At a time when more and more families are without steady incomes, the state of Iowa is moving to increase its efforts to collect taxes, fees and fines owed.

According to an article in The Des Moines Register on Feb. 22, an Iowa representative proposed legislation that seeks to penalize those citizens who choose not to or are unable to abide by the law and pay fees. The legislation aims “to address the financial burden that mounts on law-biding citizens when governments are unable to collect fees, fines and taxes.”

The article said that $525 million is owed to Iowa, excluding fees owed to cities. Yet the legislation “targets owners of mobile or manufactured homes and people who own property that sits on land owned by someone else,” according to the article.

So, in an effort to increase the revenue of the state, lawmakers want to take money away from ordinary citizens who are least likely to have money and who are struggling to get by already.

And although the effort to find extra money for the state and its initiatives is a necessary activity, lawmakers should remember they are representing the best interests of their constituents. Although people should be encouraged to pay fees, the legislation is aiming its narrow crosshairs at the people who are least likely to be able to recover from such targeting.

In fact, the article goes on to say the state will be making a deliberate effort to collect taxes and fees that may be unrecoverable. Instead of spending resources to collect money from those who are not likely to find the money in this current state of economic turmoil, legislators should look elsewhere to gain back money lost. Expand initiatives to find missing revenue by including more than just mobile-home owners. Give negligent taxpayers a fair chance to be penalized for their misdeeds.

By dropping its gaze from just the poor and redirecting it to a broader scope of the public, the state could benefit from trying to collect money from all who owe. Creating legislation that does not discriminate based on living situation and income would be more beneficial, as the state would be more likely to find missing money without penalizing a particular — exceedingly vulnerable — sector of our society.