Tax Lawyer's Blog

In an article titled “Crash Taxes” Add Hefty Fees for Aid appearing today at MSN. money, Peter Lewis reports of a new trend among cash-strapped American cities and townships,

Imagine you’re cruising down the road when you hit a patch of black ice and slide into a guardrail. A passing motorist calls 911. Soon firetrucks and police arrive.

Weeks later, a $1,400 bill does, too — for the cost of the police and firefighters who answered the call. What’s worse, it’s not covered by insurance, and it might scar your credit if you ignore it.

It’s hard to fault the driver in that example. After all, sliding on ice can happen to even the most careful of motorists. But insurance companies, policemen and actuaries will tell you that some people are more reckless and prone to accidents than others.

Is it fair that safe drivers should pay for the recklessness of others? 

I have always objected to the use of taxpayer-funded, government resources to rescue mountain climbers, bad-weather boaters and extreme risk takers.

For me, it’s a no-brainer that someone who chooses to surf in a hurricane should pay for the cost of any ambulance or rescue service that comes to save him should he get hurt or become endangered. 

Shoot, I’ll even go further and say that the surfer should be charged with involuntary manslaughter if one of the rescue workers should die while trying to save his moronic ass.

Let’s face it, when a man chooses to climb a steep mountain-face or swim with a school of Great Whites, he is committing a highly selfish act because he knows that there is a good chance that his adventure will go awry and will require others to risk their lives to save him from his own self-aggrandizing folly.

It’s one thing to embark on an activity that puts your own life in jeopardy and quite another to undertake a venture that you know may very well end up risking the lives of others.

Bookmark & Share: