000			01536nam a22001577a 4500
999			_c517147 _d517147
008			210702b ||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
100			_aSu, Min _926200
245			_aTaxation by citation: Exploring local governments’ revenue motive for traffic fines
260			_aPublic Administration Review
300			_a80(1), Jan-Feb, 2020: p.36-45
520			_aAnecdotal evidence suggests that local governments may have a revenue motive for traffic fines, beyond public safety concerns. Using California's county-level data over a 12-year period, this article shows that counties increased per capita traffic fines by 40 to 42 cents immediately after a 10 percentage point tax revenue loss in the previous year; however, these counties did not reduce traffic fines if they experienced a tax revenue increase in the previous year. This finding indicates that county governments probably view traffic fines as a revenue source to offset tax revenue loss, but not as a revenue stabilizer to manage revenue fluctuation. This article also finds that low-income and Hispanic-majority counties raised more traffic fines. Counties that generated more revenue from the hotel tax—a tax typically paid by travelers and visitors—raised more traffic fines, indicating a possible tax-exporting behavior by shifting the traffic fine burden to nonlocal drivers. – Reproduced
650			_aLocal governments, Traffic fines, Hotel tax, _926201
773			_aPublic Administration Review
906			_aLOCAL GOVERNMENT - FINANCE
942			_cAR