logo
Auto Meter vs App Fare: Bengaluru's 2.6 km ride debate blows up online

Auto Meter vs App Fare: Bengaluru's 2.6 km ride debate blows up online

Time of India11 hours ago
A commuter in Bengaluru recently went viral after sharing how much auto fares can differ depending on how you book. In a post on X (formerly Twitter), they showed a ₹ 39-meter fare compared to a ₹172 quote on an app for the same 2.6 km ride.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
The big price gap has sparked fresh debate about how much people are paying for daily travel in the city. Many users replied with similar experiences, raising concerns about fare rules and how app-based pricing works.
'If you don't have your own vehicle in Bangalore, you're s**'
The viral post featured a photo of the meter and app fare side by side, with the caption: 'The price on meter vs the price on Uber. If you don't have your own vehicle in Bangalore, you're s*.'
The ride was just 2.6 km– a short distance– yet the app showed a fare over four times what the meter indicated.
The contrast didn't go unnoticed and was widely shared by people both within and outside the city.
'Woah, you found an auto that agreed to use the meter'
One user reacted, 'Woah, you found an auto that agreed to use the meter.'
To this, the original poster replied, 'No, I asked him to turn it on just so I could see the actual price.'
Users say surge pricing, driver preferences behind steep app fares
Some users tried to explain the price difference by saying that ride-hailing apps use dynamic pricing based on demand and supply.
But even that explanation didn't satisfy everyone.
The same user added, 'But even that logic fails when the government bans bike taxis and removes non-Kannadiga auto drivers. It's all being controlled by the auto mafia.'
Others noted that even when app fares drop closer to meter prices, rides often remain unavailable.
Many call app-based fares a form of 'exploitation'
As more users joined the conversation, a clear sentiment emerged– a feeling that app fares are unfair, especially for daily commuters.
One user didn't hold back, calling it 'absolute exploitation.'
Having your own vehicle isn't always a win either
While some supported the original poster's take on the need for personal vehicles, others pointed out that even that isn't always a better deal. One comment summed it up: 'And in this traffic, even your own vehicle gives a mileage of less than 9 kmpl.'
Disclaimer: This article is based on a viral social media post and public comments. The Times of India does not independently verify the authenticity of the post or the claims made by users.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Ukraine war, sanctions cast shadow on Indo-Russian joint venture for 200 choppers
Ukraine war, sanctions cast shadow on Indo-Russian joint venture for 200 choppers

First Post

timean hour ago

  • First Post

Ukraine war, sanctions cast shadow on Indo-Russian joint venture for 200 choppers

The Indo-Russian project to build 200 Kamov helicopters in India has hit a standstill due to the Ukraine war, Western sanctions on Russia, and post-pandemic supply chain issues, according to a report. As the joint venture faces delays, India's HAL is shifting its focus to developing its own helicopter models. read more The Indo-Russian joint venture to build 200 Kamov helicopters in India has stalled due to the Ukraine war, Western sanctions on Russia, and supply chain disruptions after the Covid pandemic, The Times of India reported citing officials. India and Russia signed an agreement for the project in 2015. Later, Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) and Russian Helicopters formed a joint venture called Indo-Russian Helicopters Limited (IRHL) to carry it out. 'The Russians have had their own issues with their war with Ukraine and subsequent sanctions on them. They faced issues securing parts - particularly those previously sourced from Europe. Even the engine was coming from Europe. Now they are testing with their own engine,' HAL CMD DK Sunil said to Times of India, adding that HAL has been told the status of certification would be shared by the end of this year. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Sunil said the Russians had even agreed to the requirement of 70 per cent local manufacturing for the helicopters, but they needed more time. Of the planned 200 helicopters, 135 are for the Army and 65 for the Air Force. 'We've asked them for more details. Right now, things are uncertain. We'll wait to see their certification status before deciding,' Sunil said. With the joint venture still stalled, HAL is focusing more on its own helicopter projects — the Light Utility Helicopter (LUH), Light Combat Helicopter (LCH), and the upcoming Indian Multi-Role Helicopter (IMRH). Sunil said HAL's new helicopter complex in Tumakuru, Karnataka, is already producing the LUH and will gradually become the main hub for future helicopter production. 'We've built eight LUHs there so far. The LCH will also move there in phases. Eventually, our 12-tonne IMRH will be built there too,' he said. Once fully operational, the Tumakuru facility will help reduce the workload on HAL's Bengaluru helicopter division, which will continue making the Advanced Light Helicopter (ALH) Dhruv.

Trump slaps new tariffs on dozen countries as India-US trade deal awaits final nod
Trump slaps new tariffs on dozen countries as India-US trade deal awaits final nod

Mint

time2 hours ago

  • Mint

Trump slaps new tariffs on dozen countries as India-US trade deal awaits final nod

NEW DELHI : US President Donald Trump has announced a sweeping set of new tariffs, effective 1 August, on imports from more than a dozen countries, including key Asian economies such as Thailand, Cambodia, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Malaysia, Japan, and South Korea. India, notably, remains off the list—for now—amid ongoing negotiations over a bilateral trade agreement (BTA), which remains unsigned on the President's desk. Tariff breakdown: Asia hit hardest Trump announced the tariffs through letters posted on his social media platform Social Truth. Laos and Myanmar were hit the hardest, facing duties up to 40%. Thailand retained its 36% duty from April, while Cambodia saw a slight reduction to 36% from 49%. Bangladesh's rate dropped to 35% from 37%, and Indonesia held steady at 32%. Malaysia's duty rose by 1% to 25%, while both Japan and South Korea were slapped with new 25% tariffs. Non-Asian countries also affected include Bosnia (30%), Serbia (35%), Tunisia (25%), Kazakhstan (25%), and South Africa (30%). Also read: 'US close to trade deal with India', Donald Trump announces amid new tariffs on 14 countries India holds its ground—for now India, which has offered multiple trade concessions to the US in recent months, was conspicuously absent from the tariff list. This gives the country a pricing edge in labour-intensive sectors like textiles, apparel, electronics, and toys, where its Asian competitors now face stiffer duties. 'As these rival exporters contend with steeper duties, Indian products are likely to gain a pricing edge, offering a strategic opening for Indian manufacturers to expand their footprint in the US and attract greater sourcing attention from American buyers," said Ajay Sahai, director general, Federation of Indian Export Organisations (FIEO). The tariff hike comes just 48 hours before the 9 July deadline for the 90-day pause on Trump's Reciprocal Tariff Policy expires. While the US Trade Representative (USTR) has cleared the draft India-US trade deal, the final sign-off awaits Trump's approval. Indian officials say the agreement is unlikely to be concluded without top-level political intervention, especially on contentious issues like agriculture, dairy, and genetically modified seeds. The move, detailed through tariff letters signed by Trump and posted on his social media platform, Social Truth, comes just as the much-awaited India-US Bilateral Trade Agreement (BTA) remains unsigned and pending on the President's desk. 'The deal is ready on paper, but it's now a political call," a government official said. 'If it's not signed in time, some Indian products with strong export interest may be kept out, and the same could apply to US goods. These could be taken up in later phases." Indian negotiators remain cautiously optimistic that if the 9 July deadline is missed, it could be extended to 1 August—buying time for the trade deal. Until then, India is expected to be spared from a direct tariff blow. Also read: Donald Trump announces 25% tariffs on imports from Japan and South Korea, warns against retaliation Trump's statement 'Large and persistent US trade deficits pose an extraordinary threat to our national security and economy," Trump said in an executive order. 'The 90-day suspension of additional duties, implemented in April, was based on the sincere intentions of our trading partners. That suspension will now be extended until 1 August 2025." 'Where partners take significant steps to align with the United States on economic and national security matters, I may modify tariffs accordingly," he added. The tariff hikes form part of Trump's broader Reciprocal Tariff Policy targeting countries he accuses of maintaining unfair trade barriers against American goods. With India offering market access in sectors like dairy and medical devices, New Delhi hopes its cooperative stance will spare it from a similar fate. Also read: US trade deal down to the wire as tariff pause nears close

OECD Tax Framework Collapses as G7 Bows to Trump's reciprocal tax threat
OECD Tax Framework Collapses as G7 Bows to Trump's reciprocal tax threat

The Hindu

time6 hours ago

  • The Hindu

OECD Tax Framework Collapses as G7 Bows to Trump's reciprocal tax threat

Published : Jul 07, 2025 16:03 IST - 6 MINS READ Developments that have occurred in quick succession have crushed the successful efforts made in recent years to increase global cooperation aimed at raising tax revenues to take on a host of global challenges. Late in June, the non-US six (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the UK) in the G7 announced that they had agreed to a 'side-by-side solution' that amounts to a retreat from the existing global agreement to cooperate on corporate taxation. They have decided to exempt US multinationals from being subject to a minimum tax on their profits of 15 per cent, as required under an agreement sealed in 2021. To recall, after years of negotiation, an agreement titled the 'OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS)' was arrived at in 2021 under the auspices of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), with non-OECD countries too joining the discussion. That agreement was a commitment on the part of over 140 governments to work towards implementing a common framework to tax the global profits of transnational companies that find ways to transfer to and record their profits in low tax locations where they often have little economic activity. The BEPS framework was a means to combat such tax avoidance practices that reduce national and aggregate global tax revenues, and help governments tax profits in jurisdictions where economic activity actually occurs and value creation takes place. Also Read | A summit of subordinates The core of the agreement, which recommended 15 actions, was named Pillar Two of the framework. This was by no means far-reaching. It merely set a 15 per cent floor rate of tax on the profits of multinationals in all the cooperating jurisdictions, which was much lower than the 25-30 per cent considered reasonable by those looking to raise resources for meeting various financing challenges. Dissatisfaction over this and the tardy move to implement the OECD agreement set off demands for a global tax convention under the auspices of the UN, which would give less developed countries more of a say in determining the terms of the agreement and a greater role in its implementation. Some progress has been achieved on this, with a UN General Assembly decision to constitute an ad hoc committee to draft the terms of reference for a UN Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation. Negotiations on the convention were to occur over 2025 to 2027. Weaponised tariffs However, from the very start the US—though a party to the OECD agreement—has been expressing reservations about a number of the proposed measures, especially the Pillar Two global minimum tax. With US multinationals being the principal adopters of profit-shifting strategies, they would have been the main targets of any such minimum tax, however low. So, the US, while committed to the inclusive framework, campaigned during Donald Trump's first term as President of the US, for a much-diluted version of the minimum tax proposal. And, in Trump's more aggressive second term, in which he has chosen to weaponise tariffs and taxes, Pillar Two seems to be under attack. Going on the offensive, the original version of Trump's so-called 'big beautiful' budget Bill included a section—Section 899—that authorised the US government to impose 'revenge taxes' on foreign investments emanating from countries that 'discriminated' against US firms in their tax practices. Support for a minimum corporate tax on global profits in locations were they were actually earned was seen as an instance of such discrimination. In the face of that threat, the non-US members of the G7 caved in and agreed to a side-by-side solution that exempts US multinationals from the global minimum tax provision, which amounts to dumping Pillar Two and with it the OECD agreement. That would also undermine efforts to institute an effective UN convention on international taxation, since leading countries are now likely to opt out of the convention. The link between the decision on the minimum tax and the proposed revenge taxes was clearly revealed when the US Treasury Department asked the US Congress to drop Section 899 because, in Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent's words, the US had secured concessions exempting US companies from the OECD's global minimum tax regime. In fact, the Trump administration seems set to destroy all efforts at combating tax avoidance by threatening action against any international taxation measures that target multinational profits. Days after the 'side-by-side solution' was announced by non-US G7 members, Canada declared that it was scrapping a proposed tax on digital services companies that was to come into effect on June 30. The tax involved was a paltry levy of 3 per cent, which was to apply on revenues earned by firms like Meta, Netflix, and Amazon from cross-border provision of services to Canadian clients. But even that small levy was expected to increase Canada's federal government revenues by $5.3 billion over five years. Trump declared the tax a 'direct and blatant' attack on US firms, and suspended negotiations on a deal on reciprocal and special tariffs. Fearing that the tax would upend discussions on that deal, Canadian Prime Minister Mike Carney said that his government had decided to scrap the levy in order to facilitate resumption of trade talks. Global repercussions This too is likely to be a precedent with global repercussions. Many countries, especially in the EU like France have digital services taxes in place. Germany has been considering imposing a 10 per cent tax on global digital platforms like Meta and Google. And the European Commission has been talking of imposing a tax on the advertising revenues of tech firms. All of these are now under threat, as revoking them may be made a precondition for any deal on tariffs, even though there are signs that a baseline 10 per cent reciprocal tariff on imports into the US will remain and only special tariffs above these are up for negotiation. Also Read | Trade is very central to Trump's world view: Navtej Sarna One of Trump's slogans is that he wants to 'Make America Great Again' by bringing back manufacturing that had moved abroad, not least by relying on import tariffs. That could affect the profits of US firms if they are forced to withdraw from low-cost production locations abroad. Simultaneously, he seems intent on fighting discrimination against US multinationals to protect the profits of US firms. The possibility that the two objectives might be in contradiction seems lost on the President. C.P. Chandrasekhar taught for more than three decades at the Centre for Economic Studies and Planning, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. He is currently Senior Research Fellow at the Political Economy Research Institute, University of Massachusetts Amherst, US.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store