Fund This Story : Somerville Parking Tickets

[barry-rafkind.livejournal.com]

Dear fellow car drivers friends and neighbors,

The City is counting on you to park longer than 48 hours in one place, to not remember which day is street cleaning on your side, and to forget to give your out-of-town friends and relatives visitor passes instantly when they arrive at your place. I know what you're thinking, that the City wants its residents, workers, and visitors to abide by the laws, not break them.

Alas, the FY2010 municipal budget (pdf) has already been written with the expectation of approx $8.7 million from parking fines (up $1.5 million from last year) plus change in surcharges, towing fees, and moving violations. So, unless you want the city to face cut-backs in police, fire, and education, you'd better start parking within 20 feet of an intersection and leaving your car on the street during your week-long vacation. The City has even adjusted its parking policies to help facilitate this new revenue increase.

But seriously, if the City is going to rely on this regressive form of taxation, shouldn't we at least expect the burden to fall somewhat equitably around the city? And how does Somerville compare to surrounding communities in terms of its parking enforcement policies? If you'd like to help us find out the answers to these and other parking related questions, then please consider pledging what you can to our new $500 fund-raiser to hire an investigative journalist. To join our campaign or leave a comment, please head on over to the Somerville Voices blog and thanks!

Sincerely,
Barry Rafkind

Comments

Re: Perhaps the OP means that...

[thetathx1138.livejournal.com]

Not really. A regressive tax is where the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases.

It's true that a parking ticket would ding somebody who make $20k a lot more than somebody who makes $40k, but I want to see a full breakdown of who in what class drives. There's also the little matter of how this isn't a tax. If this were about the excise tax, I could see it being called regressive. This is about parking tickets, which can be avoided. The city is not going to come after you for abiding by the laws it passes.

Re: Perhaps the OP means that...

[barry-rafkind.livejournal.com]

And since the ticket fines are set amounts and not rates, they are regressive because, if taken as a proportion of income, the "rate" would tend to decrease as income increases.

Any idea where we might find the type of data (income distribution of MA drivers) you're asking for? How much would you be willing to contribute to such a survey?

Sales tax can also be avoided, but that doesn't make it not a tax.

Re: Perhaps the OP means that...

[cowsandmilk.livejournal.com]

please explain how I can legally avoid sales tax without driving to another state (which often costs more than the sales tax).

And don't say something unrealistic like "live completely self-sufficiently", because that's silly as opposed to not getting parking tickets, which is pretty damn easy.

Re: Perhaps the OP means that...

[barry-rafkind.livejournal.com]

You could live in a shelter and rely on donated food and clothing.

You could also avoid income taxes if your income is below the threshold.

You could avoid the gas tax if you don't have a need to buy gas.

You could avoid the cigarette tax by not purchasing cigarettes.

So, still think that taxes must be unavoidable? The reality is that even if we personally do not pay the tax, others do, and that factors in to the prices we pay for goods and services.

Re: Perhaps the OP means that...

[jimmyfergus.livejournal.com]

> A regressive tax is where the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases.

By your definition, there are almost no regressive taxes. I believe the most common usage is as others have pointed out - regressive with respect to ability to pay.

Sales tax is commonly described as regressive, and yet we all pay the same amount on a given item. It's regressive because it hits the necessities we all buy, putting a proportionately higher burden on the low income.

Re: Perhaps the OP means that...

[thetathx1138.livejournal.com]

By your definition, there are almost no regressive taxes.

That's not MY definition. That's an economic textbook's definition. That's what a regressive tax IS.

And, yes, there aren't that many regressive taxes. For obvious reasons, intentionally regressive taxes aren't terribly popular or viewed as effective methods of revenue collection. Any taxes that are regressive tend to be de facto regressive, like the cigarette tax (it dings everybody the same, but the further down the brackets you go, the more smokers you find).