Seeing how much these companies lose and throw more money at to gain market share means you won't get more tax. Their revenue might be that high but not their profits.

What you should target them with is (1) anti-competitive behaviour and (2) employment rights for drivers. They have completely abused all systems and their drivers to get where they are but they are probably not breaking tax laws. It's an unsustainable model.

On the other side, the likes of McDonalds gain massively from the extra sales and probably do lots more of the dodgy stuff tax wise...

[–] BalpeenHammer@lemmy.nz 7 points 6 days ago (1 children)

As I said elsewhere, it's easy to rig the numbers to show low profits. For example by paying your parent company in another country high franchise fees.

[–] Auth@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

thats not "rigging" and you have no proof thats being done. There is regulation that states payment for services from a parent by a subsidiary must be market rate. If that didnt exist susidaries would be able to get free services from a parent company and that would be anti competitive and generate less tax.

[–] BalpeenHammer@lemmy.nz 4 points 6 days ago

I don't have access to it but the proof is supposedly there in the tax filings. Having said that there is 100% probability they are paying their parent companies license fees and franchise fees.

in any case 402 million in revenue for a business who does nothing but clip tickets means there should be lot more profit and lot more taxes paid.