3 ms·

It's not charging someone for being injured. It's the equivalent of getting a licence renewal. It's not free. Do you still consider that same driver to be ge

It's not charging someone for being injured. It's the equivalent of getting a licence renewal. It's not free. Do you still consider that same driver to be getting charged for being disabled when they are renewing their license? Or for that matter, any (voluntary) fee that the government charges when a citizen chooses to do something? The process to review an application for a disability placard I'm quite sure takes longer to complete than that of a simple license renewal. If there's a fee for one, why would there not be a fee for the other? Also, there is no requirement that they apply for the placard and could always not apply for it if the $25 really made that much of a difference to them - a cost, I remind you, which would cover 2-4 years so we're talking about 50 cents to a dollar a month. And which would also help to make spots more available to them by stopping the scumbags who are using their dead grandmother's tag to park in the best spots every time they go out.

sp332 10y ago
I guess I would be in favor of some fraud checking, but I'm afraid that it will quickly degenerate into harassment of people who don't look "handicapped enough". As for why it makes no sense to charge for license renewal - the person already has to get a note from a doctor saying they're eligible, and going to that doctor costs money. After that the state only has to authenticate the doctor's note and issue the placard. Remember, there's no inherent right to a handicapped parking space. The whole system was just made up to help disabled people. It would be completely inconsistent to add hassle and fees to the system. Anyway flat fees hurt poorer people harder, so it's aggravating inequality to begin with. And disabled people probably make less money than average, so that's even worse.
- turc1656 10y ago
  Fraud checking could be really quick and easy. A tag/placard is registered to an individual. If that information were easily available to whoever was going to enforce this (and maybe it already is quickly accessible, I don't know), they would merely need to type in the tag number and see who it is registered to. That person's state ID or driver's license has a photo attached to it and they could easily see if that person is either the driver or a passenger. If the car is parked in a handicap spot and that person isn't present, they can cite for a violation. So there would not need to be any harassment of people who don't seem disabled. We would continue to assume, as we do today, that the issuance of the tag is valid. We would just be checking that when it is utilized, the person associated with it is actually present. "After that the state only has to authenticate the doctor's note and issue the placard." - maybe it is that simple. Let's assume it is. But when I renew my driver's via postal mail there is literally nothing that needs to be checked or verified. It's one piece of paper that requires no verifying documents and just gets processed. And it still costs something like $24 in my state. And for vehicle registration the process is nearly identical and yet it costs $56 where I live. You're argument in this regard doesn't hold merit because it is entirely inconsistent, unless you also believe the fees for those should be waived because they are disabled. And please spare me the "aggravating inequality" nonsense. All of that is a product of the entitlement mentality that has become far too common. Most people who are disabled receive a government benefit in some form or another. So the idea that a very, very small portion of the money that is already taken from others and given to the disabled be used to give them another benefit is not insane, especially when it's a voluntary application. Guess what, things and services cost money. Asking someone to shell out a pro-rated amount of 50 cents to a dollar a month to have that placard benefit from funds the taxpayers give them is entirely reasonable. Yeah, flat fees do mean more to poorer people. But basic consumer protection laws dictate that you are supposed to charge like buyers the same rate. And if the cost of doing whatever costs X, it doesn't magically cost less than X because someone is poor. It still costs X and that money is coming from somewhere. In the end, all you're really arguing for is an additional flat benefit of $25 to be given to anyone who is deemed legally disabled. Whether it gets paid to them first or is absorbed on the back end doesn't mean much, except for perhaps income tax purposes if they received it first so they would have to pay with after tax money (like the rest of us).

sp332 10y ago

I guess I would be in favor of some fraud checking, but I'm afraid that it will quickly degenerate into harassment of people who don't look "handicapped enough". As for why it makes no sense to charge for license renewal - the person already has to get a note from a doctor saying they're eligible, and going to that doctor costs money. After that the state only has to authenticate the doctor's note and issue the placard. Remember, there's no inherent right to a handicapped parking space. The whole system was just made up to help disabled people. It would be completely inconsistent to add hassle and fees to the system. Anyway flat fees hurt poorer people harder, so it's aggravating inequality to begin with. And disabled people probably make less money than average, so that's even worse.

turc1656 10y ago
Fraud checking could be really quick and easy. A tag/placard is registered to an individual. If that information were easily available to whoever was going to enforce this (and maybe it already is quickly accessible, I don't know), they would merely need to type in the tag number and see who it is registered to. That person's state ID or driver's license has a photo attached to it and they could easily see if that person is either the driver or a passenger. If the car is parked in a handicap spot and that person isn't present, they can cite for a violation. So there would not need to be any harassment of people who don't seem disabled. We would continue to assume, as we do today, that the issuance of the tag is valid. We would just be checking that when it is utilized, the person associated with it is actually present. "After that the state only has to authenticate the doctor's note and issue the placard." - maybe it is that simple. Let's assume it is. But when I renew my driver's via postal mail there is literally nothing that needs to be checked or verified. It's one piece of paper that requires no verifying documents and just gets processed. And it still costs something like $24 in my state. And for vehicle registration the process is nearly identical and yet it costs $56 where I live. You're argument in this regard doesn't hold merit because it is entirely inconsistent, unless you also believe the fees for those should be waived because they are disabled. And please spare me the "aggravating inequality" nonsense. All of that is a product of the entitlement mentality that has become far too common. Most people who are disabled receive a government benefit in some form or another. So the idea that a very, very small portion of the money that is already taken from others and given to the disabled be used to give them another benefit is not insane, especially when it's a voluntary application. Guess what, things and services cost money. Asking someone to shell out a pro-rated amount of 50 cents to a dollar a month to have that placard benefit from funds the taxpayers give them is entirely reasonable. Yeah, flat fees do mean more to poorer people. But basic consumer protection laws dictate that you are supposed to charge like buyers the same rate. And if the cost of doing whatever costs X, it doesn't magically cost less than X because someone is poor. It still costs X and that money is coming from somewhere. In the end, all you're really arguing for is an additional flat benefit of $25 to be given to anyone who is deemed legally disabled. Whether it gets paid to them first or is absorbed on the back end doesn't mean much, except for perhaps income tax purposes if they received it first so they would have to pay with after tax money (like the rest of us).