If industry X was paying $100mm tax, and industry Y disrupts and replaces that, while paying only $20mm tax, the government needs to find $80 million to replace that tax shortfall.
Nothing to do with taxi related services...
To continue using Uber as an example, not only do they potentially decrease the costs of operating the government (see my reasoning above), they're also still paying local employees. Those employees will spend their Uber revenue and pay taxes, just as taxi drivers would.
Further, Uber makes it easier to move physical objects around in an economy. That should generally make the economy more efficient, which could also help to swing the balance in favor of a net positive effect.
All I was saying from the beginning is that it's not always true that an international company replacing local companies is creating a net decrease in government income.
This is drifting off-topic, but it's worth noting that Uber's short-term plan is to somewhat reduce the wages of people who drive taxis (or "share rides," as they call it), and greatly reduce the tax cities collect on that activity. Their long-term plan is robot cars with no paid drivers.
Old model: The taxi company spends 100% of its income in the state, meaning the state collects 100% of the taxes of the costs.
Uber model: Uber spends next to nothing in the state, so the state gets less.
Uber still uses the same governmental resources, uber drivers earn less than the taxi drivers (less income, less taxes), and have less money to spend (economy shrinks, less taxes).
Uber makes the economy less efficient, as more money ends up in the US than in local businesses.
No, it doesn't, at least not in the US. It uses fewer government resources, although I don't have the data to say how significant of a difference it is.
If you consider the taxpayer paying the bill because uber doesn’t insure properly, it costs even more.