The main alternative punishment for people who won't/can't pay fines is jail, and it's a lot worse than a driver's license suspension for making it harder to work a job (or get a new job).

How else is the state supposed to punish people who won't/can't pay fines? I guess it'd be good to see more work-release jail, but my impression is that these programs are sort of logistically cumbersome and expensive to operate. E.g., El Paso charges $22/day, which is already 1.5 hours of the workday at minimum wage.

You can show the court you have a job, and they'll restore your license. Or if you dont have a job, attend a seek work program or show why you're unable to work:

https://support.franklincountyohio.gov/Support-Order-Enforce...

Well, to be clear, they'll verify your job and enforce a garnishment order on your wages, and then they'll restore your license.

(I'm not saying whether they should or shouldn't, I'm just saying, you're implying "just show the court you have a job and you'll get your license back", which is not the case.)

I have mixed feelings. I agree with you regarding the "Child support suspensions." But most of these categories seem like non-crazy (can't quite go so far as "reasonable") attempts to enforce laws relating to responsible operation of a vehicle. I think it's helpful to point that out, since the article at least facially makes it sound like this is about purely private debt.

Your point still stands about these being debt traps though. But in many cases they're downstream from some other payment that the government requires, like registration fees, or the requirement to hold a private auto insurance policy. Maybe we should worry about these in the first instance and not just the license-revocation rules designed to enforce them.

What if we just didn't have a registration fee? Or maybe we should socialize auto insurance so the poor aren't priced out of driving in the first place?

If most of those boil down to pay n dollars and keep driving why don't we pursue normal collection methods designed to collect n dollars. This has the nice effect that if there is any disagreement or misunderstanding you can keep driving to work while working through it or collect the money over time where appropriate.

For instance the state of SC sent a tax bill to the wrong address and 30 days later suspended my wife's license which we discovered in another state while traveling. We believed that we had paid the taxes for the car as part of the purchase as is normal. Although the tax bill for her car was tangentially related to her license using one to enforce the other just led to complexity and stupidity.

> pursue normal collection methods designed to collect n dollars

There is no such thing, at least not one that can effectively recoup any money. To a first approximation, unsecured debts are never collected in the US. Collectors purchase debt for pennies on the dollar because only 1-5% by value of such debts are ever paid.

https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/the-waste-stream-of-c...

Turning over child support debt to the private unsecured debt collection industry means that children won’t be supported.

Debt collection is an entirely different matter when the creditor has something to hold over the debtor’s head, which is what is happening here and it’s a good thing. Child support payments are determined in large part by ability to pay. The state absolutely should use the leverage at its disposal to ensure children are provided for.

Child support is based on oft fictional "ability to pay" that may or may not be grounded in reality.

Garnishing wages and seizing assets already has teeth and child support payments are already far more collectable than credit cards.

Attacking licences in 99% of cases attacks ability to pay in a counterproductive fashion.

The state should avoid "leverage" and stick to direct consequences like taking your money to give to your kids or taking licenses because people are unfit to drive.

Shall we attach state ID next or ability to ride on public transit.

Once you stop caring about principals and start justifying means based on ends you stop having a meaningful theory of how government ought to work.

Ok, so what are some good alternatives that pressure citizens to pay child support?

One alternative to method would be education about resources and options.

There was a time when I was younger that I was way, way behind on child support. My wife got injured and could not work; I was keeping the house alive on one self-employed income and doing the best that I felt I could to keep everyone afloat. I now understand that I could have petitioned the court to adjust the amount I was expected to pay [based on their interpretation of my ability to pay], but (lacking omniscience) I didn't understand that at the time and I had no readily-apparent way to seek guidance about my options, so I fell further and further behind. (Even a fucking photocopied pamphlet would have been helpful.)

Another alternative might be community service as an intermediate step that happens before jail and/or license suspension. A person who is working for free, and by force, at a recycling center every weekend while being able to maintain their usual income is certainly better-equipped to be able to pay child support than a person who is in jail or who is unable to drive to work.

But neither of those options seem to be commonly (if ever) used in Ohio.

Any alternative that doesn't take away the ability to pay child support would be strictly better. Whether it is "good" is irrelevant.

> and earn a living for failing to make child support payments

If they can't afford the child support they tell the Judge that, and they work with the person on the amount.

It's hardly a debt trap. At best it's a disorganized person trap.