Many cities across the country have instituted or are considering instituting fees for traffic accidents, variously referred to as an accident fee, accident tax, or crash tax. In a tough economy, when city government budgets are in the red, accident fees may be seen as a new source of revenue, especially as an automobile accident uses city resources, in the form of fire and/or police response.
But generating revenue from a traffic accident is a really bad idea.
In January, 2011, McKinney, Texas, announced it was considering imposing a rupture tax for non-residents. The accident fee would be $215 for an accident resulting in an injury, and $110 for a non-injury accident. New York City is also considering imposing an accident fee for any accident that the NYFD responds to, regardless of whether there are injuries or a fire.
Dallas, Texas, imposed such a fee in 2008; other cities across the country have crash taxes in place as well.
While city budgets may be hurting, using an automobile accident as a source of revenue is a bad idea on many levels. Imposing an additional fee on top of other expenses incurred by the accident may save a burden on drivers they cannot meet.
The same tough economy that created deficits in city operating budgets has affected residents and visitors to those cities as well. It costs a lot to own and fill an automobile, and for most people an automobile is a necessity for daily living.
Insurance rates are high and get higher almost yearly, routine maintenance and non-accident related repairs can be extremely costly; registration and inspection fees add up; and the cost of gas continues to creep up.
In the aftermath of a car accident, drivers face the cost of repairs, and possibly a price from the accident. Adding another fee, in the form of an accident tax, could be the straw that breaks the backs of drivers, and pushes them into taking action that is not in the best interest of anyone on the road.
Shiny a fee would be attached may originate drivers involved in an accident reticent to narrate it. Surely cities don't want a rash of unreported accidents, or hit-and-runs, which is one possible result of imposing a atomize tax.
Already, despite laws requiring drivers to have car insurance, many people drive without it, taking their chances on the roads, and putting financial stress on other drivers and the insurance and response industries.
Many other drivers postpone or ignore registration and/or inspection requirements due to financial considerations. How would these people manage yet another car-related expense?
And what would be the financial ramifications on a city trying to collect fees from drivers who either cannot or will not pay? How far would a city be willing to go, and at what expense, to collect?
City governments appear to be the only proponents of an accident fee, accident or crash tax; drivers and the insurance industry are vehemently opposed to the idea. According to Accident Tax, 10 states (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee) have passed legislation prohibiting accident taxes.
There must be better ways for cities to increase revenue or balance their budgets than by taxing drivers already unfortunate enough to be involved in a traffic accident.
Source:
Accident Tax
Dallas Morning News
{ 0 comments }