Income based fines for traffic camera tickets in DC?

[Anonymous]

Well, SAHMs are all for it. No more fines for blowing through traffic cameras in their big SUVs on the way to drop off at private schools. Income: $0.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Please help me understand your logic. If I am ticketed for speeding, I should receive a fine. If you are ticketed for the same violation, you should receive a fine. All good on that logic? Now if I make $100K a year and get a fine of $1000 and you make $50K a year and pay $500 for the same exact traffic violation, is that fair?

BTW, the District of Columbia’s Revised Criminal Code Act of 2022 was ridiculous at best. Even President Biden said he would veto DC's crime bill.

According to the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department, carjackings in the District have increased by 76% compared to this time last year. Total property crime is up 24%. And homicides are up 17%. In fact, D.C. is currently on track to have the most homicides since 1995.

The D.C. Council’s legislation eliminates almost all of the mandatory minimum sentencing requirements for violent crimes while drastically reducing the maximum penalties allowable to the courts.

BUT, the DC Counsel is considering a sliding scale of fines (based on Income/wealth) for simple speeding tickets caught on city cameras? At the same time DC is saying (basically) take it easy on the really bad guys? I just don't understand...

If you get a fine that's 1% of your income, and I get a fine that's 1% of my income for the exact same violation, then yes, that's fair.

If I get a fine that's 1% of my income, and you get a fine for the exact same violation that's only 0.5% of your income, is that fair?

No. It is not fair. If you break the law, you get a fine for minor violations or misdemeanors. Obviously, fines and jail time go up for felony convictions. The law should be blind on all accounts. Same fines for all and same jail sentences to those who commit equal crimes.

They are the same fines: 1% of the person's income.

How would the DMV get information on the person's income?

By requiring the person to provide it, with documentation. How does the DMV get information on a person's identity?

This is crazy. People who work at the DMV are not friggin accountants.

Right, they are people who check required documents to make sure the documents provide the information that is required. Nobody is asking them to be accountants.

And yet they are — that’s the problem. Determining someone’s income is hard. People have complicated situations. It’s hard for the IRS. It will be impossible for the DMV.

Also pretty sure that the DMV couldn't FORCE someone to show them their tax return. But could you imagine? The DMV having records from everyone's tax returns? There are reasons these are impossible to get.

https://www.findlaw.com/tax/federal-taxes/tax-return-confidentiality-and-disclosure-laws.html

The DMV can FORCE you to show lots of things.

Unauthorized disclosure of tax information is a felony. If the DMV was somehow able to force people to produce a tax return (would never happen) and the DMV employee somehow indicated to anyone maybe someone sitting nearby what your income is, they could go to prison for five years. We would be asking DMV employees to take a massive amount of legal risk.

I love how this plan is being pushed by people who haven’t bothered to learn the first thing about tax or income.

It wouldn't be an unauthorized disclosure. It would be an authorized disclosure. You would have the choice to not disclose. A driver's license is a privilege, not a right.

Unauthorized disclosure of a Social Security number is also against the law, yet federal law required me to provide proof of my Social Security number at the DMV, in order to get my Real ID.

The confidentiality rules around tax returns are off the charts strict and of course it would be unauthorized. No one agreed to disclose their income to some stranger who happened to overhear a conversation. This whole is idea is so silly it’s hard to believe anyone takes it seriously. DC government and policy is so bush league.

Have you ever been to the DMV? Here's what you do: you hand the person the document, they look at it (and do whatever they do with it in their system, I don't remember the details), then they hand it back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There were 40 traffic deaths in DC in 2021. Here’s the breakdown of causes per the police:

10 — driver drunk or stoned
12 — driver speeding
3 — driver error
6 — pedestrian error
1 — bicycle error
1 — scooter/motorcycle/ATV error
5 — hit and run/unknown
2 — medical emergencies

Cameras have zero impact on most of these deaths so don’t expect putting even more up to have much effect

It’s an unworkable plan that wouldn’t even do what advocates say in terms of safety but it would allow our government to pretend it’s not raising taxes on poor people so I guess one out of three ain’t bad

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Please help me understand your logic. If I am ticketed for speeding, I should receive a fine. If you are ticketed for the same violation, you should receive a fine. All good on that logic? Now if I make $100K a year and get a fine of $1000 and you make $50K a year and pay $500 for the same exact traffic violation, is that fair?

BTW, the District of Columbia’s Revised Criminal Code Act of 2022 was ridiculous at best. Even President Biden said he would veto DC's crime bill.

According to the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department, carjackings in the District have increased by 76% compared to this time last year. Total property crime is up 24%. And homicides are up 17%. In fact, D.C. is currently on track to have the most homicides since 1995.

The D.C. Council’s legislation eliminates almost all of the mandatory minimum sentencing requirements for violent crimes while drastically reducing the maximum penalties allowable to the courts.

BUT, the DC Counsel is considering a sliding scale of fines (based on Income/wealth) for simple speeding tickets caught on city cameras? At the same time DC is saying (basically) take it easy on the really bad guys? I just don't understand...

If you get a fine that's 1% of your income, and I get a fine that's 1% of my income for the exact same violation, then yes, that's fair.

If I get a fine that's 1% of my income, and you get a fine for the exact same violation that's only 0.5% of your income, is that fair?

No. It is not fair. If you break the law, you get a fine for minor violations or misdemeanors. Obviously, fines and jail time go up for felony convictions. The law should be blind on all accounts. Same fines for all and same jail sentences to those who commit equal crimes.

They are the same fines: 1% of the person's income.

How would the DMV get information on the person's income?

By requiring the person to provide it, with documentation. How does the DMV get information on a person's identity?

This is crazy. People who work at the DMV are not friggin accountants.

Right, they are people who check required documents to make sure the documents provide the information that is required. Nobody is asking them to be accountants.

And yet they are — that’s the problem. Determining someone’s income is hard. People have complicated situations. It’s hard for the IRS. It will be impossible for the DMV.

Also pretty sure that the DMV couldn't FORCE someone to show them their tax return. But could you imagine? The DMV having records from everyone's tax returns? There are reasons these are impossible to get.

https://www.findlaw.com/tax/federal-taxes/tax-return-confidentiality-and-disclosure-laws.html

The DMV can FORCE you to show lots of things.

Unauthorized disclosure of tax information is a felony. If the DMV was somehow able to force people to produce a tax return (would never happen) and the DMV employee somehow indicated to anyone maybe someone sitting nearby what your income is, they could go to prison for five years. We would be asking DMV employees to take a massive amount of legal risk.

I love how this plan is being pushed by people who haven’t bothered to learn the first thing about tax or income.

It wouldn't be an unauthorized disclosure. It would be an authorized disclosure. You would have the choice to not disclose. A driver's license is a privilege, not a right.

Unauthorized disclosure of a Social Security number is also against the law, yet federal law required me to provide proof of my Social Security number at the DMV, in order to get my Real ID.

Read the comment again. If the DMV employee talked to someone else about your tax return, that's the unauthorized disclosure.

Now let's think through other things that won't happen:

1. DC DMV getting access to the tax records in other states
2. DC figuring out a way to deal with people who don't have taxable income
3. DC figuring out the appropriate income to fine (is it pre or post-tax? Pass-through income? Unrealized gains?)

Ugh if you want to propose a policy, have some mild interest or understanding in what you are talking about. I feel embarrassed for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, SAHMs are all for it. No more fines for blowing through traffic cameras in their big SUVs on the way to drop off at private schools. Income: $0.

That might come as news to their tax accountants.

Points for morning misogyny, though, I guess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is hilariously impractical. The city will find it all but impossible to verify people’s incomes.

Determining someone’s income is no simple thing. People can claim all sorts of losses that offset whatever shows up on a w2

Well a whole bunch of countries do it so maybe it's not as hard as you make out?

Do they use crazy schemes like 1% of W2 income?

So only people who get W2s have to pay traffic tickets? Sure, that 's fair; and great news for business owners, real estate agents, independent contractors, partners, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Please help me understand your logic. If I am ticketed for speeding, I should receive a fine. If you are ticketed for the same violation, you should receive a fine. All good on that logic? Now if I make $100K a year and get a fine of $1000 and you make $50K a year and pay $500 for the same exact traffic violation, is that fair?

BTW, the District of Columbia’s Revised Criminal Code Act of 2022 was ridiculous at best. Even President Biden said he would veto DC's crime bill.

According to the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department, carjackings in the District have increased by 76% compared to this time last year. Total property crime is up 24%. And homicides are up 17%. In fact, D.C. is currently on track to have the most homicides since 1995.

The D.C. Council’s legislation eliminates almost all of the mandatory minimum sentencing requirements for violent crimes while drastically reducing the maximum penalties allowable to the courts.

BUT, the DC Counsel is considering a sliding scale of fines (based on Income/wealth) for simple speeding tickets caught on city cameras? At the same time DC is saying (basically) take it easy on the really bad guys? I just don't understand...

If you get a fine that's 1% of your income, and I get a fine that's 1% of my income for the exact same violation, then yes, that's fair.

If I get a fine that's 1% of my income, and you get a fine for the exact same violation that's only 0.5% of your income, is that fair?

No. It is not fair. If you break the law, you get a fine for minor violations or misdemeanors. Obviously, fines and jail time go up for felony convictions. The law should be blind on all accounts. Same fines for all and same jail sentences to those who commit equal crimes.

They are the same fines: 1% of the person's income.

How would the DMV get information on the person's income?

By requiring the person to provide it, with documentation. How does the DMV get information on a person's identity?

This is crazy. People who work at the DMV are not friggin accountants.

Right, they are people who check required documents to make sure the documents provide the information that is required. Nobody is asking them to be accountants.

And yet they are — that’s the problem. Determining someone’s income is hard. People have complicated situations. It’s hard for the IRS. It will be impossible for the DMV.

Also pretty sure that the DMV couldn't FORCE someone to show them their tax return. But could you imagine? The DMV having records from everyone's tax returns? There are reasons these are impossible to get.

https://www.findlaw.com/tax/federal-taxes/tax-return-confidentiality-and-disclosure-laws.html

The DMV can FORCE you to show lots of things.

Unauthorized disclosure of tax information is a felony. If the DMV was somehow able to force people to produce a tax return (would never happen) and the DMV employee somehow indicated to anyone maybe someone sitting nearby what your income is, they could go to prison for five years. We would be asking DMV employees to take a massive amount of legal risk.

I love how this plan is being pushed by people who haven’t bothered to learn the first thing about tax or income.

It wouldn't be an unauthorized disclosure. It would be an authorized disclosure. You would have the choice to not disclose. A driver's license is a privilege, not a right.

Unauthorized disclosure of a Social Security number is also against the law, yet federal law required me to provide proof of my Social Security number at the DMV, in order to get my Real ID.

Read the comment again. If the DMV employee talked to someone else about your tax return, that's the unauthorized disclosure.

Now let's think through other things that won't happen:

1. DC DMV getting access to the tax records in other states
2. DC figuring out a way to deal with people who don't have taxable income
3. DC figuring out the appropriate income to fine (is it pre or post-tax? Pass-through income? Unrealized gains?)

Ugh if you want to propose a policy, have some mild interest or understanding in what you are talking about. I feel embarrassed for you.

Do you work at a job where you handle information you're not allowed to talk to other people about? I do. So do people at the DMV, right now, currently.

All of these problems are solvable problems, once the policy is agreed on. Your issue is that you don't like the policy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, SAHMs are all for it. No more fines for blowing through traffic cameras in their big SUVs on the way to drop off at private schools. Income: $0.

That might come as news to their tax accountants.

Points for morning misogyny, though, I guess.

But it does raise the question of how joint filers would be treated. Would you be fine based on your spouse's income? Oh, this is perfection.

Oh, what if you are a dependent? What about teens without jobs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is hilariously impractical. The city will find it all but impossible to verify people’s incomes.

Determining someone’s income is no simple thing. People can claim all sorts of losses that offset whatever shows up on a w2

Well a whole bunch of countries do it so maybe it's not as hard as you make out?

Do they use crazy schemes like 1% of W2 income?

So only people who get W2s have to pay traffic tickets? Sure, that 's fair; and great news for business owners, real estate agents, independent contractors, partners, etc.

Nobody has proposed this. You're arguing against something that nobody has proposed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Please help me understand your logic. If I am ticketed for speeding, I should receive a fine. If you are ticketed for the same violation, you should receive a fine. All good on that logic? Now if I make $100K a year and get a fine of $1000 and you make $50K a year and pay $500 for the same exact traffic violation, is that fair?

BTW, the District of Columbia’s Revised Criminal Code Act of 2022 was ridiculous at best. Even President Biden said he would veto DC's crime bill.

According to the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department, carjackings in the District have increased by 76% compared to this time last year. Total property crime is up 24%. And homicides are up 17%. In fact, D.C. is currently on track to have the most homicides since 1995.

The D.C. Council’s legislation eliminates almost all of the mandatory minimum sentencing requirements for violent crimes while drastically reducing the maximum penalties allowable to the courts.

BUT, the DC Counsel is considering a sliding scale of fines (based on Income/wealth) for simple speeding tickets caught on city cameras? At the same time DC is saying (basically) take it easy on the really bad guys? I just don't understand...

If you get a fine that's 1% of your income, and I get a fine that's 1% of my income for the exact same violation, then yes, that's fair.

If I get a fine that's 1% of my income, and you get a fine for the exact same violation that's only 0.5% of your income, is that fair?

No. It is not fair. If you break the law, you get a fine for minor violations or misdemeanors. Obviously, fines and jail time go up for felony convictions. The law should be blind on all accounts. Same fines for all and same jail sentences to those who commit equal crimes.

They are the same fines: 1% of the person's income.

How would the DMV get information on the person's income?

By requiring the person to provide it, with documentation. How does the DMV get information on a person's identity?

This is crazy. People who work at the DMV are not friggin accountants.

Right, they are people who check required documents to make sure the documents provide the information that is required. Nobody is asking them to be accountants.

And yet they are — that’s the problem. Determining someone’s income is hard. People have complicated situations. It’s hard for the IRS. It will be impossible for the DMV.

Also pretty sure that the DMV couldn't FORCE someone to show them their tax return. But could you imagine? The DMV having records from everyone's tax returns? There are reasons these are impossible to get.

https://www.findlaw.com/tax/federal-taxes/tax-return-confidentiality-and-disclosure-laws.html

The DMV can FORCE you to show lots of things.

Unauthorized disclosure of tax information is a felony. If the DMV was somehow able to force people to produce a tax return (would never happen) and the DMV employee somehow indicated to anyone maybe someone sitting nearby what your income is, they could go to prison for five years. We would be asking DMV employees to take a massive amount of legal risk.

I love how this plan is being pushed by people who haven’t bothered to learn the first thing about tax or income.

It wouldn't be an unauthorized disclosure. It would be an authorized disclosure. You would have the choice to not disclose. A driver's license is a privilege, not a right.

Unauthorized disclosure of a Social Security number is also against the law, yet federal law required me to provide proof of my Social Security number at the DMV, in order to get my Real ID.

Read the comment again. If the DMV employee talked to someone else about your tax return, that's the unauthorized disclosure.

Now let's think through other things that won't happen:

1. DC DMV getting access to the tax records in other states
2. DC figuring out a way to deal with people who don't have taxable income
3. DC figuring out the appropriate income to fine (is it pre or post-tax? Pass-through income? Unrealized gains?)

Ugh if you want to propose a policy, have some mild interest or understanding in what you are talking about. I feel embarrassed for you.

Do you work at a job where you handle information you're not allowed to talk to other people about? I do. So do people at the DMV, right now, currently.

All of these problems are solvable problems, once the policy is agreed on. Your issue is that you don't like the policy.

I do, actually. And I had to get clearances, and there are huge restrictions about the security details of digital records. It is an ongoing issue with massive resources dedicated to security.

And you want to have that in the hands of the *DMV*. Thanks for that laugh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, SAHMs are all for it. No more fines for blowing through traffic cameras in their big SUVs on the way to drop off at private schools. Income: $0.

That might come as news to their tax accountants.

Points for morning misogyny, though, I guess.

But it does raise the question of how joint filers would be treated. Would you be fine based on your spouse's income? Oh, this is perfection.

Oh, what if you are a dependent? What about teens without jobs?

This is called implementation. Every law requires implementation. You can ask similar questions about every law. And yet here we are, in a society, with laws. How can this be possible? It's so complicated!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is hilariously impractical. The city will find it all but impossible to verify people’s incomes.

Determining someone’s income is no simple thing. People can claim all sorts of losses that offset whatever shows up on a w2

Well a whole bunch of countries do it so maybe it's not as hard as you make out?

Do they use crazy schemes like 1% of W2 income?

So only people who get W2s have to pay traffic tickets? Sure, that 's fair; and great news for business owners, real estate agents, independent contractors, partners, etc.

Nobody has proposed this. You're arguing against something that nobody has proposed.

Well then propose how someone would prove their income or lack thereof.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Please help me understand your logic. If I am ticketed for speeding, I should receive a fine. If you are ticketed for the same violation, you should receive a fine. All good on that logic? Now if I make $100K a year and get a fine of $1000 and you make $50K a year and pay $500 for the same exact traffic violation, is that fair?

BTW, the District of Columbia’s Revised Criminal Code Act of 2022 was ridiculous at best. Even President Biden said he would veto DC's crime bill.

According to the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department, carjackings in the District have increased by 76% compared to this time last year. Total property crime is up 24%. And homicides are up 17%. In fact, D.C. is currently on track to have the most homicides since 1995.

The D.C. Council’s legislation eliminates almost all of the mandatory minimum sentencing requirements for violent crimes while drastically reducing the maximum penalties allowable to the courts.

BUT, the DC Counsel is considering a sliding scale of fines (based on Income/wealth) for simple speeding tickets caught on city cameras? At the same time DC is saying (basically) take it easy on the really bad guys? I just don't understand...

If you get a fine that's 1% of your income, and I get a fine that's 1% of my income for the exact same violation, then yes, that's fair.

If I get a fine that's 1% of my income, and you get a fine for the exact same violation that's only 0.5% of your income, is that fair?

No. It is not fair. If you break the law, you get a fine for minor violations or misdemeanors. Obviously, fines and jail time go up for felony convictions. The law should be blind on all accounts. Same fines for all and same jail sentences to those who commit equal crimes.

They are the same fines: 1% of the person's income.

How would the DMV get information on the person's income?

By requiring the person to provide it, with documentation. How does the DMV get information on a person's identity?

This is crazy. People who work at the DMV are not friggin accountants.

Right, they are people who check required documents to make sure the documents provide the information that is required. Nobody is asking them to be accountants.

And yet they are — that’s the problem. Determining someone’s income is hard. People have complicated situations. It’s hard for the IRS. It will be impossible for the DMV.

Also pretty sure that the DMV couldn't FORCE someone to show them their tax return. But could you imagine? The DMV having records from everyone's tax returns? There are reasons these are impossible to get.

https://www.findlaw.com/tax/federal-taxes/tax-return-confidentiality-and-disclosure-laws.html

The DMV can FORCE you to show lots of things.

Unauthorized disclosure of tax information is a felony. If the DMV was somehow able to force people to produce a tax return (would never happen) and the DMV employee somehow indicated to anyone maybe someone sitting nearby what your income is, they could go to prison for five years. We would be asking DMV employees to take a massive amount of legal risk.

I love how this plan is being pushed by people who haven’t bothered to learn the first thing about tax or income.

It wouldn't be an unauthorized disclosure. It would be an authorized disclosure. You would have the choice to not disclose. A driver's license is a privilege, not a right.

Unauthorized disclosure of a Social Security number is also against the law, yet federal law required me to provide proof of my Social Security number at the DMV, in order to get my Real ID.

Read the comment again. If the DMV employee talked to someone else about your tax return, that's the unauthorized disclosure.

Now let's think through other things that won't happen:

1. DC DMV getting access to the tax records in other states
2. DC figuring out a way to deal with people who don't have taxable income
3. DC figuring out the appropriate income to fine (is it pre or post-tax? Pass-through income? Unrealized gains?)

Ugh if you want to propose a policy, have some mild interest or understanding in what you are talking about. I feel embarrassed for you.

Do you work at a job where you handle information you're not allowed to talk to other people about? I do. So do people at the DMV, right now, currently.

All of these problems are solvable problems, once the policy is agreed on. Your issue is that you don't like the policy.

I do, actually. And I had to get clearances, and there are huge restrictions about the security details of digital records. It is an ongoing issue with massive resources dedicated to security.

And you want to have that in the hands of the *DMV*. Thanks for that laugh.

The receptionist at your doctor's office also handles information they're not allowed to talk to other people about, and I'm pretty sure there are no security clearances required for that job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, SAHMs are all for it. No more fines for blowing through traffic cameras in their big SUVs on the way to drop off at private schools. Income: $0.

That might come as news to their tax accountants.

Points for morning misogyny, though, I guess.

But it does raise the question of how joint filers would be treated. Would you be fine based on your spouse's income? Oh, this is perfection.

Oh, what if you are a dependent? What about teens without jobs?

This is called implementation. Every law requires implementation. You can ask similar questions about every law. And yet here we are, in a society, with laws. How can this be possible? It's so complicated!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It is complicated, so people proposing these things should think through the complications. And yet you aren't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Please help me understand your logic. If I am ticketed for speeding, I should receive a fine. If you are ticketed for the same violation, you should receive a fine. All good on that logic? Now if I make $100K a year and get a fine of $1000 and you make $50K a year and pay $500 for the same exact traffic violation, is that fair?

BTW, the District of Columbia’s Revised Criminal Code Act of 2022 was ridiculous at best. Even President Biden said he would veto DC's crime bill.

According to the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department, carjackings in the District have increased by 76% compared to this time last year. Total property crime is up 24%. And homicides are up 17%. In fact, D.C. is currently on track to have the most homicides since 1995.

The D.C. Council’s legislation eliminates almost all of the mandatory minimum sentencing requirements for violent crimes while drastically reducing the maximum penalties allowable to the courts.

BUT, the DC Counsel is considering a sliding scale of fines (based on Income/wealth) for simple speeding tickets caught on city cameras? At the same time DC is saying (basically) take it easy on the really bad guys? I just don't understand...

If you get a fine that's 1% of your income, and I get a fine that's 1% of my income for the exact same violation, then yes, that's fair.

If I get a fine that's 1% of my income, and you get a fine for the exact same violation that's only 0.5% of your income, is that fair?

No. It is not fair. If you break the law, you get a fine for minor violations or misdemeanors. Obviously, fines and jail time go up for felony convictions. The law should be blind on all accounts. Same fines for all and same jail sentences to those who commit equal crimes.

They are the same fines: 1% of the person's income.

How would the DMV get information on the person's income?

By requiring the person to provide it, with documentation. How does the DMV get information on a person's identity?

This is crazy. People who work at the DMV are not friggin accountants.

Right, they are people who check required documents to make sure the documents provide the information that is required. Nobody is asking them to be accountants.

And yet they are — that’s the problem. Determining someone’s income is hard. People have complicated situations. It’s hard for the IRS. It will be impossible for the DMV.

Also pretty sure that the DMV couldn't FORCE someone to show them their tax return. But could you imagine? The DMV having records from everyone's tax returns? There are reasons these are impossible to get.

https://www.findlaw.com/tax/federal-taxes/tax-return-confidentiality-and-disclosure-laws.html

The DMV can FORCE you to show lots of things.

Unauthorized disclosure of tax information is a felony. If the DMV was somehow able to force people to produce a tax return (would never happen) and the DMV employee somehow indicated to anyone maybe someone sitting nearby what your income is, they could go to prison for five years. We would be asking DMV employees to take a massive amount of legal risk.

I love how this plan is being pushed by people who haven’t bothered to learn the first thing about tax or income.

It wouldn't be an unauthorized disclosure. It would be an authorized disclosure. You would have the choice to not disclose. A driver's license is a privilege, not a right.

Unauthorized disclosure of a Social Security number is also against the law, yet federal law required me to provide proof of my Social Security number at the DMV, in order to get my Real ID.

Read the comment again. If the DMV employee talked to someone else about your tax return, that's the unauthorized disclosure.

Now let's think through other things that won't happen:

1. DC DMV getting access to the tax records in other states
2. DC figuring out a way to deal with people who don't have taxable income
3. DC figuring out the appropriate income to fine (is it pre or post-tax? Pass-through income? Unrealized gains?)

Ugh if you want to propose a policy, have some mild interest or understanding in what you are talking about. I feel embarrassed for you.

Do you work at a job where you handle information you're not allowed to talk to other people about? I do. So do people at the DMV, right now, currently.

All of these problems are solvable problems, once the policy is agreed on. Your issue is that you don't like the policy.

I do, actually. And I had to get clearances, and there are huge restrictions about the security details of digital records. It is an ongoing issue with massive resources dedicated to security.

And you want to have that in the hands of the *DMV*. Thanks for that laugh.

The receptionist at your doctor's office also handles information they're not allowed to talk to other people about, and I'm pretty sure there are no security clearances required for that job.

we are talking about tax forms, chief.