• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

DoorDash Rolls Out ±10% Regulatory Response Fee To Comply With New Government Laws

aociswundumho

Capitalist Pig
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 6, 2019
Messages
15,086
Reaction score
6,810
Location
Bridgeport, CT
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right

Your wallet may take an extra hit the next time you order dinner via the popular food delivery app DoorDash, courtesy of your helpful local government officials. That is, if you live in St. Louis, Chicago, Seattle, or one of the other 57 localities where DoorDash customers just got hit with a $1 to $2.50 “regulatory response fee” on every order.

...

Government Regulators Get Involved

Busybody politicians quickly complied.

“With the rising dependence on food delivery through the pandemic, several dozen cities, counties and even states have pushed back by capping commissions at 15 percent of the total cost of orders — what DoorDash can charge restaurants for generating a sale and delivering food,” NBC News reports.

NBC reporter Cyrus Farivar found “68 localities that have passed such caps.”

The good news is the customers will know the fee is caused entirely by government regulation.

As economist Pers Bylund has explained, regulation “creates winners” by “propping up incumbents.” However, he points out that it “creates losers” by “redistributing value and economic capabilities to those favored politically” rather than through merit-based market competition.

“Needless to say, this inequality is not beneficial for society overall, but only for those who are favored,” Bylund writes. “It is the creation of winners by creating losers.”

Beautifully put.

Consider the Bay area real estate market where government regulation prevents new housing units from being built. The only winners are existing property owners. The losers are the builders who can't build and all of the people who want to buy property in the area.
 
Well, clearly, we need to give corporations a negative tax so they can pass it on to workers.....


...oh wait, they've only ever passed on about 0.001% so that people can lie. :rolleyes:





GOP economic policy is all about shoving money to the richest. That's why they focus on shit like guns, abortion, gays, minorities. That's the only way they can get people to vote against themselves......giving them someone to hate more and express it with a vote.
 
There is a simple solution to this. Don't use doordash.
 
Thanks to government bureaucrats!
Looks like taxes are going to be on the upswing for the next few years!
 



The good news is the customers will know the fee is caused entirely by government regulation.



Beautifully put.

Consider the Bay area real estate market where government regulation prevents new housing units from being built. The only winners are existing property owners. The losers are the builders who can't build and all of the people who want to buy property in the area.

I'm quite conservative but I have issues with rampant building. I think my perspective is actually quite liberal but liberals won't touch it with a 10 foot pole - and actually revile the notion of it. Inner city blight is created because it is far easier to build outward and simply abandon the inner city. In my world there would have to be at least 80% occupancy of existing property before permits can be issued for new building. I'd like to see architectural firms that specialize in building remodels to make existing space usable to new clients instead of permitting them to build new buildings elsewhere. Of course tear downs and rebuilds would be permitted since there would be no net loss of undeveloped land. But, this has become a bad thing. "Gentrification" is a dirty word and even though my position is devoid of any race requirements - I'm sure someone is more than willing to call it racist simply because it would bring inner cities back to life.
 
Consider the Bay area real estate market where government regulation prevents new housing units from being built. The only winners are existing property owners. The losers are the builders who can't build and all of the people who want to buy property in the area.

Where I the Bay Area are there large tracts of undeveloped land? San Francisco proper is bounded by ocean on three sides.
 
Where I the Bay Area are there large tracts of undeveloped land? San Francisco proper is bounded by ocean on three sides.

No idea. I live here and there's construction all over the place. Most locales could only hope for the sheer level of construction taking place around here. Sunnyvale for example has drastically transformed in just the last 2 years.... new office buildings, apartments, condo complexes etc. all over the place. It's actually pretty cool to see on a weekly basis. Even in a pandemic, the economy is doing pretty well here.
 
The point of the taxes isn't about the taxes, it's about the additional government control which the taxes gives the government, excessive, in my view, for one, and the government needs to learn how to live within it's means for another, given that government is strictly overhead stealing from productive parts of the economy.
 
Back
Top Bottom