Asking
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

California’s latest brainstorm: red-light cameras that only apply to the rich . . .



Photo above - Mercedes-Benz SLS AMG GT3. Proud owner of the world's first $1 million speeding ticket. But how much should the driver have to pay at a red-light cam?

“Hey lady, we’ve got you on camera. Red light violation. That will be $158. Pay up now. It will go up to $262 if we have to send you a reminder. Yes, we accept Visa. Or you can send us a Walmart gift card if you want.” Those are the actual fees in Florida. How many cameras are there in the state? The government doesn’t want to say. They stopped releasing data in 2021, when there were 500. Criminy, there are probably 500 on my drive to work now.

California has a solution. (see link below). Reduced or zero red light fines if you’re a “normie”. That evidently means if the perp is getting government benefits, works for minimum wage, or has a ridiculously low taxable income as a self-employed contractor or bartender. Then you don’t have to pay. Uber drivers are going to love this, no?

No-ticket-unless-you're-rich might be a violation of the constitutional guarantee of equal justice under the law. Imagine if the authorities only jailed ghetto crack-heads and let the suburban boys and girls who were caught snorting lines off with just a fine. Wait . . . someone tried that already, and it WAS ruled illegal.

Anyway, red light cams are a winning lottery ticket for states that allow them. California is cagey about their program – they won’t say how the annual haul is worth. In Florida the government clears $50 million a year, after expenses. Those expenses include lavish fees to the owner/operators of the camera systems. Since California has triple the population, I’m guessing the take is at least 3X higher. $150 million or more. (You back there – shouting “peanuts” – shut the eff up unless you have $150 million in your checking account right now. Or $500 which is the top red light fine in California).

$500 for a red light violation? No wonder some elected official representing East LA wants to stop ticketing his constituents. Just make everyone else from outside the 'hood pay. They're easy enough to spot.

Flavor Flav was fined for a traffic violation the way to his mother’s funeral. Ben Affleck reminded the officer who pulled him over that he was Batman. Kylie Jenner: “Sorry, I have no excuse officer. Okay, stare at those things as long as you like . . . “

If red light cams weren’t a scam, people wouldn’t complain. But numerous studies have shown that the accident rate goes UP at cam intersections, even when the city council doesn't reduce the yellow warning to goose up the revenue. It doesn’t matter if your brother was driving - we can't tell because of your " 'round midnight" window tint. And there’s no change to your insurance rates, since nobody knows who was driving. It’s all about the Benjamins.

This soak the rich scheme is simply a waypoint on the way to outrageously higher traffic fines, of course. $500 would be a hit to you and me and the Door Dash driver. But not to Ben Affleck or Kylie Jenner.

Sweden is showing us the future. Tickets are based on your income. The police have your income tax records linked to their driver's license database. (This DOES seem like an oppressive police state, no?) Some Swedish guy was fined over $1 million for going 180 mph in a 65 zone. He was driving a 700hp Mercedes SLS AMG GT3. Yeah, $500 is NOT going to deter an entitled Eurotwit like that. And penuriously paid Swedish police probably hit full boil when they see someone driving a car which costs the equivalent of 5 years' salary. But a million dollars for a ticket? Get real. This could be where America is headed. To help pay for California state homeless programs, of course. Heads up, Ben and Kylie!

I’m just sayin’ . . .

'Equity' Cameras Go Live in California - If You're Not Low Income, Prepare to Pay
Top | New | Old
I knew a guy in college who didn't care about parking tickets. He said $500 a year was a small price to be able to park wherever he wanted (he got in a fight with his roommate once, the roommate called the cops, and they took him to jail because he had a bench warrant for not actually paying his parking tickets, but I digress).

My point is that fines are a valid form of revenue for the state. People who abuse the system should have to pay for it. The problem is that if it's essentially a tax, it's a regressive one. Someone living on the edge gets their car towed and can't afford the impound fee to get it back, so they have to take the bus, and now they can't drop their kid off at school, or they get to work late and lose their job, then lose their apartment, and so it goes. Meanwhile, Brent in the BMW pays what to him is a token fee and goes on with his day. So I see nothing wrong with making fines progressive, same as income tax is.

The next step will be making the sales tax you pay keyed to your income. Those who have benefitted more from the opportunities in this country should pay more back into it. I'm just sayin'...
exchrist · 31-35
Flat rate traffic violation fines. Its the law; im in new york.
if ppl dont follow the law they need to pay. It should be a flat rate. Going 180 in a 65? Thats nearly triple the speed limit. Maybe we do need a triple fine for that but triple of the maximum 150$ fine which would be $450 while reasonable, is not $1 million. Were there previous warnings tickets outstanding taxes fees etc?
Simultaneously if the billionaires arent paying a proportionate income tax. (I earn 50k a year and pay 27% federal income tax being expected to live on 35k a year. Maybe these extra fees need to be imposed.
Flat tax is what the rest of the world does 35% income tax for everyone; no exception.
Given our current deficit maybe we need to try the flat tax method?
Where is the money to pay our government debt going to come from?
beckyromero · 36-40, FVIP
@exchrist

The world isn't flat. Nor should be the income tax rate.
SusanInFlorida · 31-35, F
@exchrist i used to live in a state where the governor remonstrated whatever department was in charge of setting speeding fines, parking fines etc.

the governor opined that continually jacking these fees higher and higher was an unfair burden on the poor and working class. that if the state (or counties, or cities) needed more money, they should go about it legitimately (through tax rates which have to be vetted in public hearings) rather than having some agency accountable to no one try to fund the government through nuisance fees.
beckyromero · 36-40, FVIP
The problem arises because of the contracts the companies that manufacture the red lights. They grease the politicians that award the contracts and, as has been reported over the years, reduced the yellow light times to "catch" more people running reds.

As far as the Swedish payment "model." Hell, no!
SusanInFlorida · 31-35, F
@beckyromero abolutely true. you've earned your "vip" credential today.

i have heard from more than one concerned citizen that their city council never even DREAMED of installing a single red light camera, until the company approached them with a powerpoint presentation on revenue per intersection, total gross receipts, etc.

and wining/dining politicians, and donations to their favorite local causes doesn't help either ("They gave $1,000 to the library fund")
dale74 · M
I thought the supreme Court will get they were illegal
SusanInFlorida · 31-35, F
@dale74 in a democracy, people are allowed to vote on what is illegal vs. not.

TED talkers, thought leaders, social media influencers, broadcast networks, and newspaper op/eds are allowed to persuade us of their viewpoints. but the final decision must rest with citizens, not politicians in a closed door session the public never hears about.
dale74 · M
@SusanInFlorida that's true but we don't live in a democracy we live in a Democratic Republic
SusanInFlorida · 31-35, F
@dale74 isn't a representative democracy? i get confused. anyway, all the communist nations seems found of calling themselves "republics" because citizens get virtually no say in the government.
MethDozer · M
If the state and law is to exist...Fines should be based on your income as opposed to set amount. It's fairer and more effective that way

 
Post Comment