Private firefighters go to work for California's wealthy • Hacker News Board

Re: Private firefighters go to work for California's wealthy

#121

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Oct 28, 2019, 1:41 PM UTC

jahaja wrote: post #114

rayiner wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Corporate tax is a red herring. Across the OECD, it makes up just 9% of tax revenue (just 6% in Sweden and Denmark). The US is about the same (8%). If you want to complain about tax revenue, point to the fact that Americans don’t pay VAT (like everyone in Europe does) on all the cheap crap they buy on Amazon. Or in the case of California, complain about Prop 13 limiting the property taxes people pay on McMansions. (W…

I think it's important to note that most western countries have gone through a neoliberal regime of tax cuts since ~1970. For example the corporate tax in Sweden was 52% in 1980 (albeit with generous deductions for various kinds of investments).

[deleted]

Re: Private firefighters go to work for California's wealthy

#122

Post by jakemal » Mon, Oct 28, 2019, 1:42 PM UTC

post_break wrote: post #93

I see nothing wrong with this. If I'm wealthy and I can pay money for a service for risk management and the benefits outweigh the costs it makes sense. Private security vs police? Sure. Private jet vs common carrier? Sure. Private firefighter vs public? You guys lose your minds over that? I don't see what is wrong paying for extra protection. It's like owning a very expensive car and paying for extra insurance in cas…

"Private yachts sold to California's wealthy."

The horror!

Re: Private firefighters go to work for California's wealthy

#123

Post by patentatt » Mon, Oct 28, 2019, 1:44 PM UTC

jgon wrote: post #69

ossworkerrights wrote: post #6

Amusing how anyone suggesting burying powerlines underground is immediately pushed back by "it's expensive" know it alls. Wondering if power-cuts like 3rd world countries enjoy are preferable over a slight increase in power supply costs, and wether impotence is more desirable over action bEcAuSe iT's eXpEnSivE.

My good friend is an engineer whose job has been to work on transmission line construction projects for several utilities including our local one. He just finished testifying at a court case because the utility was being sued by a group of homeowners for running the lines above ground rather than burying them. His testimony was based around the fact that on average the cost to bury lines is roughly 10x more expensive…

I suppose the only other variable we’d need would be what is the initial infrastructure cost as a share of the total lifetime operating cost of a distribution system. Including things like maintenance and starting wildfires. There may be a break even point where 10x cost is a sound investment.

Re: Private firefighters go to work for California's wealthy

#124

Post by sailfast » Mon, Oct 28, 2019, 1:45 PM UTC

post_break wrote: post #93

I see nothing wrong with this. If I'm wealthy and I can pay money for a service for risk management and the benefits outweigh the costs it makes sense. Private security vs police? Sure. Private jet vs common carrier? Sure. Private firefighter vs public? You guys lose your minds over that? I don't see what is wrong paying for extra protection. It's like owning a very expensive car and paying for extra insurance in cas…

There is nothing wrong with it in principle and I agree with your sentiment. That said, a broader issue manifests when the following perceptions occur alongside your purchase:

1. Public perceives the rich do not pay enough taxes and have continued to pay money into politics to keep it this way

2. Firefighters working for municipalities do not make enough money due to public funding shortages (see above taxes)

3. Firefighters go to work for Insurance companies / the rich instead of working for municipalities because of said pay disparities

4. There are not enough firefighters to protect my home because they are working for private companies after I paid to train them.

End result perception: That rich person is getting preference because they are rich, when it should be that all citizens should have equal access to public services like a fire engine to put out flames - at least according to our typical societal norms when there isn't an out of control blaze.

"I'm rich so I can pay for it" is totally right, but only works until an angry public burns the house down. A better long-term solution that provides public services for more citizens at a higher level of reliability is one potential outcome.

Re: Private firefighters go to work for California's wealthy

#125

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Oct 28, 2019, 1:46 PM UTC

kortilla wrote: post #5

supercanuck wrote: post #2

Where are they getting the water and what roads do they use to service these people? Seems unfortunate in times of lack of supply of fireman that this is tolerated. I’m fairly certain that fire retarding private lawns is not the most efficient use of resources considering the circumstances at the moment.

These are private firemen. If they weren’t hired they would be off doing something else for money. It’s like complaining about people hiring private security guards when there is a police shortage. Read the article, they aren’t fire retarding private lawns. They are doing preventative work that keeps the fire far away. If it hits the lawn, it’s too late. More firefighters are better, regardless of which areas are bei…

[deleted]

Re: Private firefighters go to work for California's wealthy

#126

Post by tomp » Mon, Oct 28, 2019, 1:47 PM UTC

patentatt wrote: post #99

rayiner wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Corporate tax is a red herring. Across the OECD, it makes up just 9% of tax revenue (just 6% in Sweden and Denmark). The US is about the same (8%). If you want to complain about tax revenue, point to the fact that Americans don’t pay VAT (like everyone in Europe does) on all the cheap crap they buy on Amazon. Or in the case of California, complain about Prop 13 limiting the property taxes people pay on McMansions. (W…

VAT tax is regressive: https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/who-would-bear...

from your link

> Exempting, zero rating, or excluding certain essential consumption goods from the tax base (e.g., foodstuffs, medicine, health care) can reduce the regressivity of a VAT.

That's what's done in Europe.

Re: Private firefighters go to work for California's wealthy

#127

Post by rayiner » Mon, Oct 28, 2019, 1:47 PM UTC

erfderd wrote: post #95

rayiner wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

VAT is somewhat different in mechanics from sales tax, because it is collected along different points in the value chain. More important, VAT in Europe typically ranges from 20-25%, and has a broader tax base. In a typical European country, consumption taxes make up almost 30% of revenue, versus 17% in the US.

So you're arguing for an increase of our sales tax. That's different than saying we don't pay sales tax! Now, I don't disagree that a mechanism that tames American consumption would be good, and is also counter cycle to the economy. But the question remains unanswered: How about the effect of sales tax on people and families at the margins [0]? 20-25% sales tax is a lot for them. A sales tax rebate check at the end o…

A VAT is different than a sales tax. And families at the margins would be better off with the increased social services we could provide with a European-style VAT, than the pennies we could collect by fighting to tax corporations more than they do in Europe.

It’s a middle class cop-out. The American middle class says they want to help those at the margins, but they don’t want to pay 25% VAT on MacBook Pros. They’re only in favor of increased welfare if Jeff Bezos is the one who pays for it.

Re: Private firefighters go to work for California's wealthy

#128

Post by Tade0 » Mon, Oct 28, 2019, 1:48 PM UTC

Reminds me of this quote:

The Guild of Firefighters had been outlawed by the Patrician the previous year after many complaints. The point was that, if you bought a contract from the Guild, your house would be protected against fire. Unfortunately, the general Ankh-Morpork ethos quickly came to the fore and fire fighters would tend to go to prospective clients’ houses in groups, making loud comments like ‘Very inflammable looking place, this’ and ‘Probably go up like a firework with just one carelessly-dropped match, know what I mean?'

Re: Private firefighters go to work for California's wealthy

#129

Post by WhompingWindows » Mon, Oct 28, 2019, 1:48 PM UTC

post_break wrote: post #93

I see nothing wrong with this. If I'm wealthy and I can pay money for a service for risk management and the benefits outweigh the costs it makes sense. Private security vs police? Sure. Private jet vs common carrier? Sure. Private firefighter vs public? You guys lose your minds over that? I don't see what is wrong paying for extra protection. It's like owning a very expensive car and paying for extra insurance in cas…

How about this -- suppose all the public school teachers who taught children how to succeed can't afford private fire-fighters, yet their students who benefited from their lowly remunerated services can? I think the visceral nature of fire and being protected from it by wealth (earned or unearned) is much more upsetting and visible than a jet to transport you.

Re: Private firefighters go to work for California's wealthy

#130

Post by noirbot » Mon, Oct 28, 2019, 1:50 PM UTC

michaelt wrote: post #120

inanutshellus wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another suggestion for a non-clickbaity title: Insurance Companies do Preventative Maintenance on High-Value Assets But yes, this feels like ... class-baiting or something. This headline is everywhere, made to rile up folk for.... what?

Some people consider that, when the rich are hiring a duplicate of a public service, it proves the public service is not fit for purpose.

I think I agree, but I don't see that as an indictment on the system or the folks doing supplemental hiring. Plenty of people have home security systems, or if you're rich/important enough, hire a bodyguard or private security. That doesn't mean the police isn't fit for service, it just means that the police have to care about everyone, and sometimes your personal risk profile is different than the average of everyone.

If you own a multi-million dollar house, it's almost better for everyone if you're paying your own money to protect it, and let the public fire fighters spend their resources protecting those who can't afford their own protection.