3 ms·

> Just ask anyone who's had a catalytic converter stolen The difference is when someone's catalytic converter is stolen, we don't spend $5000 of taxpayer money

by dheera 4y ago

> Just ask anyone who's had a catalytic converter stolen The difference is when someone's catalytic converter is stolen, we don't spend $5000 of taxpayer money on it. More often than not, we spend $0 of taxpayer money, and the angry owner spends $5000. I read the parent comment as meaning we're spending 4-5 figures of taxpayer money every time a car is stolen, in which case I'd rather we just buy 2-3 more cars with that money and distribute them for free to people who had stolen cars.

vkou 4y ago
> we don't spend $5000 of taxpayer money on it. If the police spends any time documenting it, looking for it, or catching and prosecuting the guy who did it, it can run up to that. Even if they do the bare minimum, it'll definitely run a lot more than $50... > I read the parent comment as meaning we're spending 4-5 figures of taxpayer money every time a car is stolen, in which case I'd rather we just buy 2-3 more cars with that money and distribute them for free to people who had stolen cars. Do you want to pay hundreds of dollars in personal loss, or tens of dollars in taxes that fund measures and mechanisms to prevent or mitigate that loss? It all comes out of your pocket at the end of the day. Whether it comes out of your taxes, or your insurance premiums, or from your pocketbook, you'll still be paying. I know that all costs being equal, I'd rather live in a world with fewer car, or cat, or copper thefts, or any other negative-sum activity than one with more of them. There's no magic bullet for this, though, which is why each mitigation should be considered on its own costs and merits.
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  > Even if they do the bare minimum, it'll definitely run a lot more than $50... The bare minimum is taking a report and checking a file, and that'll take about five minutes. How are you calculating "a lot more than $50"? And why did you pick $50 anyway? Is that a comparison to how much the criminal makes? If the profit is a small fraction of the damage they do, it makes lots of sense for the police to spend more than the profit.
- dheera 4y ago
  > Do you want to pay hundreds of dollars in personal loss, or tens of dollars in taxes that fund measures and mechanisms to prevent or mitigate that loss? It all comes out of your pocket at the end of the day. I disagree. It doesn't take 5 figures to mitigate that loss in a society that has technology. If it does it's a misuse of funds and I'd rather move to another city, state, country than pay 5 figures to mitigate that loss. If they can mitigate the loss in 3 figures, than absolutely yes that's better than paying 4 figures for a new car, and I'd stay and happy contribute toward the 3 figures.
briandear 4y ago
https://www.choicehacking.com/2022/01/04/what-is-the-cobra-effect/ https://www.choicehacking.com/2022/01/04/what-is-the-cobra-e...
7speter 4y ago
>More often than not, we spend $0 of taxpayer money, and the angry owner spends $5000. No, the angry owner makes an insurance claim, and then car insurance rates go up for everyone who lives a mile away from the angry owner(s) who got their catalytic converter(s) stolen

by dheera 4y ago

vkou 4y ago

> we don't spend $5000 of taxpayer money on it. If the police spends any time documenting it, looking for it, or catching and prosecuting the guy who did it, it can run up to that. Even if they do the bare minimum, it'll definitely run a lot more than $50... > I read the parent comment as meaning we're spending 4-5 figures of taxpayer money every time a car is stolen, in which case I'd rather we just buy 2-3 more cars with that money and distribute them for free to people who had stolen cars. Do you want to pay hundreds of dollars in personal loss, or tens of dollars in taxes that fund measures and mechanisms to prevent or mitigate that loss? It all comes out of your pocket at the end of the day. Whether it comes out of your taxes, or your insurance premiums, or from your pocketbook, you'll still be paying. I know that all costs being equal, I'd rather live in a world with fewer car, or cat, or copper thefts, or any other negative-sum activity than one with more of them. There's no magic bullet for this, though, which is why each mitigation should be considered on its own costs and merits.

Dylan16807 4y ago
> Even if they do the bare minimum, it'll definitely run a lot more than $50... The bare minimum is taking a report and checking a file, and that'll take about five minutes. How are you calculating "a lot more than $50"? And why did you pick $50 anyway? Is that a comparison to how much the criminal makes? If the profit is a small fraction of the damage they do, it makes lots of sense for the police to spend more than the profit.
dheera 4y ago
> Do you want to pay hundreds of dollars in personal loss, or tens of dollars in taxes that fund measures and mechanisms to prevent or mitigate that loss? It all comes out of your pocket at the end of the day. I disagree. It doesn't take 5 figures to mitigate that loss in a society that has technology. If it does it's a misuse of funds and I'd rather move to another city, state, country than pay 5 figures to mitigate that loss. If they can mitigate the loss in 3 figures, than absolutely yes that's better than paying 4 figures for a new car, and I'd stay and happy contribute toward the 3 figures.

briandear 4y ago

https://www.choicehacking.com/2022/01/04/what-is-the-cobra-effect/ https://www.choicehacking.com/2022/01/04/what-is-the-cobra-e...

7speter 4y ago

>More often than not, we spend $0 of taxpayer money, and the angry owner spends $5000. No, the angry owner makes an insurance claim, and then car insurance rates go up for everyone who lives a mile away from the angry owner(s) who got their catalytic converter(s) stolen