I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. If there is no enforcement, laws are all about the honor system. If these changes are for safety, presumably they're being done because people were being unsafe. If too many people are speeding, just dropping the speed limit without enforcing it isn't going to do anything

Not sure how you get people to not park in the bike lane without fines, but sure.

Hey I'm not the one who reduced the city wide speed limit and spent hundreds of thousands on traffic easing. I'm just saying, if the cops did their job, perhaps these other initiatives wouldn't be needed

hence...... holding them accountable for the low citations?

That is literally my point. The CPD should be held accountable for not doing their job (at traffic enforcement).

That said, stripping a CPD of their gun if they're only on traffic enforcement creates a huge amount of issues. For example, it gives them a good excuse to increase head count as they would claim needing x number of people for patrol vs y for traffic. If you just treat them the same it keeps the budget down. Plus, if a traffic stop is done on someone dangerous, it feels like a waste for them to need to call in backup. Not every traffic stop is citing someone parking in the bike lane.

​

Bounty programs are ripe for abuse. Traffic cameras aren't legal in Cambridge/MA, so a bounty program likely wouldnt be either

For the amount of infrastructure Cambridge spends money on to reduce cyclist/pedestrian deaths and promote traffic easing, they should consider just increasing PD presence for much cheaper

Only thing the CPD needs to be held accountable for is their comically low traffic citations.

Impress me then. In what way are jets good but they shouldnt be used for airshows?

Not sure the downvotes. The police said it themselves!

I suspect it depends on the area. I've seen people near me use guest passes for months at a time without issue.

Wait so if we already delt with the shitty cvs queue nothing, but if you dragged ass you get paid? I feel like I should be able to submit a pic of my vax card for cash

I don't know why people act like bikes are not dangerous. There are plenty of e-bikes that are 50-80lbs of steel traveling at over 20 mph. Even if that alone wouldn't hurt you (and it would), just having people ignoring traffic laws and forcing other cyclists/pedestrians into traffic is extremely dangerous. This constant retort of "I don't need to obey the laws because bikes are safe" is crazy

It would help if the infrastructure was more complete. Panting an arrow on the ground doesn't count, there should be one way signs. Same thing at intersections for cars; cars need to know which direction to be looking for bike traffic from. At least on Brattle, the bikes are in the same spot. On Garden, it's much more likely someone is going to get hooked by a car (especially if the cyclist is going the wrong direction). Reminds me of the new bike lane installed near Beech street that will absolutely get someone killed. Why they installed a bike light that is green while cars are able to turn blows my mind

Cambridge needs to remember universal standards are universal for a reason. Not everyone driving in Cambridge is from Cambridge!

This needs to be stickied! Of all the things residents should care about, this should be top. Please please please email your councilors

I meant eww at massive build up approvals. Keep Cambridge charming and sunny. As it is Kendell is so dreary compared to other parts of town

Gross

>I’m not biased I just know super wealthy people, people working in startups, people living in and selling extremely expensive homes. We are upper middle class and I promise you this tax does only good for us, no harm at all.

https://www.nepm.org/regional-news/2017-04-08/voluntarily-pay-more-taxes-few-in-mass-opt-for-higher-rate

It feels strawman, you're the second person to reply saying "I think this tax is great and I look forward to paying it". Massachusetts already has an optional higher tax rate (and surprise, no one pays it). To your point though, no one making a million dollars, even in a windfall event, is really going to think the extra 6000 in taxes is life changing, especially since at that point they likely will have paid hundreds of thousands in federal and other state taxes. It does feel like a gross money grab, and that's why I'm much more a fan of increasing the cooperate taxes instead. Why does the mob think it's okay to scream "eat the rich" because some one got a windfall? There are plenty of places that money can come from.

I know someone who had a windfall like that. They had to pay over a million dollars in taxes that year. It feels dishonest to say "They didn't pay enough. We need even more of that money". I think putting in a carve out for the windfalls would have also helped target the truly wealthy while letting the middle class continue to build wealth

I mean, you're clearly biased so nothing I say will change you mind, but for an example

https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/bostons-housing-market-three-charts#:~:text=City%20center%20prices%20are%20outpacing,between%2045%20and%2059%20percent.

House prices since the last recession have gone up over 60%. It wouldn't even take someone living a lifetime to have appreciation of over a million dollars if you bought after the dot com bubble.

​

Similarly, as its been repeatedly pointed out, middle class people can have all types of windfall events. https://www.bizjournals.com/boston/news/2022/07/13/ipo-market-boston-downturn.html#:~:text=The%20Bay%20State%20closed%202021,2018%20and%2021%20in%202017.

Over 20 Boston area companys per year IPO. Anyone working those could be making even just 5 figures, and still see a sudden pile of cash from an IPO event. As the study points out, most people who breach 1 million a year in income are doing it just once. It's not CEOs making 800k a year suddenly getting a nice bonus (I mean, it is going to be that too), but it's mostly people having some once in a lifetime scenario that helps move them out of the rat race.

the description from tufts covers that no? Even just using real estate as an example, who do you think is buying sub million dollar real estate and then having it turn into a profit decades later? I feel like I'd describe someone who can afford 500-800k property as upper middle class no? Just look at the other post about Darwin's owners closing the business. Are they wealthy or just upper middle class?

I mean, you wanted to know the other perspective. Obviously if only 6% of the state theoretically is impacted each year, there is a much larger part of the population that worries they will be part of that 6% over their lifetime. Which is what the study points out; the majority of that 6% is single income incidents. I mean, you might as well just increase the taxes on lottery winnings if thats the goal

I think you might not understand that the wealthy are well past 1m in assets. You realize you are closer to being a millionaire than something like Bezos right? We are just eating ourselves with these. The median Boston house price is what, 800k? A six figure salary in Boston is not the same as a 6 figure salary in rural Kentucky

>https://cspa.tufts.edu/sites/g/files/lrezom361/files/2022-01/cSPA_Evaluating_MA_Millionaires_Tax.pdf
>
>A very small number of taxpayers take home more than $1 million on a consistent basis. Indeed, just 6 percent of Americans who exceeded the threshold between 1999 and 2007 did so in every one of those years; only 20 percent did so more than half the time.
>
>By contrast, half of all million-dollar earners between 1999 and 2007 were one-timers. This matches what we know about life-cycle earnings. It’s much more common for families to experience a one-time million-dollar windfall than to make $1 million year after year: think of dentists who sell their practices, business-owners bought out by their partners, or individuals selling a valuable investment they’ve held for decades.

I suspect it's because many people read the study and realized it wasn't going to have the impact proponents were advocating

and I bet you elect to pay the higher tax rate every year too

from the Tufts study. I don't blame the general public for eating the "tax the rich" narrative, but even the Tuft study points out that anyone who is likely to be consistently impacted by this will just leave the state. Even Tufts seems to agree the outcome of this might not be what proponents are advertising

​

https://cspa.tufts.edu/sites/g/files/lrezom361/files/2022-01/cSPA_Evaluating_MA_Millionaires_Tax.pdf

​

A very small number of taxpayers take home more than $1 million on a consistent basis. Indeed, just 6 percent of Americans who exceeded the threshold between 1999 and 2007 did so in every one of those years; only 20 percent did so more than half the time.

By contrast, half of all million-dollar earners between 1999 and 2007 were one-timers. This matches what we know about life-cycle earnings. It’s much more common for families to experience a one-time million-dollar windfall than to make $1 million year after year: think of dentists who sell their practices, business-owners bought out by their partners, or individuals selling a valuable investment they’ve held for decades.

https://taxfoundation.org/massachusetts-graduated-income-tax-amendment/ /shrug I mean, as far as I can tell, if your income passes 1 million, you now get to pay extra. But I could be wrong. What carve outs are there?