AARoads Forum

I saw this on the NBC Nightly News and thought I would post about it here.  What do you guys think about this?  I personally think it's crazy.  Especailly when they don't have to do anything when they show up.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp=39729906�&from=en-us_msnhp&snid=18424776

It is insane.  Basic police services are already paid for via taxes.

We had that happen at work (most of you know I work for state government) with this p**sant sized town and a minor deal with a state car.  I informed the town clerk that the state did not pay taxes to towns and if I heard any more about it, I would have her revenue sharing cancelled.  End of story.

Are localities even allowed to assess taxes of this kind?  I would think that if such a tax were assessed against someone who refused to pay, and the locality then took that person to court, the case would be thrown out on the basis that the "crash tax" is a fine issued without due process of law.

I've heard stories of fire departments charging for fire runs. And government-owned ambulance services charge for their runs.

So similar stuff does happen.

Yes, where I live, I would have to pay a fee of up to $1,000 if there was a fire at my house.

Quote from: J N Winkler on October 19, 2010, 08:58:00 AMthe "crash tax" is a fine issued without due process of law.

is it issued without due process of law?  the officer on the scene has the power vested in him by his municipality to assign responsibility for an accident, and levy fines.  I'd figure that's about as due as process could get.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 19, 2010, 11:19:23 AM
is it issued without due process of law?  the officer on the scene has the power vested in him by his municipality to assign responsibility for an accident, and levy fines.  I'd figure that's about as due as process could get.

In the video piece, the person they interviewed was not at fault.

IMHO  If you do charge for these things, the money should come from the party that is at fault.

Quote from: mightyace on October 19, 2010, 11:42:14 AM
In the video piece, the person they interviewed was not at fault.

IMHO  If you do charge for these things, the money should come from the party that is at fault.

yes, absolutely, that is why people (in theory, anyway) carry a thing called "liability insurance".

If they are charging crash taxes to people not at fault, that's really stupid. If we're charging crash taxes to people at fault, I have no problem with that. Taxpayers shouldn't have to subsidize idiocy. It's a bit different than a fire at one's home because fires are generally less within the homeowners control than an automobile accident is within the driver's control.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 19, 2010, 11:19:23 AM

Quote from: J N Winkler on October 19, 2010, 08:58:00 AMthe "crash tax" is a fine issued without due process of law.

is it issued without due process of law?  the officer on the scene has the power vested in him by his municipality to assign responsibility for an accident, and levy fines.  I'd figure that's about as due as process could get.

Yes, it is issued without due process of law.  If it is a fine, the motorist has the option (however theoretical it may be) to contest the facts and law in court.  That option does not exist with a tax.

^^^

And a constitutional challenge would probably fail as there are many existing taxes (Income, sales, gas, hotel, etc.) that are levied against visitors to an area.

I am not so sure a constitutional challenge would fail because the tax is clearly punitive in nature.  If I were a lawyer trying to get a client out of paying the tax, I would use Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bailey_v._Drexel_Furniture_Co.) as a starting point.

^^^

You got me there.

Good research J N!  :clap:

Quote from: J N Winkler on October 19, 2010, 02:14:21 PM
I am not so sure a constitutional challenge would fail because the tax is clearly punitive in nature.  If I were a lawyer trying to get a client out of paying the tax, I would use Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bailey_v._Drexel_Furniture_Co.) as a starting point.

then do not call it a tax.  Every speeding ticket has "court fees" and whatnot associated with it (as well as even more ridiculous abuses like "motorcycle helmet safety fee"), so when you cite someone for the accident, charge them "administrative fees".

Charging people who are not at fault is ridiculous. Charging people who are at fault I can accept.