Crash Taxes

jimmnn · #1 (**permalink**) 09-17-2009, 10:53 AM

What’s your feeling on DFD considering implementing a “crash tax”?

Proposed Fee Sticks Non-Residents With Accident Costs - Money News Story - KMGH Denver

Jim<

RodStrong · #2 (**permalink**) 09-17-2009, 11:29 AM

I'm all for paying more taxes to support failing businesses, including the gov't. When all else fails, bend over the public. It's change we can all believe in.

That fact that I drive to Denver multiple times a year ($$$), spend several hotel nights there each year ($$$), eat, shop, and generally subsist by dropping lots of $$$ into the local economy while there shouldn't mean a thing. I won't get into state taxes and license plate fees. That stuff don't count. If I get into a wreck, I need to pay more, apparently.

dracer777 · #3 (**permalink**) 09-17-2009, 12:35 PM

Wirelessly posted (MOT-QA30/00.72 UP.Browser/7.2.7.5.610 (GUI) MMP/2.0)

Uhmmmm.... I'm calling RAPE on this one. Errr. I mean FIRE! since no one pays attn. when you call rape now.

Troop · #4 (**permalink**) 09-17-2009, 03:55 PM

they need to drop the "tax" part of it and just call it a fee....This has been going on with agencies for awhile.....Run over a CDOT sign and see how much it'll cost ya

jimmnn · #5 (**permalink**) 09-17-2009, 06:27 PM

Another interesting discussion would be do they really need to respond a fire engine to every car accident call, many areas of the state get by just fine with a much less response than the "keep my job, keep my fire house open" response you see throughout the metro area.

Just listen to some of the varied run cards, think west metro is about the best you get an initial engine, ambulance then if it's on a highway another engine for traffic safety and if anyone is not immediiatly getting out of the vehicle a truck company for extrication then the batt chiefs SUV and the Safety officers SUV as well and OMG we have airbag deployment so that get's a 2nd ambulance started just in case.

Woops sorry no injuries.

Jim<

jimmnn · #6 (**permalink**) 09-17-2009, 06:31 PM

Speaking of has anyone heard DPD try to request an ambulance only code 9 response?

Normally the response from the dispatcher is I'll ask but you know the fire guys have to come and you know the fire trucks don't know how to respond code 9 and then usually the officer will say tell them not to send 5 engines this time.

Interesting inter-agency relations indeed.

Jim<

Thayne · #7 (**permalink**) 09-17-2009, 11:48 PM

Aw heck; unless yer an illegal alien, let Allsnakes or Snake Farm pay it for ya

poltergeisty · #8 (**permalink**) 09-18-2009, 06:09 AM

"The 2010 budget was delivered to the City Council on Tuesday."

I wonder who needs to tighten their belt!

WTH is a budget for?

Man, how many city auditors they have?

jeffreyinberthoud · #9 (**permalink**) 09-18-2009, 01:28 PM

On the surface it sounds like a responsibly "fee". I'm all for personal responsibilities
"YOU BREAK IT YOU BUY IT"

However I am one of those clinging to my religion and Guns and apparently I'm now a racist as well if you believe our leftist media ,because I disagree with these socialist "TAX TILL YOU BLEED" agenda
your a hate monger.

cam3336 · #10 (**permalink**) 10-09-2009, 04:27 PM

We have done this for years and we call it rescue billing. Where I work we have hundred of thousands of cars go through our district on a daily basis so we bill people that crash in our district that are non district residents. This does bring in some revenue but the main thing is the district tax payers are not footing the bill for non tax payers?

The name crash tax needs to be changed to make it work.

Kevin_N · #11 (**permalink**) 10-10-2009, 06:53 PM

Another government fee is crap. It doesn't matter if other places already do it. If I jump off a building are you going to follow me?

What does a CDOT sign have to do with it? That's got to be about replacing damaged property, just like you or your insurance will have to pay for the other person's car if you cause an accident.

Governments need to learn to downsize just like everyone else when they run out of money.

And this stuff about if you're in my district and cause an accident - you have to pay. That's acting like someone is coming there to cause an accident on purpose. We should be a better society than that - and get rid of the us and them attitude. Like someone said - that person is probably already spending a bunch of money over time in your "district", and you want to stick it to them when they make a mistake. OK perfect ones.

redhelmet13 · #12 (**permalink**) 10-10-2009, 07:14 PM

Govt only gets bigger when liberals are in charge... When times get tough, the weaklings tax and create new fees/raise the cost of fee's etc.... Its happening where I live.

However - I have to agree with a non resident fee assessment. It's only fair since they do not live in the municipality in which they are being given emergency service.

Troop · #13 (**permalink**) 10-10-2009, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin_N

What does a CDOT sign have to do with it? That's got to be about replacing damaged property, just like you or your insurance will have to pay for the other person's car if you cause an accident..

well your right, you'll be replacing the damaged property and paying for the response...If I didnt think it would have anything to do with this thread, I would have saved time typing

cam3336 · #14 (**permalink**) 10-10-2009, 11:11 PM

First off its not a tax it is for services rendered for a accident that they probably caused. You only get the bill if you crashed in our district and you dont live there. But the funny thing is that if the closest engine was at one of these accidents on the highway and your house was on fire you would be whining like a stuck pig on why we where not at your house saving your wife or dog. So your tax money was taking care of that person who spent 5 bucks at burger King as you said"that person is probably already spending a bunch of money over time in your "district" . SIx months later you would be suing our fire dept and your taxes "not the person who drives through" would be paying for your law suite.So the us and me attitude would be different if it was your family that needed help. You wouldnt be so forgiving when we where out taking care of the person without insurance and using resources you paid for. You think it wont happen to you but it will!!!!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin_N

Another government fee is crap. It doesn't matter if other places already do it. If I jump off a building are you going to follow me?

What does a CDOT sign have to do with it? That's got to be about replacing damaged property, just like you or your insurance will have to pay for the other person's car if you cause an accident.

Governments need to learn to downsize just like everyone else when they run out of money.

And this stuff about if you're in my district and cause an accident - you have to pay. That's acting like someone is coming there to cause an accident on purpose. We should be a better society than that - and get rid of the us and them attitude. Like someone said - that person is probably already spending a bunch of money over time in your "district", and you want to stick it to them when they make a mistake. OK perfect ones.

Kevin_N · #15 (**permalink**) 10-11-2009, 12:59 AM

Might as well charge fees for the medical responses, fires, lift assists, elevator rescues, false alarms, water rescues, smoke investigations, etc. At least if they involve out of town people. If I lived in Denver, I really wouldn't want to pay for those services for the invaders from other cities.

I mean where do you stop? There are certain things that society is set up to provide with overall over-taxation already. Do we really need to itemize?

Why only charge out of district people for crashes, I mean come on, they are wearing out your roads, polluting your air, causing traffic jams, who knows what else.

Maybe a system could be set up to scan license plates that come into the district, and send a bill to the out of district people. If they don't pay, put out a warrant. That would create a whole new government department to run that would create government jobs.

Troop · #16 (**permalink**) 10-11-2009, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin_N

Might as well charge fees for the medical responses, fires, lift assists, elevator rescues, false alarms, water rescues, smoke investigations, etc. At least if they involve out of town people. If I lived in Denver, I really wouldn't want to pay for those services for the invaders from other cities.

I mean where do you stop? There are certain things that society is set up to provide with overall over-taxation already. Do we really need to itemize?

Why only charge out of district people for crashes, I mean come on, they are wearing out your roads, polluting your air, causing traffic jams, who knows what else.

Maybe a system could be set up to scan license plates that come into the district, and send a bill to the out of district people. If they don't pay, put out a warrant. That would create a whole new government department to run that would create government jobs.

Geez come on....it's obvious that anybody could say anything on here and you'd complain about it...or see some sort of conspiracy in it.....I guess if a certain district charges for crashes....dont drive there and crash....now where'd I put my club for beating this dead horse?...

Kevin_N · #17 (**permalink**) 10-12-2009, 01:00 AM

Um, let's see...........the thread started with someone asking our opinion about the "crash tax", so I gave my opinion. So I happen to feel strongly about it and exaggerated a little to make a point and get people who are all too willing to have more fees and/or taxes to think about it.

So some of you don't agree with me and some probably do - big deal. That's quite the generalization saying that I would complain about anything anyone says on here.

I better go - I think a black helo just landed in my neighbor's yard.

Kevin_N · #18 (**permalink**) 10-12-2009, 01:23 AM

Interesting - unlikely - scenerio. I hope your crystal ball is not working correctly because it seems like you are wanting my house to burn down.

But ignoring the attack part of this - I don't really follow your logic. How does someone paying a fee for the crash they caused make it so there is an engine available for someone's house. Do you really think that there will be enough in fees to buy more engines and that they will use it for that? It doesn't seem very likely. They'd have to buy several more engines in Denver to have this scenerio work. And I'm pretty sure they will still go to the accidents and fires the same as they do now whether they have the fee or not.

And there are a lot more factors involved - like the economy tends to cycle for one.

I don't know why you would think - if you did - that I was attacking Firemen in any way. I happen to like Firemen and Policemen. I have friends who are both.

I was only commenting about the fact that government already takes too much of our money (and mosly abuses it) and the fact that this kind of fee is very territorial (the us and them part). In general society seems to move the other way, but you probably don't agree with me.

On a related note - does/should departments send a bill to a neigboring agency when they render mutual aid assitance?

Quote:

Originally Posted by cam3336

First off its not a tax it is for services rendered for a accident that they probably caused. You only get the bill if you crashed in our district and you dont live there. But the funny thing is that if the closest engine was at one of these accidents on the highway and your house was on fire you would be whining like a stuck pig on why we where not at your house saving your wife or dog. So your tax money was taking care of that person who spent 5 bucks at burger King as you said"that person is probably already spending a bunch of money over time in your "district" . SIx months later you would be suing our fire dept and your taxes "not the person who drives through" would be paying for your law suite.So the us and me attitude would be different if it was your family that needed help. You wouldnt be so forgiving when we where out taking care of the person without insurance and using resources you paid for. You think it wont happen to you but it will!!!!!

datainmotion · #19 (**permalink**) 10-12-2009, 04:09 PM

Many FD agencies within CO are Fire Protection Districts rather than Fire Departments. These departments (FPDs) are not necessarily bounded by one city's (or area's) jurisdiction and they don't have access to the sales tax base that Muni FDs do. Now I'm not saying Muni FDs have all the money they want - far from it. However what happens when you throw, say, coverage for a busy Metro area interstate highway into the mix?

In the case of many FPDs like North Washington FPD (for example) - most of their funding comes from Mill Levies and some Property taxes within their District. That funds their entire annual budget. That should be fine you say to cover the properties within their District with adequate fire protection. But then toss in three of the most heavily travelled miles of I-25. There is no funding for the resources necessary to provide coverage for that. Plus what if law requires them to carry a supplemental insurance policy (on top of their over-inflated current insurance costs) for responses on that particular highway due to its high accident rate?

If they have to use their resources to cover that (which isn't paid for) in addition to those covered within real properties within their District, don't you think they should be able to recoup some of those costs? And if they can't and decide to suspend their coverage of service for I-25 due to its high cost, who will respond to those accidents?

Yes, many Public Safety Agencies spend money in ways that we deem wasteful and un-necessary, but to penalize all by not allowing them to recoup those particular un-funded costs seems unfair and possibly unsafe.

Just a thought.

On the Mutual Aid question - many agencies have a "you cover us and we'll cover you" policy while others may charge for their services.

Kevin_N · #20 (**permalink**) 10-12-2009, 07:33 PM

Your point is well taken. I wasn't just saying that PS agencies abuse money. I was talking about the governments that control their budgets.

The way I see it, if they are running low on money, they need to prioritize and cut some of the stupid and un-needed things. Obvioulsy public safety is a high priority.

And I'm still not convinced that a fee for crashes is what they need. There are many sources for funding, including tons of money that agencies have gotten from the Feds - since they don't have to balance their budget. They can spend as much as they want to.

I don't know this, but I wouldn't be surprised if there is money to be had from the Feds, if you have an Interstate going through your FPD.

Everyone is always saying they don't have money, especially when the economy is bad, but you have to really look at what they are spending the money on. Governments, generally, don't want to make themselves smaller and sometimes that's what needs to be done.

I understand that the smaller FPDs operate differently, but this did start out talking about Denver in particular.