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

161–170 of 214 posts

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

#161

Post by refurb »

rayiner wrote: post #127
erfderd wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

Indeed. The US could very well fund a generous welfare state like Europe, but that won’t be done by increasing taxes on the rich, but rather on the middle class (like in Europe).

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

#162

Post by gtfratteus »

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.

The same roads that you use to drive to the liquor store every day before posting this inane drivel.

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

#163

Post by anonuser123456 »

Retric wrote: post #135
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…

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.

Well, if those foreigners aren't using our services why are we taxing them?

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

#164

Post by C1sc0cat »

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…

They pay sales tax at the state and some times city level which is effectively VAT

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

#165

Post by fooqux »

noirbot wrote: post #157
fooqux wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it would be even better for everyone if the well-off person spent those resources on additional public fire fighters. Maybe a new (closer) fire station, better trucks, more full-time fighters to staff it, etc. Work with the local government to help keep it going after an initial cash infusion. That said, I have no idea what the cost difference would be here, and I'm aware there are other potential negatives. I wa…

Potentially, but just because people aren't doing the 100% most altruistic thing all the time doesn't mean they should be shamed for doing something that seems, at worst, neutral to everyone else. "What if rich people gave away all their money to causes I support" is almost always a valid position, but one that doesn't really help advance any discussion of the merits of any other action that's more viable.

It's not the most altruistic thing. If the problem is that their new expensive house has inadequate firefighter coverage, helping fund a closer one is very much in their interest. Having the locals fund it after you've helped get it off the ground and the charitable write-offs you could probably get aren't either.

If they were funding a fire station in a third world country where they have zero business interests, than sure, call it altruism. But I was just trying to show that there are more options, some potentially even better for everybody.

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

#166

Post by refurb »

fooqux wrote: post #27

Interesting- I always thought the cyberpunk future of self-policed corporate-states would be here eventually, but I didn't think firefighters would be privatized in that manner before police.

You just fell hook-line-and-sinker for that clickbait headline.

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

#167

Post by linksnapzz »

maxerickson wrote: post #133
michaelt wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're being downvoted, presumably by the people who think that the onus of providing firefighting services to, say, a five-million-dollar residence in east San Diego county situated on ten acres of combustable chapparal should be bourne equally by urban apartment dwellers.

The reality is that for a lot of SoCal, firefighting is a gigantic subsidy to people who can afford very expensive houses in a biome that has been periodically catching fire and burning for millions of years.

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

#168

Post by Robotbeat »

patentatt wrote: post #118
xadhominemx wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s a big difference between burying distribution lines and transmission lines. It’s transmission lines that have caused the most destructive fires in California and those are indeed too expensive to bury.

Does anyone know if transmission lines can be buried? Some high voltage DC can be in the hundreds of kV, is there a limit to what can be buried in moist ground even remotely efficiently? You’d need a good amount of electrical insulation, but also thermal conductivity (I assume these lines heat up?). Any experts here?

Absolutely they can be buried. They must be insulated, but that's not particularly expensive. There are thermal limits, as you mentioned, but that simply requires appropriate engineering.

It costs $1 million per mile (roughly) to bury transmission lines. PG&E has about 18,000 miles of transmission lines. That's about $18 billion to bury the lines. Sounds like a lot, but...

...the estimate price of these multi-day blackouts is on the order of $1 billion per blackout. Given multiple blackouts per year, and we're talking just a few years to pay back the price of burying the transmission lines. https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/A-cool-billion-...

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

#169

Post by stickfigure »

snagglegaggle wrote: post #150
jgon wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Is the cost related to the rarity of buried power lines? Consider doctor testimony that used to be given for deaths while under anesthesia. "It's normal" and "it just happens." Luckily juries didn't listen and anesthesiologists were forced to reconsider their daily practice.

It sounds like you are asking "is there an economy of scale?" to burying power lines. Or "is there a learning curve that will drive the costs down?", like for solar.

The answer seems to be 'no'. Digging and burying pipes is something we've been doing on a massive scale for hundreds of years and there's no reason to believe more volume will improve the economics. It's probably getting worse since new development means more roads to dig up and more structures to plan around.

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

#170

Post by sschueller »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #21
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.

Controlled burns are also important, and California has been neglecting those lately too.

All the money is being spent to extinguish the fires and not to prevent them from happening in the first place. Brush clearing and controlled burns are a must.
Post reply on HN