My suggestion: Remove the incentive by divorcing all fine (and similar things like seized goods) revenue from the government budget. Perhaps stipulate that it gets distributed to charities, or is split equally among taxpayers as a tax offset.
No, the government should be "THE people", not "for" or "by". We introduce many issues with representation of larger groups by very few individuals, that is precisely why democracy/government works best at a local scale rather than State or Nation-wide. It's not very hard to grasp why.
I’m sorry for the confusion, I thought that was blatantly self-obvious.
And we can actually estimate how much the government actually saves if it does not need to fine (that much). Let‘s first look at the costs of the status quo:
- it costs X to check rules are followed (here: no cars park where they must not); this is mostly personnel costs\* but note that we may be talking about „manhours spent that could have been spent doing more sensitive/productive things“
- it costs Y to maintain the infrastructure to process and follow up on the fines (here: the $190 million IBM contract\* )
- it costs Z to collect the fines, process the payments (personnel costs), follow up on those that do not pay, court fees (process & personnel costs), jail costs (cause it‘s ’murica), and whatnot.
Now, if there are no\* fines to prosecute, here‘s a few ways the state can gain money:
- Citizens spend less time and money with unproductive work (here: paying fines), leaving more time for work (or relaxation which again increases productivity) and money to spend (raising economic output + sales tax).
- Officers, beuracrats, and judges can spend their time dealing with more important work.
- E.g. in the case of parking fines, businesses affected by cars parking in their way can instead do their business unhampered, i.e. be productive and this increases, again, economic output.
All of that increases tax returns (or reduces tax money spent for dealing with the fines).
\* Obviously, there‘s no way fines will drop to zero, because humans. But minimizing fines allows to minimize capital and infrastructure costs and increases economical output, thus there‘s a net gain that can offset the costs to reach that goal, if not immediately then within a few years.
Governments absolutely should be looking to make profits, it's just that they don't necessarily have to make them in dollars.
So say you were able to objectively measure the value a program produced (costs are usually already known). If a program costs 10 units for every unit of value it produces, maybe it isn't a good program. If it produces modestly more value than it costs, it's making society a profit.
I understand what you're saying, but I think you're stretching the common understanding of "profits" and risking confusion because of it.
Absolutely, government should try to measure the impact of its actions, but expressing that in terms like profit can lead to undesirable consequences like the expectation that a successful self-promoter pretending to be a successful businessman can also be a successful president.
In this case, the dogmatic assumption that every endeavour should be financially profitable.
I was in no way implying the government was trying to make money off increased fines (quite the opposite with the last paragraph), simply that it would very likely end up costing them more than it saved the taxpayers to support such an initiative at a larger scale, and that would have a very nebulous gain.
Can you imagine being the Mayor of your department at work and proposing to your board of directors a multi-million dollar budget for next year that includes a huge carve out for evaluating all the petty fines and late fees you collected from customers because it’ll make them happier?
Goodwill is one thing, but who is ever going to approve that?
You've stumbled upon another capitalist dogma: that if you can't measure it (like, for instance in this case, the happiness of your road users), it has no value. I would argue that his numbers show that his efforts have prevented 600 fits of rage among the citizenry. That's gotta be worth something, right?
Can you imagine [spending money] because it’ll make [people] happier?
Again, government is not a business and should not be run as one. So yes, I can.
In the blog post he estimated it's saved $60,000 in fines. That's a drop in the bucket at the scale we're talking about (a quick Google says the proposed 2018 budget for Chicago was $10.1 billion), but still a decrease. Not only would it cost the government money to employ someone to go through this data and find hotspots like this, someone to go out and evaluate the signs, presumably several someones during the approval process to change signage, and finally people to make and install that signage, but the end result would be to purely cost them more money by decreasing revenue from fines.
I don't personally think governments are inherently evil (though some do seem to try harder than others), but even from a purely capitalistic viewpoint that's a hard sell for anyone who cares about their budget. At the very very best I could see it becoming a token effort that's mostly marketing ("look, we're using big data to make your life better!").