SPAM This thread is for random spam!!

[DaGaffer]

Some businesses need to close then.

What we don't need is desparate businessmen shitting on the vulnerable disabled in an attempt to make more moolah in an over-supplied industry.

They don't control fares, they're set by the council, so your logic fails.

 

[Scouse]

They don't control fares, they're set by the council, so your logic fails.

The council set the fares. The businessmen try to make money, but there's too many taxi companies to turn a profit based on those fares.

Rather than die quietly, like businesses should if they're uneconomic, leaving space for the better operators to make better returns on investment, the guns have been turned on the disabled.


If your business isn't profitable then you cut your overheads. This guy has decided that disabled people are an overhead and wants to cut them from his failing business.

His business needs to die, so others can do better. Disabled people should not carry the burden of operators entering into crowded and unprofitable markets.

 

[DaGaffer]

The council set the fares. The businessmen try to make money, but there's too many taxi companies to turn a profit based on those fares.

Rather than die quietly, like businesses should if they're uneconomic, leaving space for the better operators to make better returns on investment, the guns have been turned on the disabled.


If your business isn't profitable then you cut your overheads. This guy has decided that disabled people are an overhead and wants to cut them from his failing business.

His business needs to die, so others can do better. Disabled people should not carry the burden of operators entering into crowded and unprofitable markets.

Your inability to understand the laws of supply and demand is breathtaking. If prices are fixed and costs are rising, it doesn't matter if there's oversupply in the market to the customer. At least in the short term. What overheads do you expect taxi firms to cut? Fuel? Nope. The quality of the oh-so-salubrious taxi offices? doubtful. The 20 hours a day it takes to make a taxi pay for itself? Well they can go to the full 24. Who needs sleep right? Car maintenance? Probably. Which works well for all of us. Eventually companies will go bust, but it won't solve the problem of availability of cars to disabled people, if anything it just makes their life harder.

 

[Raven]

The council set the fares. The businessmen try to make money, but there's too many taxi companies to turn a profit based on those fares.

Rather than die quietly, like businesses should if they're uneconomic, leaving space for the better operators to make better returns on investment, the guns have been turned on the disabled.


If your business isn't profitable then you cut your overheads. This guy has decided that disabled people are an overhead and wants to cut them from his failing business.

His business needs to die, so others can do better. Disabled people should not carry the burden of operators entering into crowded and unprofitable markets.

There is very little leg room for cuts to costs, petrol, vehicles, vehicle maintenance, staff, office costs are pretty much the only costs. They can't cut petrol costs, they can't cut vehicle costs (unless you want taxis to be beat up almiras) they certainly can't cut maintenance because people will die. Should they cut driver salary maybe? Which is next to fuck all anyway. Office costs? Well they could move to a stickier, smaller office in a even more shitty area of town but then how are they going to get any walk in business?

I don't agree with any form of discrimination but he is kind of right, you order a mini bus, you pay for a mini bus. Why would he want to run a bus at a loss if he didn't have to?

If there isn't a government subsidy then there should be though. In the mean time, black cabs have plenty of disables access, I suggest they use them.

 

[Scouse]

Your inability to understand the laws of supply and demand is breathtaking. If prices are fixed and costs are rising, it doesn't matter if there's oversupply in the market to the customer. At least in the short term. What overheads do you expect taxi firms to cut? Fuel? Nope. The quality of the oh-so-salubrious taxi offices? doubtful. The 20 hours a day it takes to make a taxi pay for itself? Well they can go to the full 24. Who needs sleep right? Car maintenance? Probably. Which works well for all of us. Eventually companies will go bust, but it won't solve the problem of availability of cars to disabled people, if anything it just makes their life harder.

Your description of how hard life is for taxi drivers is also equally breathtaking. 20 hour day lulz!

Dunno how cheap taxi travel is in Dublin but over in blighty it's still very expensive to go short distances.

I lack sympathy. The evidence that taxi driving is profitable enough is clearly there in the number of businesses there are scrambling for your coin.

None of that takes away from the fact that Mo himself knows it's wrong to treat disabled people the way he's treating them - and it is.

So, if it's wrong to treat disabled people like that, then it's wrong. Period. Economics sometimes trump moral issues, but we've decided in an equal society that disabled people get these breaks (and cripple access ramps, lifts in buildings so they can get to work, basically mobility assistance).

If it boils down to a choice between making life tougher for able-bodied taxi drivers or disabled people, which one do you pick? I'll give you the answer - it's the one we've already picked

 

[Gwadien]

I was talking to a owner of a chinese take away ages ago, near my own college, he was saying he's thriving because of customers from college, and doing certain deals for students, but they didn't apply for the general populace, maybe he should get shut down for catering for a certain section of society and not the rest?

This taxi driver is not harming anybody by operating with cheaper prices for everyone else, and a tiny minority can not take advantage of those cheaper price (Although it probably is cheaper than a black cab) and where they spend more, they get money from the Government (Forget the disability 'benefit' name.)

As everyone mentioned before, the only way he's going make it happen is that he rises the prices for -everyone-

 

[Nate]

I love it how everyones a taxi business expert in this thread now.

What they need to do is steal a car whenever they get a fare, take a page out of gta's book. This would massively reduce overheads.

Also I say they can cut overheads by removing directors from the company, obviously too many taxi firms have 3/4 directors that don't do anything so they just need to get the boot and put all the work on the one boss man. Who should only be referred to as "bossman" as it would reduce costs. The costs would be saved by man hours as less time would be spent saying "bossman" then "yes, indeed sir director sir."

 

[soze]

Don't companies need to have 2 or 3 directors? I know the one I used to work for had the owners wife and brother as directors and it was just for Companies House I believe.

On my last Christmas Meal the driver I spoke to quit working as a police officer to become a Taxi driver because he could earn the same for less hours. You just have to do Airport runs and late nights. He also got to pick the jobs he wanted to do. And would not pick up for certain bars in town.

 

[Scouse]

I was talking to a owner of a chinese take away ages ago, near my own college, he was saying he's thriving because of customers from college, and doing certain deals for students, but they didn't apply for the general populace, maybe he should get shut down for catering for a certain section of society and not the rest?

A couple of things immediately spring to mind:

1) You're comparing apples and oranges on a human level.

Disabled people are apples to our oranges - due to a genetic quirk or unfortunate mishap. However, as a society we've decided to enforce the view that they get treated like apples, not oranges, by law.

That argument was won decades ago - and disabled people's lives were made better because that argument was won. The argument we're having here has already been decided in favour of the disabled - but should the disabled live in fear of losing their hard-won rights to live a bit more like normal people simply because a new generation of people want to have that old argument again?

2) You're comparing apples and oranges on a necessity level.

Chinese food is a luxury, not a necessity. Mobility for the mobility-disadvantaged is a necessity, not a luxury.


Without mobility the disabled cannot partake in society properly. That's why it comes under discrimination law.

 

[Scouse]

Don't companies need to have 2 or 3 directors? I know the one I used to work for had the owners wife and brother as directors and it was just for Companies House I believe.

Nope. You can have a single director and recently they did away with the need to have a company secretary too.

If you've more than one director it's because you have more than one person who wants to take the profits out of the company at a reduced tax rate to the employees who earn those profits.

 

[Gwadien]

A couple of things immediately spring to mind:

1) You're comparing apples and oranges on a human level.

Disabled people are apples to our oranges - due to a genetic quirk or unfortunate mishap. However, as a society we've decided to enforce the view that they get treated like apples, not oranges, by law.

That argument was won decades ago - and disabled people's lives were made better because that argument was won. The argument we're having here has already been decided in favour of the disabled - but should the disabled live in fear of losing their hard-won rights to live a bit more like normal people simply because a new generation of people want to have that old argument again?

2) You're comparing apples and oranges on a necessity level.

Chinese food is a luxury, not a necessity. Mobility for the mobility-disadvantaged is a necessity, not a luxury.


Without mobility the disabled cannot partake in society properly. That's why it comes under discrimination law.

But they -can- use taxis, just at a higher cost, OR use another firm?

As I say before, disabled people GET extra money from the Government, which should be there to help them out in times like this.

Disabled ramps and stuff are a completely different subject, they still get access to taxis and such.

If Disabled people want to be treated as an equal in society, then they should accept that they're not superior to everyone else.

Primary school was a perfect example, had a new head, so he decided to treat the sole disabled kid in the school like a king, used to let him go for lunch more or less on his own, he used to play football, but no-one was allowed to tackle him, and you weren't allowed to stop his shots.

It annoyed him eventually as much as it annoyed everyone else.

There's a line in this, and it needs to be drawn.

 

[Tom]

They don't control fares, they're set by the council, so your logic fails.

If anything, that makes running such a business even easier. These businesses know the costs and can apply to the council to increase the fares, if they like. But if the council says no then it's tough shit. Find something else to do if you can't run a profitable business.

It's really simple - you cannot operate a business and actively discriminate against disabled people. It's illegal.

 

[DaGaffer]

Your description of how hard life is for taxi drivers is also equally breathtaking. 20 hour day lulz!

Dunno how cheap taxi travel is in Dublin but over in blighty it's still very expensive to go short distances.

I lack sympathy. The evidence that taxi driving is profitable enough is clearly there in the number of businesses there are scrambling for your coin.

None of that takes away from the fact that Mo himself knows it's wrong to treat disabled people the way he's treating them - and it is.

So, if it's wrong to treat disabled people like that, then it's wrong. Period. Economics sometimes trump moral issues, but we've decided in an equal society that disabled people get these breaks (and cripple access ramps, lifts in buildings so they can get to work, basically mobility assistance).

If it boils down to a choice between making life tougher for able-bodied taxi drivers or disabled people, which one do you pick? I'll give you the answer - it's the one we've already picked

Most taxi drivers aren't driving taxis because its lucrative, they're driving because they haven't got many other choices and there are very low barriers to entry to become a taxi driver in Ireland. As it happens I do know a couple of taxi drivers socially; one is an ex-electrician (husband of our old child minder) who had to take up taxi work when the construction industry collapsed, although I heard things are picking up and he'll quit soon. (He worked ridiculous hours) and another does it part time to supplement his job in retail. And by the way here's the kind of money they make:

Average Hours Per Week: 58.7
Average Gross income: €26,881
Average Hourly Rate: €9.54

So basically, minimum wage stuff. That's from a wages survey done in 2010. Its probably worse now.

You're basically saying "I (society) have decided you (taxi man who probably earns rather less than me) will subsidise my moral view of the world". Tell you what, if this is such a strong moral imperative, get the public to put their hand in their pocket. A £1 disability levy on every taxi ride. See how the public whine about that.

 

[Scouse]

A £1 disability levy on every taxi ride.

I would think there were better ways of doing it, but I'm not objecting to that on principle IF it could be shown it was needed. (Though I bet the levy would still be sufficient if it was as low as 20p).

However, lots of people work minimum wage, and we've decided that a disabled person's right to fully engage in society on an equal footing outweighs a taxi driver's anguish at making less of a profit on a few jobs. And I still think that's correct.

 

[Scouse]

There's a line in this, and it needs to be drawn.

So your head teacher was a retard. Big deal. I feel for the crip - he was demeaned.

But I agree on the line. And we drew it on the side of mobility. Taxi rides are the same cost for them - but they need more space for their weelchairs. Taxi drivers know this in advance when they buy their cars. Disabled people ain't got that choice.

Disabled people have to pay for food the same as the rest of us. Apart from the fact that they have difficulty carrying it back from the shops.


I spent a few months a few years back with both my legs out of action. It was unbelieveable. A massive eye opener. Cut the disabled some slack. If I was them I'd be kicking off all the time (though I'd be losing all the fights)

 

[Chilly]

I would think there were better ways of doing it, but I'm not objecting to that on principle IF it could be shown it was needed. (Though I bet the levy would still be sufficient if it was as low as 20p).

However, lots of people work minimum wage, and we've decided that a disabled person's right to fully engage in society on an equal footing outweighs a taxi driver's anguish at making less of a profit on a few jobs. And I still think that's correct.

Why should a taxi business owner have to give away charity when, say, a hamburger shop would not? It's the government's job to pay for the increased cost via benefits, not a private business owner. He has to spend more to service certain clients, those clients pay more. You can't say "oh, we're a market based capitalist economy unless you run a taxi firm, in which case you have to be a socialist. Soz, lol". It just doesn't work. Let the market do it's thing, and where it fails, the govt can step in and provide the funding to cover a gap. I strongly disagree that charging more for a bigger vehicle is discrimination.

 

[Scouse]

You can't say "oh, we're a market based capitalist economy

We're a market based capitalist economy. Not a pure-market economy and we never have been.

We have loads of rules. This is one that business owners know exists before they go into business. They can fuck off if they go into that business knowing the rules then start whinging about them when they have to abide by them.


Market economics don't take into account the mobility needs of the disabled. So we made a rule to fix the problem. And it's one that's been working fine for many many years - and not putting off people from getting into taxi ownership.

 

[soze]

So your head teacher was a retard. Big deal. I feel for the crip - he was demeaned.

But I agree on the line. And we drew it on the side of mobility. Taxi rides are the same cost for them - but they need more space for their weelchairs. Taxi drivers know this in advance when they buy their cars. Disabled people ain't got that choice.

Disabled people have to pay for food the same as the rest of us. Apart from the fact that they have difficulty carrying it back from the shops.


I spent a few months a few years back with both my legs out of action. It was unbelieveable. A massive eye opener. Cut the disabled some slack. If I was them I'd be kicking off all the time (though I'd be losing all the fights)

We as a society already do a lot to help. With Disability cars being a free form of mobility and if you are unable to drive you get a free taxi to medical appointments and to do your shopping. What you don't get is a free taxi too and from town on a Friday night. And I am not sure anyone deserves a subsidised one for that either.

 

[Scouse]

What you don't get is a free taxi too and from town on a Friday night. And I am not sure anyone deserves a subsidised one for that either.

Disabled people may not have the ability to get a train, tram, walk or take the bus.

As such they may very well be forced to take the expensive taxi (12 quid into and out of town for me - as opposed to £1.70 on the bus each way). For this they pay full fare.

The concession is that they get a taxi that they can fit in. And taxi companies know that up-front.


Is that really so big a deal?

 

[caLLous]

I have a GP friend in England who signs off her (work) emails with "LLAP \\//".

 

[Raven]

No, the government have filled the gaps, private business has not.

Disabled people may not have the ability to get a train, tram, walk or take the bus.

As such they may very well be forced to take the expensive taxi (12 quid into and out of town for me - as opposed to £1.70 on the bus each way). For this they pay full fare.

The concession is that they get a taxi that they can fit in. And taxi companies know that up-front.


Is that really so big a deal?

Then that should be paid for by government, not private business.

 

[Scouse]

Then that should be paid for by government, not private business.

I have no objection to that side of the conversation. Personally, I'd love to see resources boosted to a lot of disabled people. But the government is cutting funding - not increasing it.

However, the fact is that taxi companies have been performing this necessary service for a long time - and making money out of it - some taxi drivers get the big cabs because they know they get a guaranteed income from disabled people who necessarily have to use expensive taxi travel a lot more because they've no other choice.


I genuinely think the reason that Mohammed is kicking off is that he wants the airport runs and not to have his obligations to the disabled. It's not been an issue until now - and it's a single taxi company complaining.

In an imperfect world I think the current solution works. It would be wrong to fuck-over the already fucked-over even more.

 

[soze]

Getting the big cab is great. If the disabled person wants to go to Tesco then the council or government foot the likely inflated bill. But I would suspect the same disabled person will not be so happy paying an inflated price when it is coming out of their own money and like you said why should they be.

Talking about government spending cuts, There is a thing doing the rounds on Facebook at the moment about the Government closing 10 fire stations to save £45m a year but doing nothing to stop the majority government owned RBS dolling out £670m in bonuses. It does make you laugh.

 

[Scouse]

Getting the big cab is great

If you've a choice.

I suspect the disabled person across the road from me would much rather spend £3.40 on travel for her night out with their friends on a Friday than £24 - which'd soak up about as much money as she'd spend on a meal with her mates. In reality, she probably spends so much money on enforced taxi travel that she can't afford a night out...

If the disabled person wants to go to Tesco then the council or government foot the likely inflated bill.

Nope. It all comes out of their disability allowance. The government doesn't foot the bill for their travel.

The reality is, if you're poor and disabled your life is as hard as it gets.

 

[mooSe_]

christians lol


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-05Wmrqhqjs

 

[mooSe_]

http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/i-tattooed-porn-websites-onto-my-face-so-my-kids-wouldnt-starve

My funds are running pretty low. How much would you pay me to have FreddysHouse tattooed on my face?

 

[Aoami]

I'll donate a fiver to the cause

 

[Scouse]

More importantly, how much would you lot pay me to badly tattoo FH on @mooSe_ 's face?

 

[Gwadien]

What if a taxi firm decided to run all their vehicles without any disabled access Scouse, what would you argument be there?

 

[Aoami]

That it's probably illegal?