Income based fines for traffic camera tickets in DC?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't really care about how rich you are, stop threatening me with your car. If it takes a $100k fine to get you to slow down then ok. Don't do the crime if you don't want the fine.

What if I was poor and "threating me" with "your car"? What does that have to do with a sliding scale of fines based on how much money you make?

[Anonymous]

The street I live on has traffic cams and nonstop drag racing. I guess it’s a win win. For whom, i will never know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why isn't it wealth-based?

I don't understand your post. What do you mean? All fines from DC should be death based or not?

Income and death aka wealth are not the same things. Most retirees have little income, but in this area, have significant wealth tied up in property, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why doesn’t it rise too? If you have enough money, $100 is the cost of doing business. Switzerland hit a guy going 105 over with a $1M fine

Ummm -- equal justice for all? Where does this end?

Let's play it out. I kill someone like Murdaugh did and have a pile of money, should I be sentenced to a larger sentence because I have money? Should a person with a lower HHI, having committed the same crime, get a lower sentence?

Maybe we should extend this to restaurants. I make $70K a year and you make $40K a year. iI we all order the same meal for our families, should it be based on HHI. Imagine your server saying "your meal tonight is $250 and then you see the family that had the same meal get a bill for $200. Seems crazy to me. Prove me wrong.

People value money differently. It's the incremental value problem. We might try using something else to pay fines instead. How about community service? Everyone only gets 7 days a week.

[Anonymous]

So the income based fine is what is controversial here and not the fact that she is more than doubling the number of traffic cameras? All in an effort to balance the budget.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So the income based fine is what is controversial here and not the fact that she is more than doubling the number of traffic cameras? All in an effort to balance the budget.

It's worked in the past, so therefore it will work again. Nevermind that the pandemic and WFH has eliminated a substantial fraction of those willing to pay the tickets. Remember, you could always install even more traffic cameras.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why doesn’t it rise too? If you have enough money, $100 is the cost of doing business. Switzerland hit a guy going 105 over with a $1M fine

Ummm -- equal justice for all? Where does this end?

Let's play it out. I kill someone like Murdaugh did and have a pile of money, should I be sentenced to a larger sentence because I have money? Should a person with a lower HHI, having committed the same crime, get a lower sentence?

Maybe we should extend this to restaurants. I make $70K a year and you make $40K a year. iI we all order the same meal for our families, should it be based on HHI. Imagine your server saying "your meal tonight is $250 and then you see the family that had the same meal get a bill for $200. Seems crazy to me. Prove me wrong.

With equal justice for all.

There are obvious differences between our justice system and restaurants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So the income based fine is what is controversial here and not the fact that she is more than doubling the number of traffic cameras? All in an effort to balance the budget.

Are you saying there doesn't need to be more traffic enforcement? I think there needs to be more traffic enforcement. I also think the revenue from the fines should go to road safety.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just curious if you have heard about this new proposed law for DC. Basically if you were to receive a ticket from a traffic camera you would get a $100 fine. If you can prove that you have a lower Household income, the price you would have to pay would be on a sliding scale. My ticket could be $100, yours could be $20.

More controversially, Mayor Bowser wants to use more than a half-billion dollars worth of revenue from a planned expansion of traffic cameras — which target speeding, red light-running, stop sign violations, and more — to help close the four-year budget gap. Under a traffic safety plan approved by the D.C. Council, the number of cameras across the city is expected to leap from 140 now to almost 500 in the coming years. But Bowser is also creating a task force to consider options of how to mitigate the cost of steep traffic camera fines on low-income drivers (including a possible sliding scale of fines depending on income) ...

I am of the camp that says "do the crime, pay the time". Why should people that break the law be treated defiantly based on income?

Thoughts?

Lol I too can print out a fake W-2.

Also aren’t the fines effectively zero now? What difference does it make if there are no repercussions for not paying the fines?

Cool, get nabbed for that too.

The point is: No one gets nabbed. The policy is useless at achieving whatever ends it professes to have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So the income based fine is what is controversial here and not the fact that she is more than doubling the number of traffic cameras? All in an effort to balance the budget.

Yeah I do have a problem with this. I also don’t think it will work. And if she is going for equity it seems inequitable to those who have to work in person versus those residents who can work from home. They won’t get as many tickets. I’m just going to keep pointing out inequities for each proposal she has because all of this is getting absurd. Meanwhile there were ATVs speeding all over my neighborhood all evening last night. I’m sure they’ll be real upset and stop speeding when they get all those tickets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the income based fine is what is controversial here and not the fact that she is more than doubling the number of traffic cameras? All in an effort to balance the budget.

Yeah I do have a problem with this. I also don’t think it will work. And if she is going for equity it seems inequitable to those who have to work in person versus those residents who can work from home. They won’t get as many tickets. I’m just going to keep pointing out inequities for each proposal she has because all of this is getting absurd. Meanwhile there were ATVs speeding all over my neighborhood all evening last night. I’m sure they’ll be real upset and stop speeding when they get all those tickets.

It seems inequitable to issue fines to people who speed and not issue fines to people who don't speed? Huh.

I have no problem whatsoever with income-based fines. They could be set to, for example, your daily pay rate. If you get paid $15 an hour, your fine is $60. If you get paid $150 an hour, your fine is $600. If you get paid $1,500 an hour, your fine is $6,000. Everyone is paying a fine that is worth four hours of their pay.

[Anonymous]

It doesn't matter anyway because there's currently zero enforcement when it comes to paying the fines. Just ignore the fines, drive with fake tags, etc. and nothing will happen to you because our city likes to see all things through "a racial equity lens."

[Anonymous]

But, why is she doubling cameras if you no longer have to pay a ticket?

[Anonymous]

I think the most interesting part of this is the implicit acknowledgment that traffic tickets are a form of taxation. I say this because our income tax system is progressive (I.e. rates based on ability to pay.) People have long said traffic cameras aren’t really about safety, rather revenue. This just rips the veneer off any claim to the contrary. It’s a commuter tax.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the most interesting part of this is the implicit acknowledgment that traffic tickets are a form of taxation. I say this because our income tax system is progressive (I.e. rates based on ability to pay.) People have long said traffic cameras aren’t really about safety, rather revenue. This just rips the veneer off any claim to the contrary. It’s a commuter tax.

No. Seriously. All you have to do, to not get a traffic ticket, is obey traffic laws while driving.

Also no, it's not a commuter tax. Commuters who drive and obey traffic laws don't get traffic tickets. Commuters who walk, bike, ride a scooter, take the bus, or take Metro also don't get traffic tickets. The only people who get traffic tickets are drivers who disobey traffic laws.