# Platform tax, platform neutrality

- Link: https://www.andreidraganescu.info/2015/11/10/platform-tax-platform-neutrality/
- Published: 2015-11-10T15:04:24+03:00
- Author: Andrei Draganescu

How about taxing platforms for all the efforts that governments would make on their
behalf?

This approach has two benefits:

 * it eliminates the usual problems with self regulated industries (corruption, 
   hiding data, independent branches, operating through fake front companies and
   so forth)
 * it eases business and does not hamper growth (taxes are easy to integrate into
   a business plan)

Modern disruptors are all based on growth as a mechanism for advancing disruption.
AirBnB would be just a classifieds site, if you would take away global reach and
global features. Without easy global reach and features which are specifically designed
to help a global spread, there is no disruption, especially in a field as consolidated
as the hospitality industry is.

Companies should not be able to regulate their industries better than governments.
If that is the case, than the government has a problem. And, the fact is, most governments
have many problems and the biggest they have is not enforcing regulations. At the
same time, companies that turn profits but would incur government spending to keep
their base activity safe (in this case safe for renters and for hosts) should contribute
to that spending (probably integrally) by the means of a tax. This is where the 
platform tax would step in. It is a form for AirBnB and others to keep fast and 
agile while at the same time fairly contributing to an effort for safety of everyone
involved.

Making regulations that oblige platforms to have their own inspectors would make
artificial internal structures that handle issues which are out of the scope of 
the business. This will be a nail in the coffin for global disruption.

_Liberal business benefits from government partnership._

We must let what makes economical sense happen, but at the same time protect people
from any unintended consequences. And what is a better suited role for a state or
government than to step in and make sure industries work as expected and people 
are safe? If the money for that comes from the businesses and the logistic and infrastructure
from the government it could be a win win solution.

_Accidents should almost always be handled by insurance._

Which even in this case was. Of course, if my family was involved in this, instead
of “others”, my tone and voice would be far more vitriolic. But I would still think
the hosts are the ones to ““blame” for the accident” (yes double double quotes),
more than a business that refunded the service it provided (it did, right?). It 
was the host’s tree not AirBnB’s.

In my opinion platforms should do two things:

 * submit data from their systems to government enabled agencies
 * pay a platform tax for the government work done in their industry

The government then could have a sharing economy system in place that protects humans
from the failure to abide regulations, of any side participating on the platform.

Insurance companies will have the cost of accidents like its only normal to be.

Fines for missed regulations go to the platform’s users, not to the platform.

---

I too dislike founder speak such as “soul searching” for a logo … Sending an investigator
for first contact is a shit move, but that is what corporations do. Corporations
don’t have feelings. Lawyers will always seek ways to lower liability, but then 
they will do it for both humans and corporations, this is what they charge for.

The article is heart breaking and the hinted direction, in my opinion, should not
be adding barriers to entry and growth hindering on a young economic sector: the
sharing economy. But remember that I didn’t loose a dear dad in a transaction mediated
by AirBnB, and my emotional and rational approach would probably be more nuanced
if it were the case, so, again, its an opinion.