I once drove a taxi. ALL OTHER BUSINESSES ARE FREE TO SET THEIR OWN PRICES ON THEIR OWN TERMS.

Where is the freedom for the cab owner or driver? I think the problem is that the failure to have adequate public transport for people with disabilities (PWD) the taxi industry has been forced to pick up the slack. The varying PWD organizations have lots of clout and together with their allies in luddite anti-business groups, decry any increase in taxi fares. PWD have an extraordinary sense of entitlement with the taxi industry, and often forget that a taxi is a business.

PWD need better public transport. Taxis need the freedom to have their meter calibrated with the rates they wish to have [rates could be displayed on exterior of car]. Or ultimately fares could be optionally negotiable, where the driver and customer make each other offers until agreement is reached.

taxi license owners are already being reimbursed for the costs of their license - it is called a tax deduction.

also they rent the use of this license to the drivers to acquire a second revenue stream.

Many other professionals and businesses in certain industries pay high licensing fees.

Though they are tax deductible, they are FREE TO SET THEIR OWN PRICES according to their view of what the market will bear and taking into account their desire for a reasonable income reflecting their service, commitment etc.

Many times the taxi driver hires the vehicle for a shift for a fixed rate, and only makes money on the portion of the takings that exceeds the "pay-in" and cost of fuel for the shift. As a consequence, taxi driver earnings are highly variable and unpredictable, and on a number of occasions lower than many unskilled occupations. This is for a twelve-hour shift with more regulatory pressure than ever and in an aggressive regulatory compliance enforcement climate.

Part of the problem in Queensland is that Government and Treasury have a narrow revenue, rather than economic, mind-set. To raise revenue the Goss Govt sold off restricted taxi licences for $300k-$500k - they were bought as an investment, and most of the taxi fare goes to service the investment.

I put forward a framework for considering compensation issues in 1999 as part of the Queensland NCP review of taxi regulation. Briefly, decisions on compensation involve questions of efficiency - will the change on balance be beneficial - and fairness. Issues arise as to whether the proposed adjustment is arbitrary or capricious, or whether is in within generally accepted bounds of policy (e.g. reasonable within the context of the broad microeconomic reform process); the extent of the efficiency gains expected; "demoralisation" costs - would the action create perceived risks which deter investment generally; settlement costs; and moral hazard costs, e.g. where investors will bid up taxi licence prices in the expectation that there would be a full payout in the event of deregulation.

In the case of taxis, it was difficult in 1999, and is more so now, to argue that any changes to regulation would be arbitrary and completely unforeseeable, and not part of a generally beneficial reform process. While the economic efficiency case for Queensland taxis was weak, the equity grounds for significant compensation semed strong in some cases - when, as in some areas, the licence value represented a significant proportion of an individual's wealth and expectation of future income. The case would be weaker where the cost and current value of licences was low, involving only a modest investment and suggesting that few extra licences would be sought after deregulation. Actions of the Queensland Government strengthened the case for compensation - it contributed to, and gained revenue from, high licence fees in some areas, and at times suggested that they would not be deregulated, and so had some responsibility towards licence holders.

The framework devised in 1999 would assist in answering questions in many cases where a question of compensation might arise. Time to publish it?

I would have thought they could get around the compensation costs by simply releasing more licenses each year which last one year only. They could keep doing this causing the price of the licenses to slowly go down in value, until they are worthless and could be removed. The one year licenses would be to ensure that changing demand and supply could be evened out to ensure an orderly decline in the values of the licenses. The goverment could participate in the market place to either reduce or increase the price of the licenses, by buying or selling the one year licenses. The licenses could be bought or sold in a special market so the goverment could do its thing.

This proces could be done over many years, so although the reform would not be quick, it would not require any compensation. In this way, the owners of the licenses would be able to write off the value of the license over time and still recover value from their license.

The difficulty with this plan would be what would happen when the owners of the taxi licenses found out about this policy - it could cause the prices of the licenses to drop considerably very quickly.

I don't really know that much about taxi's, but this is just my market based idea to eliminate the expensive licenses.

It always amazes me how a good Labour stalwart is so willing and ready to screw the working man.
1. All deregulation will do is ease the wait on a Friday and Saturday night.This can be done equally as well by providing alternate transport such as trains and buses as well as weekend taxis.
2. the financial saving to each individual taxi customer if the figure of 72 million dollars is not an inflated number would be: $1.50 per fare. This is arrived at by multiplying 3,500 taxis by 40 fares per day =140,000 mutoplyed by 7 days=980,000 multiplyed by 52 weeks = 50,960,000 customers. To save this amount it would be easier to reduce their yearly increase by half a percentage point.