Yes
So says John "Roger Taney" Roberts
I have a car and pay for auto insurance. People who don’t drive or own cars are killed in car accidents.
Shouldn’t they be taxed for their failure to buy auto insurance?
Yes
So says John "Roger Taney" Roberts
“I have a car and pay for auto insurance. People who don’t drive or own cars are killed in car accidents.
Shouldn’t they be taxed for their failure to buy auto insurance?”
At least enough to pay for my new bumper...
In California, they are, after the fact. Let me explain. In California, we have a rule called Proposition 213. Under California Prop. 213 the owner of a motor vehicle must carry liability insurance.
Under Prop. 213, if your vehicle did not carry valid liability insuarnce on it at the time of a vehicle accident, the insurance company can't and won't pay you any general damages (aka "pain and suffering") for the injury you sustained in the loss. They may only reimburse the uninsured victim for economic losses such as lost earnings and medical expenses. Regardless of the severity of your injury, if you did not have insurance on your vehicle at the time of the accident, you are not entitled to general damages from the at fault party's insurance carrier.
Prop. 213 also applies to drunk drivers who happen to be a victim of an accident. For example, let's say a drunk was on his way home from the bar at 2 a.m., stopped at the light minding his own business when he's rearended by someone teenybopper texting on her phone and he gets r/e by said teenybopper at 50 mph.
Even though the drunk driver is innocent, and there would be a reasonable expectation of some injury to his person, the drunk will only receive compensation for wage loss, medical expenses, or other economic losses, because he was driving under the influence. Nothing for pain and suffering, even if he ended up paralyzed for the rest of his life because Prop. 213 also applies to drunk drivers just as it applies to people w/ fail to maintain legal liability insurance on their cars.