Why not, instead of ticket/fine revenue going to the local area, have a national fund that all of this goes to. That fund then can be used to…support baby owls crack babies or something.
The problem with tickets/fines is that they work…and they are an incentive to the local community. This incentive can be perverted (and IMO usually is). Perverted means that the community uses it as a revenue stream.
If everyone knows that all fines/tickets etc goes to the owl crackbabies fund and sends it there (and the fund can enforce it as a law enforcement organization) then the locals can still use it as a disincentive BUT cannot benefit from it financially.
So, some people may ask, how are the local communities suppose to fund these prevention programs like red light cameras?
Well…by taxing the local residents and using those funds. I mean…if it is SO IMPORTANT that these cameras be used then the community can make that decision. However, NO MONEY WHATSOEVER will be collected from it locally.
Take the incentive away from these ‘hidden taxes’ but allow communities to use methods they think is important I say.
I don’t know…I’m leery of creating more bureaucracy to solve what is essentially a bureaucratic problem. I was arguing what I see as a similar point in the Seat Belt Laws: Good or Bad? thread (I didn’t really get involved until post #100 or so, FWIW) – the basic notion being that laws are restrictions, and restrictions should only be imposed with good cause. Of course, reasonable people can disagree on the definition of “good cause”, which is fine. But I think in this, much like in arguing/setting economic policy, unintended consequences are too often never considered, or are overlooked, or may be impossible to identify in the first place. Besides which, I don’t particularly like the idea of centralizing authority, nor do I think that using fines for revenue is necessarily a problem (although it is in this case).
I could expound on any of that, but I digress. It seems to me that the actual problem here is that, as you say, the purpose of the fines (reduce speeding) has been perverted to other ends. And in doing so, the system has been gamed. The solution, in my mind, is to write better laws that make it more difficult to game the system; in this case, that would include an explicit pronouncement of the lawmakers’ desired purpose (reduce speeding) and some standards concerning both the implementation (e.g., minimum length of yellow light) and some modicum of oversight (or oversight procedures, at least). An incidental benefit, IMHO, would be that less laws would be enacted – I actually like the idea of lawmaker gridlock, in principle if not in practice.
In reality, I think it’s not even remotely plausible. But there’s my 2 cents…
Are the tickets justified or not? Are laws being passed that trick people into violating them? Why should I pay higher taxes when the real violators can be identified and fined for the actions they choose to take?
This is a radical notion, I know… but how about voters support mayors, city councilmen, and other elected leaders who would end any tinkering of red light cameras being done by the current local government?
I have no problem at all with red light cameras. But if they’re being rigged to give undeserving people costly tickets, someone in the local government should be held accountable. Even if all the fines went to some national fund, there’d still be some sleazy politician looking for an angle on how to screw his constituents. The best answer is to replace whomever thought up the “tinker with the red light camera” scam and replace him with an honest public servant, or install a public servant who will hold the bureaucracy accountable.
All of these decisions should involve money raised close to home and spent close to home - so that politicians can feel the wrath if they get out of hand.
Here in Virginia, Republicans and Democrats conspired to come up with “abusive driver fees” added to tickets for serious traffic offenses. The reasons for this were not safety related - they were to close a $65 million gap in the budget without a tax increase.
The wrath this generated in large part cost Republicans the Senate in Richmond in the last election, and has put a big hit in Governor Kaine’s popularity.
Shield any of this information from voters, and their ability to hold politicians accountable in this way will be impacted. I can’t support that.
This sounds good…but I live in MN and so am jaded. Here in MN (and I’m sure elsewhere) there is a small but vocal minority that will bend local government to their will and screwing people will be considered a ‘good thing’ as it supports local schools etc. Since it involves government getting more money, the politicians WANT to be convinced…so it will happen.
Ordinary grunts are too busy working and living to be informed…especially when the people involved don’t want them to be informed. Local newspapers, like the Star Tribune, have never seen a tax increase they didn’t think was a good idea (well except for the one that would have put a tax on newspapers - for some reason they didn’t support that one) so they will not perform their watchdog role.
You are right, though…the system should work. It is just broken here but I don’t know of a way to fix it. Too many people with too much time on their hands benefit from taxes…and what better tax than a hidden tax like this?
My method in the OP would wipe them all out in one fell swoop. People like gigi would have to decide if paying more taxes to have these cameras is worth it…and not be a ‘freebie’ for her like it is now (it’s not really free but a hidden tax). In other words…it will have to be decided if it is really worth it…and the local communities may very well decide it is. However, it would not be a revenue stream.
Horrible idea - we need government revenue and spending CLOSER to the people, not farther away. I would rather pay 15% MORE in state taxes if I could drop the same 10% from my Federal taxes. I would do the same math for my county. Simply put - I can call a member of my school board or city council, I can struggle to the Assemblyman in my state, and I have no hope of influencing Federal spending.
As soon as you put ticket revenue into a Federal pile, it will turn into bridges to nowhere, entitlement spending, and the military.
My gut feeling/cynicism is that 90%+ of ticket/fine revenue is generated for the money…not to discourage the activity. Therefore, there won’t be much money going into the Federal pile.
I think it serves both purposes. The fine serves as a deterrent to illegal behavior by the motorist (though the increase in insurance costs is more of one for many). The fine income also serves to pay the expenses of the police department.
Abuse certainly happens, and I would be willing to hypothesize that the better funded departments give out more warnings than tickets. However, those better funded departments ALSO probably have fewer infractions to deal with as well.
You’re looking for a solution for fine-based revenue abuse by removing revenue. It will simply be drawn from another source. Focused tax revenue is easy to achieve. The poor can be taxed through gambling. The sick can be taxed through cigarettes. Soccer mom’s can be taxed through SUV (vehicle weight) or gas-guzzler taxes. Gardener’s can be taxed with property taxes.
Removing one method of revenue generation doesn’t eliminate the need, it just causes a shift in methodology.
I misunderstood. I didn’t realize you were lumping yourself into those getting tricked into paying the fines. I thought that’s what the other thread was about. My bad.
The problem with this is that often tickets come with surcharge(s) that go to the state and county if they are not already getting a cut of the ticket itself. The tickets that get issued will just have more local and state surcharges tacked on and thus be even more expensive.
It is also possible that since enforcement pushes might not happen if the money isn’t local, then there would be less need for patrolmen–>less jobs–>smaller budget reimbursement from feds. (5 paragraphs above the table)
I thought the solution in the OP is more ‘American’…kind of like a ‘checks and balances’…you can enforce the law how you like locally, you just can’t ‘profit’ from it.
That is another debate. I happen to think that ‘need’ is subjective. Does the state ‘need’ a new ball park? Does the local city ‘need’ whatever they want? What is ‘need’? To pick on the elephant in the room electrified rail…does the school system ‘need’ $11,000 per year per student?
Maybe they could do with , NOT LESS, but the SAME for a change. Why is every budget increased by a much larger amount than population has increased and inflation?
My local school district has had a 10% reduction of students over the last few years…weirdly enough they NEED MORE money. I could entertain arguments for the same…but more??? (after adjusting for inflation)
All that aside, if you need to generate more revenue, do it honestly, not hidden like in the OP.