I'm not sure taxi service qualifies as a "non-essential luxury"; there are times when it isn't (a rainstorm, for instance) and I think that's why it draws the political interest that it does.

PS I inadvertently downvoted you, unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a way to upvote it back. Sorry...

No worries on the inadvertent downvote. I do, however, have to take issue with the characterization of a taxi as an essential. :)

Seriously, though, even in a rainstorm a taxi is a non-essential. It's nice, and I'd certainly prefer one if it's raining, but it isn't essential. There always exist alternate modes of transportation that are going to be less expensive (public transit, Zipcar, your own car, or an umbrella and your own two feet). It's not as though one, bereft of an affordable taxi, can never reach one's destination.

I just don't see how Uber can possibly be construed as an essential, except maybe in highly exceptional circumstances. You're hiring someone to chauffeur you to your destination with an expensive computing device, via a similarly expensive data connection. How is that anything but the definition of a non-essential, luxury good?

You're a mother carrying groceries and a kid and you have to walk ten blocks. Is it as essential as medical treatment? No, but it's a substantial degradation of your quality of life if you get priced out of it. I think the political attention on the topic speaks for itself as to how essential the public views it. And we're not just talking about Uber here, we're talking about taxis in general: if Uber drives taxis out of business by undercutting them during ordinary circumstances, there won't be any around to undercut Uber during a surge.

I didn't say it bothers me, just that concluding "needs it more" from "willing and able to pay more" is fallacious.