Introduction
The authorities are increasingly using various opportunities to earn money in large cities to increase the budget of a given megalopolis. In connection with the development of civilization and the continuous process of urbanization, some areas of townspeople’s lives require specific implementations, and sometimes the authorities have no choice but to impose a tax on this or that phenomenon to be able to control it. Using the example of two implementations, it is possible to assess how the government can make a profit, as well as determine public opinion about a particular revenue technique.
London Congestion Charge
The traffic of the English capital caused the need for interference from the authorities. Residents of the city began to pay a certain tax for entry and parking in a particular urban area. The purpose of this implementation is to raise funds to replenish the city budget to free the city’s transport routes from congestion.
Main Source of Revenue and Estimating Techniques
The basic source of profit that is relevant in this case is citizens themselves. When entering a special territory, people are obliged to pay a certain tax for travel on a given territory or parking on it. In case of non-payment, a person will have to pay a fine that is substantially higher than the tax amount. Such a measure can allow the authorities to deal more effectively with the congestion of London streets, and the profits can be used as one of the tools to take active measures. According to Green, Heywood, and Navarro (2016), the issue of driving on public roads is one of the important problems of the London authorities. The revenue received by the city as fare for a particular territory can be calculated on the basis of the average number of profits that are received daily. By simple calculations, it is possible to determine the approximate number of funds that will be collected over a certain period.
Public’s Response and Alternative Implementations
Some critics expressed rather harsh opinions about the effectiveness of the introduction of such a tax. For example, someone considered that the collection of taxes would significantly complicate the lives of people with small incomes who, nevertheless, have to use a car. There were also fears that such innovations would scare car enthusiasts who, if possible, would give up personal transport and start using a public one, which would also cause some crisis. As an alternative measure, the construction of additional roads can be used. Also, the government may consider the possibility of building bypasses by constructing, for example, an underground tunnel in a busy transport sector.
Charging for Firefighting
The government of California proposed to use more active measures to combat fires. Residents periodically encounter problems of their property being destroyed by this dangerous disaster, and a corresponding implementation could provide significant assistance. As a way of fighting, the financing of a special department called CalFire was proposed.
Main Source of Revenue and Estimating Techniques
As the primary source of profit, financing from taxpayers was offered. A special fund CalFire, which was created on the initiative of the government, will use the funds in case of the need to combat fires. Potential revenue received by the state will be calculated at the expense of real incomes that will be collected due to the taxation of residents. Based on approximate calculations, the amount of money is significant enough since the number of people living in the state is quite large, and the local authorities promise that they will use these funds in case of a fire problem.
Public’s Response and Alternative Implementations
Despite the possible benefits of such implementation, some controversial issues began to arise. For example, the question of the security of neighbors remained open as it was difficult to assess the degree of a particular fire and protect absolutely all adjacent territories. Kim and Rie (2016) note that even urgent measures can be useless when fighting a serious fire. Also, some people were dissatisfied with additional taxes since they had concerns about the fact that not all of the collected funds would be used for their intended purpose. As alternative means of fighting fires, people’s squads can be organized, and their joint activities can be useful. The timely monitoring of the threat and control of particularly vulnerable areas can also be useful.
Recommendations Concerning the Proposals
According to both proposals, it can be assumed that the solution of the issue of transport congestion in the city is a useful and theoretically justified procedure. Real results were observed in the process of implementing this technology in London, and the problem of traffic congestion can partially be solved with the use of such an initiative. Compared to the proposal to impose taxes to eliminate fires where the outcome of work is not clear enough, the measure used in London demonstrates the effectiveness of the proposal and helps to solve a specific problem. Therefore, this implementation is more suitable for a large city.
Conclusion
Thus, when assessing the two proposals and making certain suggestions regarding potential revenues, it is possible to note that both of them are closely connected with taxes. Estimating profits and assumptions about the effectiveness of the implementations can help to find an optimal proposal. The resolution of traffic congestion is more efficient than fighting fires in California.
References
Green, C. P., Heywood, J. S., & Navarro, M. (2016). Traffic accidents and the London congestion charge. Journal of Public Economics, 133, 11-22.
Kim, N. K., & Rie, D. H. (2016). A study on the fire extinguishing characteristics of deep-seated fires using the scale model experiment. Fire Safety Journal, 80, 38-45.