I don’t know if you support this or not, but it’s a really bad idea for multiple reasons:
You penalize everyone for the sake a few knuckleheads, who may have required rescue precisely because they didn’t spend money on outdoor gear. Unless you can tax hoodies. sneakers, and Barbie backpacks, you’re not going to be getting to the people who are the actual problem.
You have to create a bureaucracy to collect the tax, which eats up a lot of the revenue you collect. We don’t have a sales tax in NH, so it’s not like you can just tack it on to an existing system.
Unless you can earmark the proceeds and make them completely untouchable, there’s no way that politicians are going to see that pot of money and not want to get their grubby little mitts on it. Ultimately, it will end up in the General Fund and get wasted as badly as most tax money.
I’m perfectly fine with the system we have, where only the truly irresponsible end up getting hit with rescue costs.
Like it or not, personal responsibility is a thing.
I moved from Colorado in 1997, at the time the rescue of poorly equipped backcountry enthusiasts became a big issue. I realize that volunteer search and rescue teams do not charge , but hikers etc can be charged for government (police, fire), ambulance or helicopter rescues. At that time charges were levied against the local counties and they decide who gets charged. If your information is up to date about counties etc not charging please post up.
I do not support that idea… I just posted the quote in response to Celia saying she wished the writer has proposed a solution to the funding problem.
I actually agree with all three of your objections. Especially the last one. Two examples:
1 - Where I live there is a tax that the politicians call the tourist tax, it applies to hotel rentals and restaurants in certain high-end locations. Every time they produce a budget, they say let’s spend it on something they know the taxpayers would object to if they used general revenue, their excuse is that the tax came from somebody else, not the voters. They spend the same money several times, because the things they spend it on are not one-time items, they continue from year to year, but each year the politicians pretend that there is a new untouched pot of money. The local news media doesn’t say anything because they support the things that the money is spent on.
2 - Social Security is the biggest example of this, using magic accounting the “trust” fund was/is “invested” in government securities (those securities are conveniently not included in the debt held by public numbers), they then spent the money for other things without “deficit spending”. For a while now, this has reversed because the revenue coming in (Social Security tax) is less than what is being paid out to retirees, so the amount of securities held by the trust fund is going down. At some point (maybe 2033?), the trust fund is projected to run out of securities, so they will either be automatic cuts to paid benefits (very unpopular), or a tax increase (also unpopular) or the benefits will be paid out of the regular taxes and debt. Because the politicians want to keep their cushy jobs, I think it will be a combination of the last two, but they may throw some way out in the future, benefit cuts into the mix.
"I realize that volunteer search and rescue teams do not charge , but hikers etc can be charged for government (police, fire), ambulance or helicopter rescues. "
OK, I interpreted your comment to mean the county SAR teams were charging.
If “life flight” helicopters and ground ambulances get involved, then yes the individual will likely be charged for that as they are providing medical care. These expenses may or may not be covered by the individual’s health insurance.
My searches haven’t turned up a single example of a government agency (local, county, state, or federal) charging anyone for services rendered during a SAR in Colorado. (Utah is another story.) If you find an example, feel free to share.
Social Security is a Treasury account, not a trust fund (despite common usage of the term). This article, from the American Institute for Economic Research, explains it well (IMO). Also, it’s twenty three years old so is untainted by today’s toxic politics.
Yes I realize 1997 is ancient history as far as the internet is concerned. I don’t remember if I still lived in CO or if I was visiting but there was a famous case of some folks who got themselves into a lot of trouble depending on Cell phones to call in the cavalry when they got stranded on a ledge in Indian Peaks Wilderness area. They were called the Chicago Seven, and the local county government wanted to charge them for all of the helicopter flights, but I don’t find any reference to this doing searches.
I grew up in Utah and I own a farm in Northern Utah, and my understanding is you will get charged if not a local, with a current temple recommend, but that may just be folk tales.
They carried him in a litter back up to the top in a hour. So he hiked maybe 50 feet down slope before he fell? Ok, maybe further, but he couldn’t have gone too far.
The article is good, but I am not sure I get your point… I put quotes around trust in my comment because it is not really a trust fund, as commonly understood. You and the article say the same thing. I said the amount represented by the debt held in the trust fund (or Treasury account, if you prefer) has been spent on other things, the article does not directly address this point. The common measure of government debt is called debt held by the public, this measure does not include the debt held in the Treasury account.
My main point was that at the point the Treasury account does not have enough to pay the benefits, by law the benefits will be reduced to the amount available. I think the law will be changed in some way before that happens, but exactly how is anyone’s guess.
Sorry if it wasn’t clear, but I linked that article in support of your post. For many years, SS brought in more dollars than needed to pay benefits. That excess went into the Treasury’s general fund and Congress happily spent it on other priorities. Since 2010 there has been a revenue shortfall of about 8%, and demography tells us the imbalance will persist for the foreseeable future. So, as you said, revenue and/or expenses will have to be legislatively tweaked - higher retirement age, lower COLA, higher income cap for payroll tax, etc. Any or all of these changes will be vociferously opposed by those who believe taxes should always go down an benefits should always go up, but the sky will not fall and tomorrow’s retirees will not be selling apples on the street corner unless Congress makes it so.
Yes, the default positions of the politicians are “cut taxes” and “raise benefits”. So, we end up with deficit spending which adds to inflation… which indirectly raises taxes and reduces the value of benefits, which leads to calls to “cut taxes” and “raise benefits”… and the vicious cycle goes on and on.
In terms of kayaking I would say that if the person ignored small craft warnings and signs indicating recommend equipment and launched into 4 foot waves in a 10 foot creek boat, for example , yes imposing a cost to them for being rescued might be in order. For somebody who was properly equipped and following safety guidelines but has a medical emergency I would say no
Well, I’ve had a number of power boaters tell me point blank that I have no business being out on open water in a kayak. I also ignore small craft warnings. Guess its time to reevaluate.
Even with the extra information you provided, I still can’t find anything about the “Chicago Seven.” I searched the American Alpine Club’s accident database from 1997 through 2002 and found nothing for the Indian Peaks.
As for Utah, I found this 2012 article describing how Grand and Wayne counties were charging people, at least sometimes. Not surprisingly, many people didn’t pay and of course it wasn’t cost effective to go to court to recoup a few thousand dollars. A search and rescue in Grand or Wayne counties can cost you - The Salt Lake Tribune
I can’t find more recent accounts of people being charged. Now that the Utah Search and Rescue Assistance Card program exists, maybe the counties don’t bother sending out bills anymore?
For others like myself who can’t access the article, they tried to send helicopters from two different locations, but the weather prevented it. Ultimately, rescuers hiked up to him and got him out. That’s all the detail they gave on the radio.
The article also noted that the couple were “experienced hikers”, presumably carrying the appropriate gear. Also, the two hike together. Having a partner provided a safety factor when one got hurt.
I am a solo hiker. I carry extra gear for contingency of weather changes. I also have my cell phone but it is only good for taking pics/videos since a lot of the areas in the White Mountains have no cell coverage. I will also get the NH hike safe coverage in the future. However, this only helps if I have an emergency and there is someone to find me and alert the rescues crews.
PS. I do draw up an itinery and route that I leave with my wife. So, if I don’t come out in the expected time, she can call up rescue and let them know my route.
Simple fix is for local, state and federal officials to assess the risk of using parklands or waterways and post at the trailheads any use restrictions. NOTICE: Private property of the government, financed by taxpayers. Permit required for authorized use. The permit fee can be tax deductable and includes a non-refundable rescue fee (add kitschy things like deductibles, discounts for kids, groups, reward points for miles completed without incidents; life and health insurance for being maimed, disfigured, disabled or killed; reduced permit fee if waiving rescue fees).
Might be cumbersome at first, but once people get used to the controls, file for a wilderness passport prior to turning 18 years old, just like signing up for selective service, valid for 10 years. Subject to medical exam and doctor approval, with five year updates. Once your base information is on file, update digitally. It could be part of the tax form. Check a box to get automatic coverage for wilderness areas, animal attacks, still water, moving water, areas with elevations or diving depths greater than 10 ft; exclude areas considered unfit for human safety, in which case heavy fines or prison terms apply. Hire some more IRS agents to process the forms. We could start a petition.
