The income based fines don’t bother me as much as the sheer number of traffic cameras and the way the triggers are set. It’s outrageous to get tickets for totally safe driving practices just a few miles per hour over the speed limit. They deliberately place cameras to make money and not improve safety

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: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.

Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Germany, Austria, France, and Switzerland

Again, it really doesn't matter what other countries have. Try to implement the program here, with our laws and norms (norms specifically around privacy).

I understand that but sometimes the defeatist attitudes are overwhelming here. From the outset, people approached this issue from the POV of why it couldn’t work in any form whatsoever rather than thinking about whether it might be possible to adapt it. I’m surprised how anything new ever gets adopted here.

Come up with an implementable plan and maybe people won't crap on it so heavily. A lot of people in DC work to actually implement policies, and see how the sausage is made. A better use of your time would be to get off your behind and learn about how income and taxes work in the U.S., if you want to implement a policy based on income/taxes. Your whiny, lazy attitude isn't helping your goals.

You seem very irritable this morning.

If you work in policy at the federal level, it can be annoying (and surprising) how amateurish the DC government is. They do a lot of poorly thought out things

Even Joe Biden recognized that and overturned the Allen's crime bill.

Do you have capacity for critical thought or do you just believe everything Joe Biden does is right and everything Charles Allen does is wrong?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Germany, Austria, France, and Switzerland

Again, it really doesn't matter what other countries have. Try to implement the program here, with our laws and norms (norms specifically around privacy).

Even with privacy concerns, there's a real difference between income and wealth. If you think measuring income is hard, try measuring wealth.

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: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.

Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Germany, Austria, France, and Switzerland

Again, it really doesn't matter what other countries have. Try to implement the program here, with our laws and norms (norms specifically around privacy).

I understand that but sometimes the defeatist attitudes are overwhelming here. From the outset, people approached this issue from the POV of why it couldn’t work in any form whatsoever rather than thinking about whether it might be possible to adapt it. I’m surprised how anything new ever gets adopted here.

Come up with an implementable plan and maybe people won't crap on it so heavily. A lot of people in DC work to actually implement policies, and see how the sausage is made. A better use of your time would be to get off your behind and learn about how income and taxes work in the U.S., if you want to implement a policy based on income/taxes. Your whiny, lazy attitude isn't helping your goals.

You seem very irritable this morning.

If you work in policy at the federal level, it can be annoying (and surprising) how amateurish the DC government is. They do a lot of poorly thought out things

Even Joe Biden recognized that and overturned the Allen's crime bill.

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: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.

Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Germany, Austria, France, and Switzerland

Again, it really doesn't matter what other countries have. Try to implement the program here, with our laws and norms (norms specifically around privacy).

I understand that but sometimes the defeatist attitudes are overwhelming here. From the outset, people approached this issue from the POV of why it couldn’t work in any form whatsoever rather than thinking about whether it might be possible to adapt it. I’m surprised how anything new ever gets adopted here.

Come up with an implementable plan and maybe people won't crap on it so heavily. A lot of people in DC work to actually implement policies, and see how the sausage is made. A better use of your time would be to get off your behind and learn about how income and taxes work in the U.S., if you want to implement a policy based on income/taxes. Your whiny, lazy attitude isn't helping your goals.

You seem very irritable this morning.

If you work in policy at the federal level, it can be annoying (and surprising) how amateurish the DC government is. They do a lot of poorly thought out things

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: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.

Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Germany, Austria, France, and Switzerland

Again, it really doesn't matter what other countries have. Try to implement the program here, with our laws and norms (norms specifically around privacy).

I understand that but sometimes the defeatist attitudes are overwhelming here. From the outset, people approached this issue from the POV of why it couldn’t work in any form whatsoever rather than thinking about whether it might be possible to adapt it. I’m surprised how anything new ever gets adopted here.

Come up with an implementable plan and maybe people won't crap on it so heavily. A lot of people in DC work to actually implement policies, and see how the sausage is made. A better use of your time would be to get off your behind and learn about how income and taxes work in the U.S., if you want to implement a policy based on income/taxes. Your whiny, lazy attitude isn't helping your goals.

You seem very irritable this morning.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Germany, Austria, France, and Switzerland

Again, it really doesn't matter what other countries have. Try to implement the program here, with our laws and norms (norms specifically around privacy).

I understand that but sometimes the defeatist attitudes are overwhelming here. From the outset, people approached this issue from the POV of why it couldn’t work in any form whatsoever rather than thinking about whether it might be possible to adapt it. I’m surprised how anything new ever gets adopted here.

Come up with an implementable plan and maybe people won't crap on it so heavily. A lot of people in DC work to actually implement policies, and see how the sausage is made. A better use of your time would be to get off your behind and learn about how income and taxes work in the U.S., if you want to implement a policy based on income/taxes. Your whiny, lazy attitude isn't helping your goals.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Germany, Austria, France, and Switzerland

Again, it really doesn't matter what other countries have. Try to implement the program here, with our laws and norms (norms specifically around privacy).

I understand that but sometimes the defeatist attitudes are overwhelming here. From the outset, people approached this issue from the POV of why it couldn’t work in any form whatsoever rather than thinking about whether it might be possible to adapt it. I’m surprised how anything new ever gets adopted here.

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?

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.

How do you know it prevents no one from committing the violation? Have there been studies done in countries where it has been implemented? Would be great if you could provide links.

Well here's one from Finland that says that the effect is short-lived:
https://marttikaila.com/assets/docs/jmp_kaila.pdf

Of note in the paper: The big jump in the fine only happens when you go 20kph above the speed limit. So if the fine was a deterrent, you'd think there'd be people bunching below 20kph. That's not what the author finds.

Second thing to note is that for those that do get the fine, they reduce 'reoffending' by 20% in the next 6 months, and after that return to what they were before.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Germany, Austria, France, and Switzerland

Again, it really doesn't matter what other countries have. Try to implement the program here, with our laws and norms (norms specifically around privacy).

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

Traffic cameras encourage drunk driving

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Germany, Austria, France, and Switzerland

Anonymous wrote: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.

Why only focus on deaths? Imagine there are a lot of injuries, many serious.

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?

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.

How do you know it prevents no one from committing the violation? Have there been studies done in countries where it has been implemented? Would be great if you could provide links.

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.

All I know is that my party proposed the idea and I fully back it. Vote Blue no matter who, what , why or where. /s