police fuel surcharge

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by dukebound85, Jul 1, 2008.

  1. dukebound85 macrumors P6

    dukebound85

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Location:
    5045 feet above sea level
    #1
    redicoulous. i already pay taxes to fund the police and yet they add fuel surcharges

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7482934.stm

    they give examples to pizza deliveries and airlines doing the same but guess what? they are not funded by my tax dollars like city government sevices
     
  2. iShater macrumors 604

    iShater

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2002
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    #2
    But the speeders pay this, so you should be happy that your tax dollars are not going to pay the extra fuel costs to pull them over.
     
  3. WildCowboy Administrator/Editor

    WildCowboy

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2005
    #3
    Somebody has to pay for the increased fuel costs, and I'd much rather it be covered by the guy that's causing the fuel usage than by a tax increase on me.

    Excellent idea IMO.
     
  4. it5five macrumors 65816

    it5five

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Location:
    New York
    #4
    How is this ridiculous? Only those people that are forcing the police to use extra fuel are the ones paying for it. If you don't want to pay it there is an easy solution: don't speed and lead the police on a high speed chase.
     
  5. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #5
    Yeah, duke. It won't affect you at all if you don't go and audition for a bit-part on "COPS".
     
  6. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #6
    Tax rates aren't indexed to fuel prices.

    Anyone going more than 5 mph over the speed limit should be hit with a massive fuel surcharge. It's people like that that have made the situation worse.
     
  7. nbs2 macrumors 68030

    nbs2

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Location:
    A geographical oddity
    #7
    I'm not sure where you guys are getting "high speed chase" from.

    The surcharge applies to all moving violations. Which means that if they set up a modern style speed trap (multiple cops in a heavy traffic, low limit location, one with a gun, one to waive down, two to four writing tickets), even though no more fuel is being used, people are being expected to pay the extra $12. Since $3 seems to be the baseline max that the city is willing to pay, that means that you are paying a surcharge of roughly 12 gallons of fuel per moving violation.

    As tickets fines are set at the state level, this is nothing more than a method to increase the fine without obtaining state approval. Note that the surcharge "may" be eliminated if the city so chooses, if/when fuel drops to $3. Had the increased fine been eliminated automatically (and perhaps tied to the increasing cost of fuel), it would have been more easily justified.

    As the surcharge significantly outweighs the cost to the city, I see a court ruling that this is an attempt to bypass state limits on fines and striking the charge down.
     
  8. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #8
    I like this, in principal, because I am fully behind User Fees.

    If you don't want to "use" the police services, don't break the farkin' law.
     
  9. Badandy macrumors 68040

    Badandy

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2005
    Location:
    Terminus
    #9

    Get off your soapbox of wishing extremely harsh punishment on people who want to drive slightly faster than you do on a road that probably has too low of a speedlimit as it is (such as freeways with 55-65 speed limits that are safe enough to drive faster). Shouldn't you want gas "wasted" and the price to be driven up in order to stimulate investment in greener technologies?
     
  10. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #10
    The cost of collection isn't zero, and they need to make back the money to cover the first half of the year.
     
  11. themadchemist macrumors 68030

    themadchemist

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2003
    Location:
    Chi Town
    #11
    However, if the speed limit is very low, a person going more than 5 mph over the speed limit could argue that he is driving faster to maximize fuel efficiency. "Honest, officer, it's for the environment!" After all, he is still on the positive slope side of the fuel efficiency vs. speed curve. :D
     
  12. nbs2 macrumors 68030

    nbs2

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Location:
    A geographical oddity
    #12
    But the marginal cost of collection on this fee is zero. It doesn't cost any more to collect $62 for running a stop sign than it does to collect $50 for running a stop sign.

    And if the fees are higher to make back the money from the first half of the year, then I expect that the charge will be lowered once the breakeven point is reached. Or is this just a way to make more money?
     

Share This Page