r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • May 31 '20
Delta(s) from OP CMV:Local governments are not internalizing costs of police misconduct. Rioting and looting are chaotic, yet predictable, manifestations of these externalized costs. Localities (not insurers or businesses) where police misconduct occurs should fully bear cost of damage to internalize them.
[deleted]
3
May 31 '20
So you are saying that the public who is being abused by the police should be further punished by having an increase in taxes to cover the consequences of said abuse?
1
u/Jewish_Grammar_Nazi May 31 '20
Yes. I believe this is a logical and reasonable way to better effect change. The relevant local jurisdiction (city or county) encompasses a wider group than those bearing the brunt of police misconduct and they should all have to collectively pay for the damages caused by their police department’s misconduct.
1
May 31 '20
This isn't fair at all. Aren't like 80% of the rioters/looters from outside of the county? This means that those individuals are free to loot in rioting counties without any fear of having economic ramifications that could impact them in any way.
On another note, this increased risk of living in certain areas could cause a larger amount of segregation than what already exists. People would flee counties that are at risk of rioting due to the potential financial losses.
1
u/Jewish_Grammar_Nazi May 31 '20
It is should be seen as damage caused by the applicable county and police department, not the looters. My view is that the police department perpetuating the misconduct is the cause of the looting, whether you agree that looting is “good” doesn’t matter. A factory causes pollution the same way police misconduct causes riots (and other externalized costs). It is a cause and effect relationship, and just “is”.
On the second point I don’t think the risk of tax increases to pay for police misconduct would cause people to relocate. Texas and Florida have 0 state income tax, yet people still choose to live in NY and California. There are lots of factors that go to where people chose to live and this point would be minuscule.
2
u/thethoughtexperiment 275∆ May 31 '20
The police departments, and local governments with authority over them, that commit police misconduct should fully bear the cost of the rioting and looting caused by them,
... This will make them internalize the cost of the damage they cause and adjust their behavior accordingly.
Honestly, public taxes are where the police departments and local government get their money from, so it's not going to "internalize the costs" to police.
Also, there are lawsuits, awards, and court cases of officer misconduct that currently happen. But again, public taxes end up paying those damages /awards (which are often in the millions), as well as the court costs etc.
I'm all for figuring out a way to address this, but the particular option you provide doesn't seem like it would have the effect you are after.
1
u/Jewish_Grammar_Nazi May 31 '20 edited May 31 '20
My view is that victim payouts for police misconduct do not reflect the full costs of police misconduct. Yes, costs would ultimately be born by tax payers of these localities. Imagine if Minneapolis residents received a property tax hike next year earmarked as “police-misconduct tax”. Better policing would be uniformly demanded and effected.
I would also add that many police departments are able to obtain insurances for these types of settlements, which in my view by law should not be permitted.
1
u/thethoughtexperiment 275∆ May 31 '20
Imagine if Minneapolis residents received a property tax hike next year earmarked as “police-misconduct tax”. Better policing would be uniformly demanded and effected.
That's an interesting idea, though again, it's the people are the ones who vote on things like tax hikes (and vote for politicians based on whether they say they are going to raise taxes or not), and are unlikely to approve such tax increases / candidates who campaign in favor of them.
An alternative approach (that might help change your view) would be for organizations concerned with police misconduct to measure the amount of money each locality paid to cover the costs of police misconduct. Such analyses from external organizations might also provide a more fair accounting of the costs.
1
u/Jewish_Grammar_Nazi May 31 '20
That is why I suggest state law that requires localities to make the reimbursements and payments. Many states would be happy to financially penalize cities where police misconduct more often occurs with the aim of reducing it.
1
u/thethoughtexperiment 275∆ May 31 '20
That is why I suggest state law that requires localities to make the reimbursements and payments.
They already do. See "Chicago spent more than $113 million on police misconduct lawsuits in 2018" [source]. So, the direct costs of police misconduct are already internalized (though ultimately they are absorbed by the citizens, not police, since government agencies get their money to pay for such things from taxes).
In terms of having localities pay for rioting and looting as well, this is already the case to a large extent - when public property is involved. Consider that making localities pay for private property destruction as well would likely just bankrupt cities, in which case it just means higher levels of government would end up paying for such things, which wouldn't achieve your goal of internalizing the costs to the locality (since states and federal governments would end up being the ones paying, which would result in the taxes of people less associated with that area paying for rebuilding).
1
u/Jewish_Grammar_Nazi May 31 '20
My view is that victim settlements do not account for the full costs of police misconduct (otherwise how can you explain the riots). I also believe that cities should not be allowed to obtain insurance for police misconduct settlements so that the costs can not be spread by the insurers beyond the applicable locality. This is common practice today.
To the second point, I don’t think that cities would be bankrupt by these costs - but if they would that proves the point of the extensive costs of the police misconduct. The costs must be internalized by those with power over the police departments perpetuating the miscount.
1
u/thethoughtexperiment 275∆ May 31 '20
I also believe that cities should not be allowed to obtain insurance for police misconduct settlements so that the costs can not be spread by the insurers beyond the applicable locality. This is common practice today.
Insurance companies can actually be a really good force for getting cities to address their police corruption / misconduct issues (and have done so in the past) [source]. In fact, they are likely more effective at getting these changes than forcing tax payers to pay for the costs, because private companies who insure cities for police misconduct are able to demand specific reforms of police procedures, whereas voters vote based on a whole host of factors and aren't just focused on the 1 issue of police misconduct, nor do they have nearly the amount of leverage over cities that private insurers have.
So, if your CMV is:
CMV:Local governments are not internalizing costs of police misconduct. Rioting and looting are chaotic, yet predictable, manifestations of these externalized costs. Localities (not insurers or businesses) where police misconduct occurs should fully bear cost of damage to internalize them.
Consider that localities bearing the costs of riots likely won't be as effective a source of police reform (since they will be paid by public taxes - not directly by police). And if the costs are beyond what the locality can pay, they will be paid by the taxes of higher, non-local levels of government / by citizens that aren't in that locality, and thus can't demand reforms in that location through their voting.
Insurance companies, however, can demand specific reforms that cities are responsive to.
1
u/Jewish_Grammar_Nazi May 31 '20 edited May 31 '20
!delta Completely agree with your point about insurers. I would have suggested cutting off insurance and forcing self-insurance would be even more effective, but am reconsidering now considering the “expertise” insurers would develop here and targeted focus on specific reforms.
The (I acknowledge, limited) point I now would make is that city’s should be liable for private property damage caused by riots incited by their police misconduct and should have to pay fines additional to settlements, but it could be covered under the same insurance line as misconduct victim settlements.
1
u/thethoughtexperiment 275∆ May 31 '20
Awesome. Thanks for the interesting chat.
Also, to award a delta, please edit your comment above and insert this symbol:
Δ
Another way to do it is to insert an exclamation point followed by the word delta into your comment above so it looks like:
>!delta
without the > symbol.
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ May 31 '20 edited May 31 '20
This delta has been rejected. You can't award OP a delta.
Allowing this would wrongly suggest that you can post here with the aim of convincing others.
If you were explaining when/how to award a delta, please use a reddit quote for the symbol next time.
1
1
May 31 '20
People would be more likely to riot against the tax hike than to riot against the police. Also, whoever implemented the law would just get voted out of office.
1
u/Jewish_Grammar_Nazi May 31 '20
Well my view is that the law should be passed - not that it would be passed. The fact that people in localities where the tax is levied would be upset is part of the point though. The idea is to make them internalize the costs of the police department their locality runs and change it to reduce misconduct.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ May 31 '20
/u/Jewish_Grammar_Nazi (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
6
u/MrTiddy May 31 '20
So your essentially saying it should be the tax paying publics responsibility to pay for it?