Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

bello

(135 posts)
2. Taxation via law enforcement
Sat May 11, 2024, 01:32 PM
May 2024

Taxation via law enforcement leads to bad law and worse law enforcement.

That said, I can see where cameras could be needed in some places.. In school zones as described here. In construction zones. I’m sure other examples exist.

Today in many cases, photo enforcement is handled by a contracting firm who also provides the equipment for a cut of the action. This is an analogue of old west bounty hunters. There is a reason we don’t allow any yahoo to buy a squad car and enforce laws for a cut of the action.

My solution would be to mandate that all gross revenue from the camera enforcement would have to be given to a state run revenue sharing plan. Contractors couldn’t boost their income by over-enforcement. Local government couldn’t boost their income by over enforcement. Cities couldn’t boost their income at the expense of travelers and tourists.

Local government would have to justify the purchase of cameras on enforcement needs in a similar way that the justify the purchase of a new squad car.

Recommendations

1 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Region Forums»Washington»After traffic cameras wen...»Reply #2