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

171–180 of 214 posts

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

#171

Post by Merrill »

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.

Haven't looked recently, but in the early '90s there were about twice as many private guard service employees than there were sworn law enforcement officers. The ratio has gone down to about 1.4, probably because rich people and businesses have moved to municipalities that provide excellent police services.

There was a thread last week on what are good business areas to get into, and providing security to rich people is quite promising.

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

#172

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#173

Post by fooqux »

refurb wrote: post #166
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.

How so?

I do see where it talks about only doing preventative measures when working for insurance, but it also implies that not all their work is for insurance companies. One of the links to the LA times even talks about a homeowner hiring a private fire fighter to save their home, and these instances involve actually fighting fires, not just clearing brush.

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

#174

Post by godshatter »

School-Cotton wrote: post #112
robohoe wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're supposed to report your online shopping when you do your taxes here every year.

Which no one does, so it’s irrelevant.

I'm one of those weirdos that does pay the use tax. I've been paying it since it became a thing. It continually amazes me that no one else apparently does.

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

#175

Post by rubidium »

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…

Interesting thing I just found out about Bird scooters. They will allow you to drive into some neighborhoods, but can't be activated from that neighborhood. The neighborhoods you can't activate one from? Poor ones.

If anyone has more info on this apparently discriminatory action I'd love to chat more.

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

#176

Post by bobcostas55 »

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.

Can you imagine the outrage if public money was used for preventative maintenance of expensive homes?

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

#177

Post by fooqux »

heartbreak wrote: post #72
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.

Wealthy neighborhoods with private security (aka private police) are definitely a thing.

There is a difference. These private security firms don't have all the power the police do. They don't have the power to arrest, don't have their own jails, etc.

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

#178

Post by anonuser123456 »

bogartmyjoint wrote: post #115

EVERY single post which associates Trump's tax cuts have been downvoted significantly. Tell me again that YCombinator isn't basically a right-wing troll site?

Maybe people don't believe there should be an association between federal tax rates and state/municipality liabilities? Just a thought.

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

#179

Post by sgc »

tomp wrote: post #126
patentatt wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It certainly does not eliminate it, and almost every EU country has only a lower VAT, not none, on some or all these items.

https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/sites/taxation/files/r...

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

#180

Post by nfRfqX5n »

theomega wrote: post #17

Unrelated, but annoying: How does FOX get around the autoplay protection of Firefox on Desktop? I have blocked all AutoPlay and yet the annoying video starts playing.

i think it's blocked until you interact with something on the page, even if it's not the video
Post reply on HN