3 ms·
That misses the forest for the trees without any of those. You still penalize low and middle income drivers and miss the people who disregard the social contrac
by eganist 3y ago
That misses the forest for the trees without any of those. You still penalize low and middle income drivers and miss the people who disregard the social contract the most.
- ethanbond 3y agoMissing the forest for the trees is foregoing a decent solution that a single city could implement in 12 hours for a solution that will literally never happen ever. You think Montana is (or should) expose a complete picture of a citizen’s financial situation so that New York City can issue tickets a bit more fairly in the event that citizen visits NYC? Won’t happen. The point is not to punish every single violator exactly fairly, it’s to more effectively deter violations among everyone
- eganist 3y agoImposing the control on the people who cause the least problems relative to the problem population is worse than the baseline. And most jurisdictions have laws promoting snitching on your neighbor for tax evasion anyway. You don't even really need the compact; just pour some of the fine revenue into enforcing property tax evasion. That simplifies it to just enforcing the fine against a percentage of registered wealth wherever you live, and the reciprocity challenge can be deferred to later. But then you're likely to score wherever the driver has their multitude of cars garaged. Billionaires will still escape, but people definitively in the upper class will be more effectively deterred.