Originally Posted by
percysmith
The article contains many inaccuracies (as of the date of the posting of that article):
In HK, if you want to drive a taxi for a living, then you have to pay someone else not to, by buying or renting their licence.
Not true.
In Hong Kong, the taxi license allows you to own and operate a taxi. Without the license, Toyota will not sell you a taxi vehicle at all. If you want to drive a taxi for a living in Hong Kong, you need not rent the license. You simply need to rent the taxi from the taxi owner, who owns both the license and the vehicle.
While there are still some taxis are operated by their owner, rather than available for rent, usually the owner will only drive 1 shift only.
In an unrestricted market, the value of a taxi would be no more than its depreciated cost, including any registration taxes. A new Toyota Crown LPG Taxi costs HK$230k at list price.
But in HK's restricted market, taxis change hands at vast premiums, with a red taxi trading around HK$6.7m and a green taxi around HK$5.5m.
The problem with these statements is the lack of consideration of the required licensing, i.e. the approval from the Government to operate. In Hong Kong, the Government controls how "public transportation" operates. Every single model of public transportation, such as bus, minibus, taxi, and even MTR, has to pay the Government in some monetary values. The cost of the equipment, i.e. taxi vehicles, buses, locomotive, is never the question.
Yes - the vehicles are cheap. So what? Without the licenses, the vehicles are nothing.
That's how much the cartel is worth.
While I agree that there are some major players in the taxi industry, the taxi industry is not really operated by cartels, at least better than minibus. They are still many taxi licenses/vehicles are owned by individuals.
Not being a highly-skilled profession, the driver takes home (after fuel costs) just above the minimum wage, and anything else goes in rent to the owners, who pay for maintenance, insurance, and occasionally a new vehicle. So when you see protestors demanding higher taxi fares, most of them represent owners who collect that rent. The driver knows that as soon as the fare revenue goes up (either due to a fare increase or to higher demand) then so will the rent, because if he won't pay it, then another low-skilled person will. Basic economics.
This statement sympathizes the drivers. But the actual reality is owners only entitled to the rents and drivers get everything else. Drivers need to be responsible for fuel costs and some minor costs only, while owners are responsible for pretty much everything else. When drivers do not care the vehicles and repair are required, drivers pay no rent and can get some replacement shifts, while owners have to put the vehicles out of service and pay the repair costs (i.e. no income with costs).
Also - the taxi rent (the amount drivers pay to owners) have not been increased dramatically for years, despite several fare hikes.
Last but not the least - many owners are still paying the installment loan for the licenses/vehicles.
Originally Posted by
kaka
name me
still waiting to see how over charging pax on taxis or refusing a fare is any more legal that TAKING an uber
At this moment, overcharging/refusal to transport is not yet a systemic issue, i.e. only individual drivers are overcharging. On the other hand, the law's position on Uber is clear that Uber's service in Hong Kong is illegal.
Although both are not legal, the reason why overcharging/refusal to transport is more "legal" that taking an Uber is the passenger's approach. I don't think any taxi passengers are willing to be overcharged/refused to transport by any taxi. So on the surface, the passengers being overcharged/refused to transport are victims. On the other hand, when the law makes it clear that Uber is illegal. Yet people still choose to call an Uber. These people are in fact accessory to the crime (as they choose to support an illegal activity).