.

Finally, the above isn't relevant to us. Even if the "same line of work" criterion didn't apply to rideshare drivers, the other parts of the test, including the degree of control that Uber enjoys over us, firmly place us in the employee category.


----------



## I will crack Lyft hacks (Aug 5, 2019)

NicFit said:


> AB5 is nothing more then a way for California to collect taxes and it was never about the workers. Uber and Lyft have been popular since at least 2014, if not earlier and if they were doing something illegal they would of stopped it right then and there when it first started. To wait 6 years or more is not because it's illegal it's because they want to make more money off of it
> 
> Vote Yes on Prop 22


It took 6 years until California realized all these drivers are claiming 0 income after a full year of work, year after year.

The company also doesn't pay taxes, year after year.

So a million people working are claiming they work for nothing on tax returns.

Then the state calculated how many of these non tax paying workers claiming no income are getting food subsidy, Heath care subsidy, and when injured in a high risk job collect disability from the state.

Right now the Uber drivers share of taxes is paid by other people, like fast food employees, small businesses, and others.

Of course drivers rather get free subsidy and pay no tax, anyone working would like that.

I don't think we can blame the state for wondering what the hell is this tax scheme.

Drivers should make enough money to contribute a share to taxes, as well as not qualify for subsidies do to no income claimed on tax returns.

So California is not going to leave it alone, even if drivers and Uber keep telling California to go away.



The Gift of Fish said:


> I've said before that the classification criterion of the worker being in the same line of work as an indicator of employment is incorrect.


I do believe AB5 should and probably will be modified on the B part.

A modified part B would be far superior to prop 22 ( third category) IMO.

I wish workers focused on part B modification rather than accepting voluntarily a third category.

The best outcome would be a failing of prop 22, and a modification on AB5 part B.

I wish they modified it before November 3rd making prop 22 useless and inferior. But that's just day dreaming again on my part.


----------



## NicFit (Jan 18, 2020)

The Gift of Fish said:


> I've said before that the classification criterion of the worker being in the same line of work as an indicator of employment is incorrect. In your example, just because a titty bar is in the business of dancing and the dancers are in the business of dancing, this IMO has nothing to do with employment vs. IC. Of course establishments should be able to hire genuine independent contractors to work at their venue, in exactly the same way as a music hall should be able to book acts to go and perform at its venue. AB5 got this aspect entirely wrong. Other, more advanced countries, that are further along the employee/IC analysis path do not have this "same line of work" criterion.
> 
> However, to cite this as a reason to abandon AB5 is akin to saying that you are going to scrap your car because it has a flat tyre. A better solution would be to fix the problem.
> 
> Finally, the above isn't relevant to us. Even if the "same line of work" criterion didn't apply to rideshare drivers, the other parts of the test, including the degree of control that Uber enjoys over us, firmly place us in the employee category.


AB5 just kills the independent contractor, how can any company have independent contractors and pass the AB5 test? I think it's just a way to stop as many as they can so the state doesn't have to deal with them. There is no way for anyone to use independent contractors any more. Uber says it's the technology that connects the riders to the drivers, not a driving service, Uber also connects people to food, to me at this point it seems like Uber's primary purpose is to connect A to B, why is the state saying nope, you are just a driving service. Uber didn't tell me the car to pick, the color (except for black). They didn't tell me what shifts or where to go. They just said here's a connection that we have with riders, once we got the connection they don't tell us how to do the drive, they don't tell us we have to provide water or chargers or anything else. If I want to put a disco ball in my car I can, which drivers have done. Strip clubs are a good example of Uber, the club has more to offer then dancers but they are a part of what they are. If your a bad dancer you won't make much money but if your a good dancer you will take in cash. But now dancers are employees so bad dancers make the same as good dancers, how is this fair? For the state to come in and say your not what you say you are is overreach, AB5 needs to be repealed, other laws can be put into place to protect independent contractors without destroying entire industries


I will crack Lyft hacks said:


> It took 6 years until California realized all these drivers are claiming 0 income after a full year of work, year after year.
> 
> The company also doesn't pay taxes, year after year.
> 
> ...


The state says they can collect $7 billion more if AB5 is enforced, to me this is a way for the state to make sure they make as much money as they can off of every person. So yes your right, they want their money and they want the complaints to stop so they made AB5 and destroyed independent contractors choices. They need a better structure then AB5 and employee isn't what indpendant contractors need, they need real laws that don't take more then half of what they were earning. Why didn't they say Uber needs to pay into some of these services instead of AB5? They are trying to eliminate independent contractor and make everyone their wage slave so they can implement their socialist plans easier


----------



## The Gift of Fish (Mar 17, 2017)

I will crack Lyft hacks said:


> I wish workers focused on part B modification rather than accepting voluntarily a third category.


As we know, the "third way" is a misnomer. There is no "third way"; it is simply pseudo IC with a couple of bells and whistles.



NicFit said:


> AB5 just kills the independent contractor, how can any company have independent contractors and pass the AB5 test? I think it's just a way to stop as many as they can so the state doesn't have to deal with them. There is no way for anyone to use independent contractors any more. Uber says it's the technology that connects the riders to the drivers, not a driving service, Uber also connects people to food, to me at this point it seems like Uber's primary purpose is to connect A to B, why is the state saying nope, you are just a driving service. Uber didn't tell me the car to pick, the color (except for black). They didn't tell me what shifts or where to go. They just said here's a connection that we have with riders, once we got the connection they don't tell us how to do the drive, they don't tell us we have to provide water or chargers or anything else. If I want to put a disco ball in my car I can, which drivers have done. Strip clubs are a good example of Uber, the club has more to offer then dancers but they are a part of what they are. If your a bad dancer you won't make much money but if your a good dancer you will take in cash. But now dancers are employees so bad dancers make the same as good dancers, how is this fair? For the state to come in and say your not what you say you are is overreach, AB5 needs to be repealed, other laws can be put into place to protect independent contractors without destroying entire industries


 You raise no new points here, and I have already dealt with them. There's no point in duplicating my answers.


----------

