this post was submitted on 02 Jan 2026

193 points (99.5% liked)

World News

51846 readers

2868 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
- Blogsites are treated in the same manner as social media sites. Medium, Blogger, Substack, etc. are not valid news links regardless of who is posting them. Yes, legitimate news sites use Blogging platforms, they also use Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube and we don't allow those links either.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world

Recommendations

How to spot Misinformation and Propaganda

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

NewsAutoMod@lemmy.world

Tenthrow@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

lemmyAtom@lemmy.world

jordanlund@lemmy.world

193

Uber rewrites contracts with drivers to avoid paying UK’s new ‘taxi tax’ (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 1 week ago by HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works to c/world@lemmy.world

25 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Uber has swerved paying millions of pounds to the UK exchequer under Rachel Reeves’s new “taxi tax” after the ride-hailing app rewrote contracts with its drivers.

The move came as rules announced in November’s budget took effect, which adjusted how VAT is payable on minicab fares and would have resulted in the whole Uber fare becoming subject to the 20% sales tax.

In November, Reeves told the Commons the changes would end up “protecting around £700m of tax revenue each year”.

However, updated terms issued to Uber drivers from January 2026 mean the technology firm will act as an agent, rather than as the supplier, of transport services outside London. The move means drivers make a contract directly with their passengers – so they must charge any VAT due on the fare, while Uber only adds VAT to its commission.

top 25 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Arkouda@lemmy.ca 102 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Garbage Company.

[+] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works -118 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Do you just voluntarily give the government money that you aren't legally required to pay?

[–] Arkouda@lemmy.ca 69 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Tell me more about how taxes are bad and corporations deserve the right to avoid paying them while benefiting from the countries they operate in.

[+] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works -58 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

I'm not saying that taxes are bad. I'm saying that if the government says "there's a new tax you have to pay if you do that" and you say "ok, then I won't do that," you have done nothing wrong. You have a duty to obey the law, but no duty to maximize government revenue.

[–] Arkouda@lemmy.ca 62 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Oh yeah, totally not wrong to change the legal definitions of your contracts the day new legislation comes out designed to claw back the taxes you have been avoiding the whole time without that new legislation.

Can you please take your corporate ski poling else where?

[–] mushroommunk@lemmy.today 41 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Seriously, us regular folk can't just reclassify ourselves and dodge taxes (not that we should if we could). We can't suddenly call our house a contracted asset and avoid taxes or something.

Companies shouldn't be able to either.

[–] Arkouda@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 week ago

Agreed.

Honestly it this point I think a full scale tax strike would send the message.

We the people of [Insert country] refuse to pay a [lowest currency of country] in taxes until every single person and corporation (Which are legally declared people in most countries, in case you didn't know) pays their fair share and the entire fund goes to supporting our basic needs and infrastructure as a society.

Everyone should have Shelter, Food, Water, Medical Care, Security, and Education fully covered for simply existing in society, and this would be a good step one.

[–] frongt@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 week ago

You can! In the US, just declare all of it as a self-employed home office and then it's a business expense!

Note that like Uber's actions here, it's considered tax evasion and illegal.

[–] nogooduser@lemmy.world 36 points 1 week ago (1 children)

This isn’t the same.

They were legally required to charge VAT on the whole fare but they found a loophole which passes the commitment onto their drivers.

It requires a unilateral change to every driver’s contract which is a serious abuse of the power difference in the employer/ employee relationship. This is only allowed due to another legal loophole which enables them to dodge employer commitments by claiming that they aren’t employees.

[+] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works -32 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

I suppose I don't give "loophole" the same moral weight that you do. Even if this was not intended to be legal, if the law as written permits it then the blame is on the government for passing a law other than the one intended to pass, not on Uber for taking action in accordance with the law.

(Moral obligations can exist without being legally required, but taxes are a legal construct and there is no such moral obligation to pay them which extends beyond the legal one.)

[–] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 21 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Bullshit dude. Uber has been playing games like this for the entire time they've been a company.

"They're not employees, they're contractors" has just moved on to "they're independent operators and we're facilitating your contract with them."

Stop simping for this company that should get their ass shut down for these games they keep playing.

[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

They also play the "we're not a taxi firm, we're a taxi-firm-the-internet which is entirely different and not subject to regulations applicable to taxi firms" card, which is utterly dishonest. It's a form of regulatory arbitrage that means that actual, locally-based, properly regulated cab firms can't compete, while these weasels get away with cheating. And in non-US markets, they hide their profits through transfer payments and use tax-shelter countries. They're scumbags.

[–] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

Oh good point. I forgot about the "we're not a taxi company because... hey! What's that over there?" Stage.

[–] bramkaandorp@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago

There is moral, there is legal, and there is ethical.

This may have been moral, as well as legal, but it sure as shit wasn't ethical.

[–] Aneb@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

So there's a thing called a w2 where employers will extract a percentage of your paycheck each cycle and send it to the IRS and you can only get a chance of getting a tax return by submitting signed documents in accordance with the tax laws. So yes I believe many many people pay extra taxes, semivoluntary.

[–] fodor@lemmy.zip 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Tax fraud vs. tax evasion... Look, we know the corporate scam: treat people like employees but pretend they aren't to save money on taxes. It's a scam, always has been, always will be, in my opinion.

Are you arguing that it isn't a scam? Or are you arguing that scams like this are ethical? I'm curious.

[–] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago

Are you arguing that it isn’t a scam?

Generally a scam is something done in secret, and if the government finds out exactly what the scammer is doing then the scammer can get in legal trouble. Here Uber is acting entirely out in the open, the government clearly wants to stop Uber, but writing a law that restricts Uber in the intended way appears to be difficult. (Maybe a law written strictly enough that Uber couldn't work around it would also impact others that the government doesn't want to target?) So I would argue that this is against the spirit of the law but it isn't a scam.

[–] SinningStromgald@lemmy.world 30 points 1 week ago (2 children)

How are Uber drivers going to collect VAT on fares? I though Uber determined the price of a ride. Is it different in the UK?

[–] aramis87@fedia.io 11 points 1 week ago

I think it means that sales tax just came to the UK? Where what's quoted on the tin isn't the price at the register? If true, it's going to make a lot of people very angry.

[+] HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works -6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The move means drivers make a contract directly with their passengers – so they must charge any VAT due on the fare, while Uber only adds VAT to its commission.

[–] SinningStromgald@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

That doesn't answer my question, I don't think at least. Where in Uber->Driver->Rider is this VAT that drivers are supposed to collect going to be added into the fare if Uber is only adding VAT for for its commission?

[–] mjr@infosec.pub 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Won't drivers only need to collect VAT if they are VAT registered, which means taking more than some number of thousands of pounds? At which point, presumably they tick a box in the uber driver app and it makes them 20% more expensive.

[–] SinningStromgald@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The article says £90k or more requires VAT registration and that most drivers are not earning that much. Even so I would still like to know how, theoretically, this VAT is to be charged and collected in the current app.

[–] valkyre09@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago

So rather than Uber being above the £90k limit collectively. They’re basically allowing each driver to be a contractor who had their own £90k entitlement? Bloody hell that’s not a loophole, that’s a channel tunnel!

[–] nialv7@lemmy.world 15 points 1 week ago

This is dumb. Why fiddling with the rules and stealthily taxing the working people when you can tax wealth. Also claiming to cut cost of living while doing the opposite...