Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Private firefighters go to work for California's wealthy

foxbusiness.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 214 posts

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

#131

Post by hedvig »

notyourday wrote: post #40
Traster wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Step 1: Rich people lobby to lower taxes Step 2: The government can't afford firefighters. Step 3: Rich people use the tax money they've saved to employ private firefighters to only protect their property. Step 4: Poor people are left to die in otherwise controllable fires.

> Step 1: Rich people lobby to lower taxes There are more poor people than rich people so the poor people had to vote for those that lowered the taxes at the expense of the firefighting services, which in turn means that it cannot be that clear cut.

Because the media and manufactured consent that gets pushed down on those "more people" surely leads to them making objective educated decisions.

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

#132

Post by Ottolay »

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).

Yet Europe still does a way better job than the US in affordable education, universal healthcare, and environmental policy.

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

#133

Post by maxerickson »

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.

If the purpose is "protect homes built in wildfire prone natural areas", the public service shouldn't exist, so there you go.

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

#134

Post by Retric »

Symbiote wrote: post #96
erfderd wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We pay sales tax. What's so special about VAT vs. sales tax? Unless you are arguing for a federal sales tax, which OK sure federal tax is great, except it doesn't pay for local services. Also, now you also have to argue about the regressive nature of sales tax in general.

I think the relevant difference is that VAT is paid even if you are in a different EU country. I'm in Denmark, where the rate is 25%. I pay 25% on something I order from a Danish online shop. I pay 25% on something I order from a large German online shop, even though the VAT rate in Germany is lower. I pay 19% (the German rate) on something I order from a small German shop, to reduce the administrative burden on that…

Amazon started to collect sales tax a while ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_tax#targetText=On%20Oct....

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

#135

Post by Retric »

rayiner wrote: post #64
mothsonasloth wrote: post #49

A: "You have selected Amazon's Prime Fire service" A: "A fire-engine will be dispatched within 20 minutes" --- In another part of the country --- A: "We're sorry we don't provide Prime fire service for your location, please direct your query to the local authorities" Local fire department: "We will try and answer your call as soon as possible, but due to budget cuts from a reduced corporate tax income we have had to…

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…

Corporate taxes are low in most countries today, but they used to be a huge source of revenue in the US: https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/corporate-income-...

The advantage of corporate taxes is they collect money from foreign investors which would otherwise leave the US. Lowering corporate taxes requires increases US taxes so it can lower them for foreign wealth funds etc.

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

#136

Post by noirbot »

WhompingWindows wrote: post #129
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.

But doesn't that just mean that the public fire fighters are essentially getting "free" assistance from the private crews? If anything, this is rich people paying to help prevent the spread of fire, which is a good thing for everyone, and lets the public resources go towards helping those who can't afford the private services.

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

#137

Post by enriquto »

big_chungus wrote: post #71
enriquto wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both are to blame. I'm not much of a statist, but if there's something that clearly must be assured by the government by means of taxation it is the police force and the firemen. If there's not enough police or firefighters, taxes must be raised or diverted from elsewhere. Morally, I think that the people who push for private security and firefighters are doing a net damage to society.

I see how hiring policemen and firefighters is not a positive, but don't see how it's a negative. In other words, a state-provided service is not always perfectly on-time, but if I want to hire some private service with super-fast response time for my twenty million dollar beach-front property, why not? How does me hiring a private fireman _harm_ someone else? If anything, might it not reduce the load on public infra…

I said "pushing for private services" not actually hiring one. Of course, if it is only you who does that, then it is completely irrelevant, neither positive nor negative.

Likewise, if you decide to throw all your garbage on a forest, it is neither positive nor negative. If it is only you who does that, it can be argued that its net effect is negligible, neither positive nor negative. Maybe a bit of purely aesthetic disgust for somebody who happens to walk by while you are throwing it. But that is all. If anything, it may reduce a little bit the load on public garbage collection.

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

#138

Post by someonehere »

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…

I pose this question to people when articles like this come up.

If you were wealthy, would you do something like this? In this case, if you were wealthy, would you pay to have extra protection for your home by hiring private firefighters? Almost willing to bet their answer would always be yes.

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

#139

Post by swebs »

>When trying to fireproof a particular home, crews will take the time to rake away vegetation surrounding the home and close windows and vents, The Times reported.

Funny how it was just a year ago when the media was having a meltdown over the suggesting of raking away brush.

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

#140

Post by Retric »

abathur wrote: post #33

I've seen similar variants of this headline floating around, so I don't want to over-blame this Fox outlet for something that's just in the water by this point (I don't recall if they were all on Fox-family outlets, but probably not). That said, the headline seems pretty manipulative... > However, private firefighters are more likely to contract with insurance companies like USAA to offer mitigation services to custo…

The rich are not directly paying for this, but insurance companies are focusing on high value assets protected by high cost insurance. Similarly, the kind of homeowners associations that can pay for this is found in expensive communities. So, these firefighters are largely working for the wealthy by protecting their assets.

That’s more in depth reporting than I am used to.

Post reply on HN