At the risk of sounding like a rabid libertarian here, I'll say right up front that government has a big economic interest in making and enforcing regulatory laws. They'd defend the fines, levies, taxes, excises, and fees as necessary to defray the expense incurred in the enforcement process, and there's some validity in that argument. There's another way of looking at it, however, and that's this: If you didn't pass the law requiring enforcement, you wouldn't have the expense. Many of our drug laws, for instance, and unnecessary, and if we'd take the steps to do away with them, the government would save millions upon millions of dollars . . . and that would mean a lot of people who enforce them would be out of a job. The economic factor in the war against drugs is two-sided at the least. The makers and dealers of drugs make millions, and the government benefits from the need to have people to fight that. Legalizing certain drugs, like marijuana, would go a long way toward cutting down on government expenditures in enforcing laws . . . and that would take a bite out of a lot of tax dollars, commerce in general, and the need to keep people employed.
Government isn't new in the regulatory business. That's something that's been with us for a long, long time. Forget taxes, that always fall back on source of revenue for the government, and consider how much they take in from fines, fees, levies, etc. Almost any profession a person gets involved in will require licensing, and most of the time, those fees are reasonable. But let's say, for instance, you want to get into the restaurant business, better yet one that sells alcoholic beverages. Government at several levels already taxes the crap out of booze, but they get another chunk of change when a person applies for a liquor license or permit. And one permit won't satisfy most states, since it's going to take several of them to get set up to sell booze. You might well find, depending on the state where you set up business, that you've got thousands upon thousands of dollars invested in fees before you ever get started.
Don't mistake my statements here as being against regulation of the liquor business . . . 'cause I'm most certainly not. What I question is the expense of it all, and I even understand the need for the high costs to some degree. Bars are a pain in the ass when it comes to law enforcement. Wherever and whenever people congregate to drink alcoholic beverages, you're going to have problems from time to time . . . and you might have problems all of the time with some establishments like your good old boy bars. Police have to patrol those places, and they get frequent calls to take care of problems that arise at them. That costs money, and you can't expect local government to do that without expecting some fee money to help offset costs. It's the good guys, the ones who try to run responsible businesses that sell alcohol, who get screwed by the system of high costs. Perhaps governments need to take a look at that.
Here's what I suggest in that regard: If a business has shown that they can keep down disruption at their place of business, have a record of doing that, they should be cut some slack when it comes to fees required to stay in business. If, on the other hand, an establishment has a lousy record, and I'm talking about a place where there's always trouble of some kind going on, they should pay more, and not just in the way of fines. If they don't clean up their act, shut them down. The same should be done with dirty companies, the ones who do little to stop polluting the air, dirtying our waters. If they don't clean up, levy bigger fees against them, increase fines, and if need be, shut them down too. Sounds reasonable, right? If you do that, and it does happen occasionally, you'll lose the money from fines and fees. Government at any level doesn't like to lose money.
I was in Austin some years back and saw something that shows a need for regulatory money. My son was a bartender downtown in an area loaded down with bars, and I drove him there to start his shift. A half dozen black busses pulled up and tough looking cops dressed like storm troopers piled off. Down the street, a saw dozens of cops on horses, looking deadly serious. "What's that about?" I asked, as I pulled up in front of the bar where he worked. "They've got a big track meet in town tonight, and after a while, the street will fill up with people. Thousands of spectators from that event will end up down here, and they usually cause trouble, and that's why the cops are here."
I guess the bottom line is that as long as you've got irresponsible people flocking to places like that, you're going to need lots of protection against the violence that will or might erupt. And somebody has to pay for that. Here's another idea for you. On occasions like that, the city ought to require all bars to add another dollar to the cost of each drink, and that should go directly to the city. Maybe more of a surcharge than that is necessary, but when it gets right down to it, the taxpayer often pays for cleaning up the messes they make. All fees aren't bad, and that's a fact.
No comments:
Post a Comment