Tuesday, April 12, 2005
HIDDEN TAXES IN SOUTH CAROLINA--STATE RELYING ON CRIME TO FUND GOVERNMENT
Appearing in today's edition of The State is an Op-ed piece titled State shouldn't rely on crime to fund government.
In general, the author of the piece argues that South Carolina should not create criminal penalties as a method of generating revenue. After all, "the purpose of criminal laws is not to generate money. The purpose of criminal laws is to deter crime and, when that doesn't work, to punish it appropriately."
We could not agree more.
Likewise, we think the purpose of civil contempt in Family Court is to enforce compliance with Court Orders not to raise revenue. In situations where the alleged contemnor is before the Court on a Bookkeeping Rule and the party to whom support is owed has incurred no expenses, the imposition of anything more than a minimal fine is, in our opinion, inappropriate.
And while we are on the subject of "inappropriate revenue generating mechanisms" we want to call attention to the 5% fee charged by the Family Court for processing and mailing alimony and child support checks. While a flat handling fee of something in the neighborhood or $25.00 may be appropriate, it makes no sense--either in logic or in fairness--to charge one person $100.00 to process a $2000 check once a month, while another person who pays $60 per week is only charged a total of $156 per year for processing 52 checks.
In general, the author of the piece argues that South Carolina should not create criminal penalties as a method of generating revenue. After all, "the purpose of criminal laws is not to generate money. The purpose of criminal laws is to deter crime and, when that doesn't work, to punish it appropriately."
We could not agree more.
Likewise, we think the purpose of civil contempt in Family Court is to enforce compliance with Court Orders not to raise revenue. In situations where the alleged contemnor is before the Court on a Bookkeeping Rule and the party to whom support is owed has incurred no expenses, the imposition of anything more than a minimal fine is, in our opinion, inappropriate.
And while we are on the subject of "inappropriate revenue generating mechanisms" we want to call attention to the 5% fee charged by the Family Court for processing and mailing alimony and child support checks. While a flat handling fee of something in the neighborhood or $25.00 may be appropriate, it makes no sense--either in logic or in fairness--to charge one person $100.00 to process a $2000 check once a month, while another person who pays $60 per week is only charged a total of $156 per year for processing 52 checks.
Or can it be said that one check costs 33 1/3 times as much to process as another check?
Labels: User Fees/Hidden Taxes
