|
|
|
|
|
by dangrossman
4531 days ago
|
|
If that's what I had tried to imply, you'd have a point. Instead, I'm arguing with someone who says there's no evidence of corruption but a few anecdotes, by providing an example proving otherwise. That was the city of Philadelphia for the record, not just the suburb I live in. Big court, millions of citizens, state legislature had to step in to stop the corruption. And it's not the only ticketing authority in the nation with bonafide, verifiable corruption. You're spreading misinformation by repeatedly making that assertion that it's all speculation. > It's not like they are walking into your driveway and giving you a ticket. Yeah, they actually do that too [Google: 19,600 results for ticket "parked in my own driveway", and personal experience]. You're either overtly biased by your employment where you're taking part in this revenue, or you're wholly ignorant of what it's like to park regularly in some of the largest cities in this nation. Either way, your commentary is uninformed. |
|
I do however, question this statement, which you seem to be tacitly supporting, though perhaps I'm wrong and we're pursuing semantics down a gopher hole:
"I've always thought that government shouldn't benefit from fines or seized property. I'm not sure what a good solution is. Perhaps they should take the money from fines and just light it on fire.
There shouldn't be a financial incentive for governments to hand out tickets and fines and seize property - the democratic incentive should be enough."
To me that seems flat out ridiculous. Corruption does not make a form of revenue invalid, it means the people who benefited from it should go to jail. With political oversight and transparency, there's no reason that the revenue from fines shouldn't go back into the community in the form of improved services and lower taxes. Government should be transparent and responsive to the political direction of the community, but it shouldn't throw money away.