Income based fines for traffic camera tickets in DC?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That's what legislators have legislative staff for. I am not a legislator, and I am not legislative staff. First question: should fines from automated enforcement be based on income? Answer: Yes. (Except your answer is: No.) Next question: how should this be implemented?

[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:

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.

Yes, and...? Disclosure of medical information is also restricted. Lots of people without security clearances routinely handle information they're not allowed to disclose, including lots of people at the DMV.

[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.

Spousal liability for taxes does not mean an individual has income. Go ahead and ask for the unemployed spouses's or teen's W2. Or will DC be giving higher traffic fines to married people and families than to single people who don't have teens?

[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.

Spousal liability for taxes does not mean an individual has income. Go ahead and ask for the unemployed spouses's or teen's W2. Or will DC be giving higher traffic fines to married people and families than to single people who don't have teens?

Love that American can't-do spirit.

[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.

Because they haven't proposed how they plan to define the "income" of the offender in a manner that doesn't violate the Constitution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That's what legislators have legislative staff for. I am not a legislator, and I am not legislative staff. First question: should fines from automated enforcement be based on income? Answer: Yes. (Except your answer is: No.) Next question: how should this be implemented?

I sadly deal with people like yourself all day. Proposals that don't think through implementation. When they find that implementation won't work at all, it leads to the failure of the program (if clearer heads haven't prevailed and killed the program). Sometimes that makes the program look bad, particularly if something bad happens (e.g., disclosure of confidential records).

[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.

Spousal liability for taxes does not mean an individual has income. Go ahead and ask for the unemployed spouses's or teen's W2. Or will DC be giving higher traffic fines to married people and families than to single people who don't have teens?

Love that American can't-do spirit.

??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That's what legislators have legislative staff for. I am not a legislator, and I am not legislative staff. First question: should fines from automated enforcement be based on income? Answer: Yes. (Except your answer is: No.) Next question: how should this be implemented?

You clearly don’t know the first thing about taxes or income. Maybe you should listen to people who actually know something about this who are telling you it is a completely ridiculous, un-implementable proposal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That's what legislators have legislative staff for. I am not a legislator, and I am not legislative staff. First question: should fines from automated enforcement be based on income? Answer: Yes. (Except your answer is: No.) Next question: how should this be implemented?

The reason the answer is no is because income has nothing to do with the violation being penalized, and it ends up preventing no one from committing the violation, while encouraging people from other states and people without incomes to ignore the traffic laws. It's completely stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That's what legislators have legislative staff for. I am not a legislator, and I am not legislative staff. First question: should fines from automated enforcement be based on income? Answer: Yes. (Except your answer is: No.) Next question: how should this be implemented?

You clearly don’t know the first thing about taxes or income. Maybe you should listen to people who actually know something about this who are telling you it is a completely ridiculous, un-implementable proposal.

There are actual places in the real world that have actually implemented this supposedly un-implementable policy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Because they haven't proposed how they plan to define the "income" of the offender in a manner that doesn't violate the Constitution.

The Constitution?! Which part? The Second Amendment? The Third Amendment? The Thirteenth Amendment?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That's what legislators have legislative staff for. I am not a legislator, and I am not legislative staff. First question: should fines from automated enforcement be based on income? Answer: Yes. (Except your answer is: No.) Next question: how should this be implemented?

You clearly don’t know the first thing about taxes or income. Maybe you should listen to people who actually know something about this who are telling you it is a completely ridiculous, un-implementable proposal.

There are actual places in the real world that have actually implemented this supposedly un-implementable policy.

And we aren't in those places. Places also have different laws, that are highly relevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Because they haven't proposed how they plan to define the "income" of the offender in a manner that doesn't violate the Constitution.

The Constitution?! Which part? The Second Amendment? The Third Amendment? The Thirteenth Amendment?

The Eighth, obviously. The excessive fines clause, specifically.

Income based fines in the U.S. are tricky. While most people advocating for income base fines are focusing on the rights of the poor, which makes sense as an excessive fine, they fail to address the equal rights of those who aren't poor. Why is it just to impose greater penalties to some citizens compared to others for the same offense, without regard to extenuating circumstances related to the offense itself? Should people with busy lives be given less jail time than people with nothing to do all day? One of the factors in determining whether a fine is excessive is comparing the one given to the defendant to the fines given to others in the jurisdiction for the same offense, as well as fines imposed for that offense in other jurisdictions. It is a good idea to consider the burden of fines on the poor, and courts do so routinely, but the Eighth Amendment is a hurdle to overcome if you are saying the rich should be penalized more for the same offense. Particularly, if the fines of the wealthy are raised such that they are paying more to offset the offenses of those who cannot pay - - i.e. if penalties become a tax on the wealthy, that will be a hard case to make under the Eighth Amendment.

[Anonymous]

Wish people put this much time and energy into reducing crime. Traffic deaths are very, very rare in DC. The streets are quite safe. If they weren’t you wouldn’t see parents putting small children on bikes on busy streets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That's what legislators have legislative staff for. I am not a legislator, and I am not legislative staff. First question: should fines from automated enforcement be based on income? Answer: Yes. (Except your answer is: No.) Next question: how should this be implemented?

You clearly don’t know the first thing about taxes or income. Maybe you should listen to people who actually know something about this who are telling you it is a completely ridiculous, un-implementable proposal.

There are actual places in the real world that have actually implemented this supposedly un-implementable policy.

List them.