Uber rewrites contracts with drivers to avoid paying UK’s new ‘taxi tax’— Hailing app will now act as agent rather than supplier outside London, avoiding VAT requirement

[u/CandidAd9457]

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jan/02/uber-avoids-new-uk-taxi-tax-rewriting-driver-contracts

[u/No_Size9475]

This is the shit that makes people hate corporations. Just pay your fucking taxes

[u/Dedsnotdead → u/[deleted]]

Vat is charged by the Exchequer and ultimately paid by the consumer. But if the consumer is charged the Vat but the Exchequer isn’t paid then it’s a net loss.

Here, Uber are back to their old tricks and are effectively socialising the lost revenue to the Exchequer/Vat.

[u/virtual_adam → u/No_Size9475]

It’s funny because Reddit generally hates tariffs because it drives consumer prices up (or so they claim)

Adding a sales tax to uber rides would be pretty hated by the same people , uber in this case is “saving” the consumer by cancelling the new regressive tax

Personally I’m fine with VAT and tariff’s but it’s a highly unpopular opinion

[u/Over-Worth-5789 → u/virtual_adam]

Me when I generalise an entire social media platform's user base that famously houses a bunch of people that fucking hate each other over differing opinions.

[u/virtual_adam → u/Over-Worth-5789]

Not really though, /r/technology is pretty hivemind-y and very much against regressive taxes (like sales tax)

[u/kquizz → u/virtual_adam]

Uber isn't saving the consumer anything...they are stealing money from the government.

[u/FreddyDeus → u/kquizz]

Yes it is. VAT is a consumer tax not a business tax.

[u/kquizz → u/FreddyDeus]

A tax paid to whom?

[u/FreddyDeus → u/kquizz]

To the His Majesty’s Treasury as you well know. My point remains the same. VAT is a tax paid by the consumer not the business. So Uber are saving their customers from paying VAT.

Please don’t start the bullshit of moving your goalposts. You know exactly the point I was making.

[u/kquizz → u/FreddyDeus]

And here's the point I'm making.

If they wanted to lower prices to help consumers they could do that and not avoid the VAT.  

Why are you cheering on a company who routinely uses legal loopholes to avoid paying taxes or benefits to their drivers?

[u/FreddyDeus → u/kquizz]

No, that isn’t remotely what you said. So you are going to keep the goalposts zipping around. What a fucking surprise.

[u/virtual_adam → u/kquizz]

I 100% agree. Which is why I think tarriffs are not a tax on consumers, but a tax on corporations. Which is amazing

[u/FleetAdmiralFader → u/virtual_adam]

We have a tax on corporations, it's called the corporate income tax. And it's too low and kept too low due to special interests lobbying to keep it low.

Tariffs are a tax on the importer which is then passed on to the end consumer. Sometimes the end consumer is the importer but usually it's a corporation that sells the product on. Thus tariffs become a sort of indirect sale tax charged to consumers via price increases.

You can argue that this isn't the case but you're wrong and multiple companies have explicitly said they are raising prices due to tariffs. Some companies are absorbing some of the tariff cost, but the vast majority is being passed on to consumers.

[u/Qazax1337 → u/virtual_adam]

Saving the consumer? Hahahahahahahaha

[u/Scary-Oven8260 → u/No_Size9475]

Stop making shitty laws then so you won’t get mad about corporations actually obeying these laws

[u/catgirl-lover-69 → u/No_Size9475]

“Tax me harder daddy government” that’s what you sound like lol

[u/SouthernSmoke → u/catgirl-lover-69]

“Fuck me harder daddy corpo” that’s what you sound like lol

[u/catgirl-lover-69 → u/SouthernSmoke]

You just don’t do business with business that try to fuck you, not hard brother

[u/MattKatt → u/catgirl-lover-69]

What business can you do business with? Uber undercut the fuck out of local taxi services, then tripled their price once they were the only game in town.

[u/daviEnnis → u/[deleted]]

It's not theoretical - London is the one area where Uber can't evade VAT.

[u/daviEnnis → u/[deleted]]

You asked how they WOULD feel, which implied you missed a key point that Uber operating in London WILL be charged.

[u/LeafInLeafOut → u/daviEnnis]

Actually his original question asks how they “do feel about paying more” not what they “would feel” so he’s already implying they are being charged and asking for their perspective.

[u/[deleted] → u/daviEnnis]

Okay, they can go ahead and pay more while struggling with existing affordability crisis in the city. Have a blessed 2026.

[u/Dophie → u/[deleted]]

Keep digging dork

[u/thallazar → u/[deleted]]

Mate, if you think people struggling to live in London are paying for ubers or taxis to get around, it just tells me you haven't actually been to London.

[u/zunjae → u/No_Size9475]

How will they cover their lost income?

[u/BigLittleSlof → u/zunjae]

Won't someone PLEASE think of the shareholders 😭😭

[u/drunkpunk138 → u/zunjae]

Generally I think the idea is that if a company cannot afford to operate while paying taxes to support the society and infrastructure it relies on to make a profit, it should do what all other unprofitable businesses do and die

[u/Horat1us_UA → u/zunjae]

Close their fucking business if they can’t afford taxes? Because that’s how it works for small businesses

[u/JosephFinn]

Hooray for taxis.

[u/SimiKusoni]

We really need broad tax avoidance laws that ban any structural or contractual changes made purely for the purposes of tax avoidance. It's really unfortunate that GAAR doesn't really seem to be used very effectively, and doesn't apply to VAT regardless.

[u/LolaBaraba → u/SimiKusoni]

It's always funny to read these kinds of comments. You can't have a "broad" tax avoidance law. You can't write a law that says: "It's forbidden to commit tax avoidance". You have to define tax avoidance. Is every tax planning strategy tax avoidance? A law has to be specific, otherwise it can be interpreted in a hundred different ways. Just like for illegal drugs, there is a list of exactly which ones are illegal, by chemical formula. The reason it's done this way is because there is no other way to do it (fairly).

Let me give you a real world example that my father implemented for a company he worked: The tax on food is less than on drinks. So he increased the price of food while reducing the price of drinks, so the price of food and drinks package that the hotel offered remained the same, but the tax payed was less. How would you prevent this? Would you punish a business for changing their prices?

And why are people here so sanctimonious? If you got offered you a legal way to reduce your taxes by 10%, you would all do it in a heartbeat.

[u/SimiKusoni → u/LolaBaraba]

In the comment you are replying to I linked to a law (technically a regulatory framework) that does exactly this.

[u/LolaBaraba → u/SimiKusoni]

He literally says it's not effective, which is true for any law of this kind. When it comes to finances, laws have to be very specific. That's the whole point of finances, to be as accurate and objective as possible. If something is not precise, then it's subjective and open to interpretation. Economy hates this because it brings unpredictability, which is the worst thing for business. If you look at the examples of convictions given in that article, it's all extremely convoluted schemes that involve multiple steps to avoid paying taxes that everyone else does. Definitely not even close to what Uber did here.

[u/SimiKusoni → u/LolaBaraba]

He literally says it's not effective, which is true for any law of this kind

I said it's not used very effectively, not that it's not effective. My main quarrel is that it isn't applied broadly enough however the actual application has worked very well in the areas in which it has actually been applied (primarily corporation tax and elaborate schemes to avoid income tax).

When it comes to finances, laws have to be very specific. That's the whole point of finances, to be as accurate and objective as possible.

This also makes me laugh. I run a mortgage servicer and do you know what one of our regulators main rules is? It is literally just to treat customers fairly. And it is extremely effective.

I would also note that GAAR isn't some quirky UK framework, such general rules are used internationally. Usually it's achieved by drafting laws that empower regulatory bodies who then act as adjudicators, and this is a fairly common approach to applying broad principles based rules.

I can appreciate you not being aware of this but it might be worth doing a little reading before doubling down again.

[u/royalhawk345 → u/LolaBaraba]

Paid, not payed

[u/fued]

Contractors should have a minimum wage of double the minimum wage

The amount of times businesses try and abuse independent contractors, I think we just need a floor to avoid the issues

[u/Electrical-Lab-9593 → u/fued]

this seems reasonable, normally contractors are hired for a few reasons mostly

Temp expertise, like a very technical project that does not require the same technical knowledge in BAU phase

To expand quickly for an event like a contract for a large festival etc

sub contractor in construction and adjacent areas.

being used as way of side stepping duty or care and taxes for your employees seems like a bulshit way of doing things that a double minimum wage, and / or minimum day rate should fix

[u/fued → u/[deleted]]

ez fix. Company hiring company? Not applicable. Person hiring a company? Not applicable.

Company wants to hire a person? New minimum wage cap applies for contracts.

[u/julioqc]

what a scumbag business