NO. Cost Recovery is not double taxation. It decidedly is not a \u201ccrash tax\u201d as the\u00a0insurance industry likes to label cost recovery. Cost\u00a0recovery is not a tax, it is a user fee. The at-fault, negligent driver used the\u00a0municipality or special purpose district fire response services. Thus, all costs\u00a0recovered are a direct benefit to the tax payer and community serviced by the\u00a0local fire department.<\/p>\n
If a municipality were to hold a referendum on cost recovery from at fault drivers\u00a0versus raising taxes, the out come is very predictable.\u00a0Opponents of cost recovery also claim that insured drivers are being\u00a0discriminated against because uninsured drivers generally will not have to pay for\u00a0first responder services. However, uninsured drivers run the risk of great financial\u00a0exposure and, in most states, are at risk of having their car impounded, losing\u00a0their license or both.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
NO. Cost Recovery is not double taxation. It decidedly is not a \u201ccrash tax\u201d as the\u00a0insurance industry likes to label cost recovery. Cost\u00a0recovery is not a tax, it is a user fee. The at-fault, negligent driver used the\u00a0municipality or special purpose district fire response services. Thus, all costs\u00a0recovered are a direct benefit to the tax … Continue reading Is Cost Recovery A Form Of Double Taxation?<\/span>