3 ms·

Exactly. It seems obvious that you would want at the very least to fund the agency to the point where you no longer see a marginal profit for each dollar spent

Exactly. It seems obvious that you would want at the very least to fund the agency to the point where you no longer see a marginal profit for each dollar spent. At that point you're still very far from maximizing taxes collected.

nostromo 7y ago
Should we do this for other types of law enforcement? Local police pay for themselves in traffic and parking tickets, among other fees. So maybe we should keep adding cops until we've maximized fine revenue. Or maybe marginal profit isn't a good way to measure law enforcement...
- tempestn 7y ago
  I certainly agree with you that it isn't a good model for local law enforcement. The main reason being that there are many areas where we expect police to exercise some discretion. Speed limits being the main one that comes to mind—for whatever reason, speed limits are set at a level that the majority of the population do not follow to the letter, and we consider it unreasonable for police to issue tickets for driving 1mph over the limit. However obviously doing so would be legal and profitable. Also, since nearly everyone breaks this law to some extent, there is a great deal of room for discrimination in enforcement. (Of course one could argue that the proper solution would be to set realistic speed limits that most people will follow, and I would agree with that, but that's not the situation we have now.) The question is, is this analogous to paying taxes? Perhaps to some extent—there are most likely enough uncollected taxes that discrimination in enforcement could be an issue, for instance. Although I expect that at the current level of enforcement, more investment would reduce that problem rather than exacerbate it. But more generally, do we see 'minor' tax cheating as being analogous to driving 1mph over the speed limit? I'm not so sure. Certainly the consequences should be proportional to the crime: small and accidental underpayments should simply result in having to pay the amount owed. But it seems to me that people (and corporations) should be required to pay all taxes legally owed, so over-enforcement in this area shouldn't be a concern until it got to the level where money was being spent that could be better used elsewhere. (Which obviously isn't the case when you're seeing a marginal profit on enforcement.) I suppose the logical counter-argument would be that the money could be better spent by the people earning it in the first place—IE that taxes should be lower—and indeed I do expect this is the belief of most people who argue against enforcement.
  - pnutjam 7y ago
    Maybe offtopic, but why should we expect police to exercise discretion? That's how you end up with disproportionate crime being prosecuted in neighborhoods of color. I think laws should be simple and enforced. For example, raise speed limits so they are high enough that nobody has a reason to routinely break them, then draconian enforcement. Old white Grandpa weaving around should get the same penalty as young Black guy weaving through traffic.
    - tempestn 7y ago
      I don't disagree, but until and unless all laws (not just speed limits) are written with sensible exceptions and thresholds included, police and prosecutorial discretion are the only avenues we have to create a semblance of reasonableness.

nostromo 7y ago

Should we do this for other types of law enforcement? Local police pay for themselves in traffic and parking tickets, among other fees. So maybe we should keep adding cops until we've maximized fine revenue. Or maybe marginal profit isn't a good way to measure law enforcement...

tempestn 7y ago
I certainly agree with you that it isn't a good model for local law enforcement. The main reason being that there are many areas where we expect police to exercise some discretion. Speed limits being the main one that comes to mind—for whatever reason, speed limits are set at a level that the majority of the population do not follow to the letter, and we consider it unreasonable for police to issue tickets for driving 1mph over the limit. However obviously doing so would be legal and profitable. Also, since nearly everyone breaks this law to some extent, there is a great deal of room for discrimination in enforcement. (Of course one could argue that the proper solution would be to set realistic speed limits that most people will follow, and I would agree with that, but that's not the situation we have now.) The question is, is this analogous to paying taxes? Perhaps to some extent—there are most likely enough uncollected taxes that discrimination in enforcement could be an issue, for instance. Although I expect that at the current level of enforcement, more investment would reduce that problem rather than exacerbate it. But more generally, do we see 'minor' tax cheating as being analogous to driving 1mph over the speed limit? I'm not so sure. Certainly the consequences should be proportional to the crime: small and accidental underpayments should simply result in having to pay the amount owed. But it seems to me that people (and corporations) should be required to pay all taxes legally owed, so over-enforcement in this area shouldn't be a concern until it got to the level where money was being spent that could be better used elsewhere. (Which obviously isn't the case when you're seeing a marginal profit on enforcement.) I suppose the logical counter-argument would be that the money could be better spent by the people earning it in the first place—IE that taxes should be lower—and indeed I do expect this is the belief of most people who argue against enforcement.
- pnutjam 7y ago
  Maybe offtopic, but why should we expect police to exercise discretion? That's how you end up with disproportionate crime being prosecuted in neighborhoods of color. I think laws should be simple and enforced. For example, raise speed limits so they are high enough that nobody has a reason to routinely break them, then draconian enforcement. Old white Grandpa weaving around should get the same penalty as young Black guy weaving through traffic.
  - tempestn 7y ago
    I don't disagree, but until and unless all laws (not just speed limits) are written with sensible exceptions and thresholds included, police and prosecutorial discretion are the only avenues we have to create a semblance of reasonableness.