Thread by @scottsantens

Thread: Something happened to me recently that I want to share as an example of a regressive tax and why what @AndrewYang is proposing with a UBI-VAT combo is so different. It involves traffic tickets and how they're used as revenue-generation mechanisms on the backs of the poor.

Yesterday I got three tickets in the mail for a total of $225 as a result of automated ticketing of speed limits within school zones. I haven't gotten one of these in years and now out of nowhere, I got three. What happened? Am I suddenly a worse driver? No. Cause is two-fold.

First, my fiance and I have been in the process of moving. I've been picking her up earlier to drive to places during school zone hours instead of after. Second, I'm now aware of something my mayor did in order to raise city revenue, in direct violation of what she ran on to win.

Here's the story: @mayorcantrell ran on taking down traffic cameras as part of her platform. She did, which lowered revenue, so she then decided to do the opposite. She apparently discovered that by lowering the triggers by 2 mph, she could raise $7.5M.

thelensnola.org/2019/04/22/can…

Now, she claims she did this to improve safety, but school zone accidents are extremely rare, and she made the change in secret. She wanted the revenue, not the behavioral change to supposedly save the lives of kids. She did it as a way of implementing a stealth tax hike.

Two things are important to understand here. One: her entire brand as mayor is "fair share", which is the idea that those with the most money should be paying the most taxes, and those with the least should have lower taxes. It's a good message. This however is the opposite.

The people getting tickets are the ones driving to and from work. Many of these people are earning wages as low as $7.25/hr. If they get a $75 ticket for going 24 mph in a 20 mph zone, that really really hurts them. If they pay the fine, they may not be able to pay other bills.

If they don't pay the fine, they may find their car with a boot on it months later for not having paid the fine, and that could then lose them their job. The rich do not care if they get a $75 fine. It's nothing. The working poor really really care about any such fees and fines.

Now to compare to the VAT and a Freedom Dividend. If the costs of living go up by 5%, so that someone needs $50 more to get by each month, that can really hurt the working poor. That's VAT on its own. But Yang is talking about rebating the entire VAT so that everyone gets $1k/mo.

If someone barely getting by each month needs an additional $50 to get by each month, and in return gets that $50 rebated plus an additional $950, then we can look at that as a massive tax reduction. Their disposable incomes can be double what they were before. THAT'S FAIR SHARE.

Under @AndrewYang's plan, those consuming the most because they have the most disposable incomes to use will see an effective tax hike despite also receiving the $1k/mo, because they will be paying $2k or or $5k or more to receive it. They are net payers.

medium.com/basic-income/t…

What @mayorcantrell has chosen to do is wrong. It even creates the situation where someone on welfare is forced to drive somewhere, and in doing so get speeding tix, erasing their welfare benefits. It is absolutely 100% regressive. It is not "fair share."

As a note to mayors of all cities, please stop this regressive nonsense of raising revenue on the backs of the poor. No one should be needing to choose between rent and a fine, because you decided they should get a ticket for going 4mph over the speed limit 3 minutes before 9am.