Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Whose income is is based on? And what if you are a business owner that doesn't take a salary? Or you live off of investments and have no personal income? OR have so many tax loopholes that you look like you have no income to pay taxes on? Of it is your unemployed child or spouse who gets the ticket -- their income of yours even though you didn't speed? Or you are wealthy, but unemployed when you get the ticket so your income at the time is zero?

Income-based fines are actually a thing, in other countries. Which means these implementation details are not impossible to deal with.

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?

They double after 30 days and you can't register your car until you pay them.

Anonymous wrote: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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems fair. We cannot have poor people in perpetual debt because they cannot pay a fine. You can't squeeze blood from a stone.

I'm a hard ass too wrt paying what you owe and fining people for breaking laws. You need to punish people appropriately for their crimes, not ruin their entire lives because of a speeding ticket they can't pay.

Then set the fine at the reasonable rate for the lowest common denominator.

That's an incentive for affluent people to break the law and pay the fine, instead of obeying the law.

No it isn't. No one is encouraged to break the law. People don't even know what the fine is until they get one.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems fair. We cannot have poor people in perpetual debt because they cannot pay a fine. You can't squeeze blood from a stone.

I'm a hard ass too wrt paying what you owe and fining people for breaking laws. You need to punish people appropriately for their crimes, not ruin their entire lives because of a speeding ticket they can't pay.

Then set the fine at the reasonable rate for the lowest common denominator.

That's an incentive for affluent people to break the law and pay the fine, instead of obeying the law.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Whose income is is based on? And what if you are a business owner that doesn't take a salary? Or you live off of investments and have no personal income? OR have so many tax loopholes that you look like you have no income to pay taxes on? Of it is your unemployed child or spouse who gets the ticket -- their income of yours even though you didn't speed? Or you are wealthy, but unemployed when you get the ticket so your income at the time is zero?

Income-based fines are actually a thing, in other countries. Which means these implementation details are not impossible to deal with.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems fair. We cannot have poor people in perpetual debt because they cannot pay a fine. You can't squeeze blood from a stone.

I'm a hard ass too wrt paying what you owe and fining people for breaking laws. You need to punish people appropriately for their crimes, not ruin their entire lives because of a speeding ticket they can't pay.

Then set the fine at the reasonable rate for the lowest common denominator.

That's an incentive for affluent people to break the law and pay the fine, instead of obeying the law.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Whose income is is based on? And what if you are a business owner that doesn't take a salary? Or you live off of investments and have no personal income? OR have so many tax loopholes that you look like you have no income to pay taxes on? Of it is your unemployed child or spouse who gets the ticket -- their income of yours even though you didn't speed? Or you are wealthy, but unemployed when you get the ticket so your income at the time is zero?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems fair. We cannot have poor people in perpetual debt because they cannot pay a fine. You can't squeeze blood from a stone.

I'm a hard ass too wrt paying what you owe and fining people for breaking laws. You need to punish people appropriately for their crimes, not ruin their entire lives because of a speeding ticket they can't pay.

Then set the fine at the reasonable rate for the lowest common denominator.

Anonymous wrote:

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 wrote:Seems fair. We cannot have poor people in perpetual debt because they cannot pay a fine. You can't squeeze blood from a stone.

I'm a hard ass too wrt paying what you owe and fining people for breaking laws. You need to punish people appropriately for their crimes, not ruin their entire lives because of a speeding ticket they can't pay.

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?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why should a family be plunged into the red over a traffic ticket?

Because they broke the law...why shouldn't they pay the fine? Fair is fair.

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.