Why
Not a Ticket for Tax
Abuse?
A
General Assembly bill would ratchet up fines for
certain traffic "abuses" and earmark the
revenue to highway projects. The
real abusers are the politicians sponsoring this
bad legislation.
At
a time when Virginia’s Treasury is overflowing with money from a
surplus estimated at $1 billion or higher, one
would not expect to see many new bills calling for
additional revenues and the creation of a bigger
and more oppressive state government. On the
contrary, one would expect to see a host of bills
in the General Assembly proposing to reduce our
tax burden.
Some
bills have been introduced calling for the
reduction of some taxes, such as reinstating the
car tax relief that had been promised a long time
ago or the elimination of the unnecessary taxes
that were imposed this year. However, their future
remains uncertain.
Astonishingly,
the call for more revenues to state coffers
continues unabated. Even some of our
representatives who are considered friendly to the
anti-tax cause are caught proposing new taxes. And
please don’t fall for the line that fees, fines
or penalties are not taxes. Any time the
government reaches into the wallet of its
citizens, it is imposing a tax.
A
bill recently introduced appeals to the
frustration of drivers who have to deal with our
highly congested highways. Proposing to impose
additional civil penalties to traffic offenders
labeled “abusers”, it would dedicate revenues
to a special fund that would back the issuance of
bonds whose proceeds will be applied toward
highway-related construction.
A
superficial read of this proposal should appeal to
a large audience. Not only is additional money
raised for building our highways, but higher
penalties should deter drivers from driving
irresponsibly. It ostensibly achieves the
proverbial two birds with one stone.
When
examining this proposal beyond the emotional
level, however, one can only conclude that this is
bad piece of legislation. It is based on seriously
flawed legal principles and sets terrible
legislative precedents.
At
a time when the state is collecting abundantly
more taxes than it needs to operate, any proposal
to bring additional revenues to the Treasury is
simply bad policy. More revenues lead to a bloated
bureaucracy and remove any pressure to cut back
spending.
From
a fiscally conservative perspective, raising
additional revenues at a time when government
spending is experiencing unprecedented growth
levels is unconscionable. That’s why it’s
particularly troubling that presumably anti-tax
legislators, such as Delegates Dave Albo,
R-Fairfax and Jeff Frederick, R-Woodbridge, and
Sen. Jay O’Brien, R-Fairfax, have signed up as
the bill’s patrons.
From
a libertarian perspective, it is a horrible idea
to enact revenue enhancing legislation that uses
the state police as its collecting arm. If we
start going down that slippery slope, what comes
next? Using the state troopers to arrest taxpayers
for missing their tax-filing deadline?
But
what about the idea that higher fines will instill
and promote responsible driving habits? It is
doubtful that any drivers reflect on the
associated traffic fines when committing traffic
violations. Accordingly, it is extremely unlikely
that such a bill will have any impact on improving
our driving habits.
But
the bill doesn’t merely propose to raise the
penalties associated with bad driving. It also
aims to increase the points assessed on a
driver’s record after being convicted of a
moving violation. For example, driving 15 to 19
m.p.h. above the posted speed limit will get you 5
demerit points, up from 4 points currently.
Raising the points might make sense if it were
deemed necessary for traffic enforcement concerns,
but it makes little sense to include such
provisions in legislation whose primary purpose is
to increase revenues for highway construction.
And
do not be misled that only serious traffic
violators would be labeled as “abusers.” Just
driving 15 m.p,h., above the posted speed limit
will garner an additional $100 in civil penalties,
over and above the traffic fines imposed for the
underlying infraction.
Anyone
who has driven on the Washington Beltway or any
other Interstate highway across our Commonwealth
knows that traffic usually moves considerably
faster than the speed limit—that is when not
experiencing bumper-to-bumper congestion. It is
not unusual to get caught in traffic flaws moving
at 20 or 30 mph above the posted speed.
Perhaps
we need to crack down on speeding.
Or perhaps the speed limits are set at
unrealistically low levels. It is noteworthy that
the maximum speed limit in other southern states
is set at 70 m.p.h. not 65 m.p.h. as is the case
in Virginia. Even on those highways traffic is usually moving
much faster.
Is
it, therefore, cynical to conclude that Virginia
keeps the speed limits artificially low so that
the state can collect more money from traffic
violators? Regardless of what side one takes on
this question, there is little doubt that the Albo
proposal is intended to raise the bar even higher.
In other words, if his bill were adopted, the
state will be going out of its way to punish
otherwise law-abiding drivers who are caught in
traffic flaws moving faster than the posted speed
limits.
On
a personal level, for Del. Albo to be sponsoring
such a bill also sets a terrible precedent. In
proposing this legislation Albo is facing an
apparent, if not actual, conflict of interest.
You
see, Albo makes his living as an attorney
representing traffic violators in court. A cynic
could, therefore, conclude that Albo’s
sole motivation in raising the fines and penalties
imposed on traffic offenders is to ensure that
more of them would seek attorneys to represent
them in traffic court.
I
am confident that such a consideration is not what
is motivating Del. Albo. Nonetheless, from a
common- sense perspective, a legislator should
never get caught in a position where one could
question whether a particular bill is intended to
personally enrich its sponsor.
All
things considered, this is a bad bill that will
only lead to bigger government. There is little
doubt that money is needed for transportation
improvements. However, money is pouring into Richmond
and there is no excuse for calling for additional
revenues at this time, no matter how noble the
purpose.
--
January 4, 2005
|
