Private firefighters go to work for California's wealthy(foxbusiness.com)
foxbusiness.com
Private firefighters go to work for California's wealthy
https://www.foxbusiness.com/money/private-firefighters-california-wealthy-wildfire
213 comments
Another suggestion for a non-clickbaity title:
Insurance Companies do Preventative Maintenance on High-Value Assets
Fire protection, schools, healthcare, they are all specific cases of the general issue that wealthy people are... wealthier than poor people, which some people find unfair. That's a valid and complex debate (capitalism, communism, socialism, social democracy, progressive taxation, inheritance tax, etc) but it's annoying to slog through every specific applied case that doesn't add anything to the overall analysis.
For page views & engagement. The same reason YouTube has been promoting anti-vacination, flat earth, and extremism videos to passive users.
> This headline is everywhere, made to rile up folk for.... what?
People love having a strawman to tear down (or occasionally build up). They just don't know they love it. The news makes money off engagement so that's what they optimize for and outrage click-bait is very good at doing that job.
People love having a strawman to tear down (or occasionally build up). They just don't know they love it. The news makes money off engagement so that's what they optimize for and outrage click-bait is very good at doing that job.
You really think this headline is engineered for people to click because they're outraged, not because they agree?
Articles and headlines based around classism are everywhere these days- and they arent marketing towards people who dont buy that classism is a huge problem. There are an extremely large number of americans who eat this shit up as truth.
Articles and headlines based around classism are everywhere these days- and they arent marketing towards people who dont buy that classism is a huge problem. There are an extremely large number of americans who eat this shit up as truth.
Wake me when the tax code and justice system is blind to class.
>You really think this headline is engineered for people to click because they're outraged, not because they agree?
Do you think the HN crowd is clicking this headline because it is something they like to see? Sure, some may be but I would feel very safe betting money that more here fall into the "outraged" group than the "existing beliefs confirmed" group.
We are having this discussion is because this is a rare instance where the headline needed to confirm the beliefs of one side and outrage the other side happen to be the same headline.
>Articles and headlines based around classism are everywhere these days- and they arent marketing towards people who dont buy that classism is a huge problem. There
Are we talking Fox News specifically or US media in general? If Fox News then sure. If media in general then I disagree, there's other outlets that cater to the other side of the class coin.
Do you think the HN crowd is clicking this headline because it is something they like to see? Sure, some may be but I would feel very safe betting money that more here fall into the "outraged" group than the "existing beliefs confirmed" group.
We are having this discussion is because this is a rare instance where the headline needed to confirm the beliefs of one side and outrage the other side happen to be the same headline.
>Articles and headlines based around classism are everywhere these days- and they arent marketing towards people who dont buy that classism is a huge problem. There
Are we talking Fox News specifically or US media in general? If Fox News then sure. If media in general then I disagree, there's other outlets that cater to the other side of the class coin.
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.
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.
The federal appellate has ruled [0] that the police do not have a duty to protect anyone in particular. SCotUS ruled in similar cases [1] [2] that cops just don't have to lift a single finger if it would save your life.
That does mean that the police isn't fit for service. You hire a bodyguard and/or private security firm because you do actually need someone working for you whose duty is to protect your person and/or property. Most people with something to protect just buy insurance or a dog or a firearm, but the rich pay more for more active measures, such as monitored home security systems, or full-time on-site guards.
It doesn't take much of a stretch to realize that public firefighters likewise do not have a duty to protect your house, specifically, against fires.
Hiring private is absolutely an indictment of the inadequacy of the publicly funded protective measures. And once someone has secured a private solution, they have no further interest in fixing or funding the public solution, in the same way that people who send their kids to private schools stop caring about the public schools.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeShaney_v._Winnebago_County
That does mean that the police isn't fit for service. You hire a bodyguard and/or private security firm because you do actually need someone working for you whose duty is to protect your person and/or property. Most people with something to protect just buy insurance or a dog or a firearm, but the rich pay more for more active measures, such as monitored home security systems, or full-time on-site guards.
It doesn't take much of a stretch to realize that public firefighters likewise do not have a duty to protect your house, specifically, against fires.
Hiring private is absolutely an indictment of the inadequacy of the publicly funded protective measures. And once someone has secured a private solution, they have no further interest in fixing or funding the public solution, in the same way that people who send their kids to private schools stop caring about the public schools.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeShaney_v._Winnebago_County
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 was just pointing out there are more options on the table, ones that would benefit both parties even more.
That said, I have no idea what the cost difference would be here, and I'm aware there are other potential negatives. I was just pointing out there are more options on the table, ones that would benefit both parties even more.
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.
"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.
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.
I disagree. If my house is in danger, I’m going to protect it, no the whole town. I already pay taxes for the town’s coverage but I cannot support everyone.
I’m pretty sure wealthy owners have done the math and know exactly where altruism begins.
Now if all my neighbors want to put a lot more money into the pot, then we can talk.
I’m pretty sure wealthy owners have done the math and know exactly where altruism begins.
Now if all my neighbors want to put a lot more money into the pot, then we can talk.
It would be far, far better if every able-bodied person performed basic fire prevention mitigation on their property. It would be far better for those replacing their roofs to use fire-rate shingles, or for county/city codes to mandate improvements. The well-off can pay someone to do that, and can afford to live in environments where the new normal is >75 mph winds.
I doubt any amount of public investment can make it safe for the masses, short of long-term acceptance of blackouts being the new normal.
I doubt any amount of public investment can make it safe for the masses, short of long-term acceptance of blackouts being the new normal.
Building codes have already made it so safe for the masses that fire departments often have a tough time justifying their own existence.
Everyone is already doing basic mitigation unless they are breaking the law.
Everyone is already doing basic mitigation unless they are breaking the law.
But you could put in/donate millions of dollars into your local fire station, and there is still no guarantee that they will come and save your house when it's on fire, because maybe someone else needed help first so they are all occupied. You could buy another 20 firetrucks and the problem still could happen. Sure, it's a great thing to do for the community, but from a personal point of view, I'd like to have both a functional public service and a guarantee that there are people on standby to help me in a fire(I mean, how is that different than a home alarm, which I am sure many of us not-so-rich people have? When the alarm triggers, the security company sends someone over to have a look before calling the police, so in a way you are already replacing public service with a private one for your own benefit)
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.
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.
[deleted]
[deleted]
It's worse than that. When the wealthy take their money to private rather than public institutions they de-value the public institutions — begin to question why their tax money should pay for them at all.
That would be fine if the wealthy didn't have an outsized influence on our laws.
And then of course for the rest of the country that can't afford private fire, private schools....
That would be fine if the wealthy didn't have an outsized influence on our laws.
And then of course for the rest of the country that can't afford private fire, private schools....
[deleted]
Can you imagine the outrage if public money was used for preventative maintenance of expensive homes?
> 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.
Hire a thousand person to just constantly spray water at a single house, I'm pretty sure you'll be able to make sure that house never catch fire, thus is better than any firefighter service.
That doesn't means the public service isn't fit for the purpose, they just literally can't do the same.
As he said, they mostly do preventive care and not actually fighting fire. The public service does that by education (which make much more sense to me even though it's less effective, but that's just my opinion).
Hire a thousand person to just constantly spray water at a single house, I'm pretty sure you'll be able to make sure that house never catch fire, thus is better than any firefighter service.
That doesn't means the public service isn't fit for the purpose, they just literally can't do the same.
As he said, they mostly do preventive care and not actually fighting fire. The public service does that by education (which make much more sense to me even though it's less effective, but that's just my opinion).
...? How?
I mean, I know I have plenty of confirmation biases reacting to this headline (generally in the opposite direction), but outside of the headline, I don't get the above conclusion.
If X service has Y service competing with (or being bought in conjunction with) X, then X isn't worthwhile? I have to be missing something, because that doesn't pass the smell test.
I mean, I know I have plenty of confirmation biases reacting to this headline (generally in the opposite direction), but outside of the headline, I don't get the above conclusion.
If X service has Y service competing with (or being bought in conjunction with) X, then X isn't worthwhile? I have to be missing something, because that doesn't pass the smell test.
This was my first thought :P
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.
That’s more in depth reporting than I am used to.
I don’t even read Bloomberg and NYT links anymore, just head straight to the discussion and see if this is something I need to get bothered about.
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 case the person who hits you has no insurance.
Inequality has risen dramatically over the past few decades. It’s not so much whether the wealthy should be free to pay more for an extra service — it’s a fear that at some point, unless you’re wealthy, you won’t have access to the infrastructure people assumed was equal for everyone. This may be a slippery-slope argument — but cases like water in Flint come to mind.
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.
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.
I'm wealthy and I spend my money on charitable giving instead of building and defending an ostentatious mansion. When the revolution comes I hope that means my back won't be up against the wall, and my house won't be torched by revolutionary warriors.
Yeah, I could draw this same analogy about gun control or anything else. That's a very narrow action-reaction paradigm though.
I'd argue the outcome is because we don't directly see the effect of the poor who lose their home (and if we do see poor people "it was probably their own fault"). If you could observe the outcome directly (which would require one to dive into the specific subject), I'd wager you'd have either compassion, or you'd be among the exceptional 1% of psychopaths in the world.
By keeping it abstract and non-personal, we are able to cope with such tragedy.
I'd argue the outcome is because we don't directly see the effect of the poor who lose their home (and if we do see poor people "it was probably their own fault"). If you could observe the outcome directly (which would require one to dive into the specific subject), I'd wager you'd have either compassion, or you'd be among the exceptional 1% of psychopaths in the world.
By keeping it abstract and non-personal, we are able to cope with such tragedy.
[deleted]
I think a very tiny fraction of people with socialist sympathies get riled up by this, which is exactly the point. This is just another drop in the "engagement via culture war" bucket.
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.
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.
Quite right. As my post mentioned quite explicitly the issue here is about perception, not about the reality.
Second, it's difficult to talk about compare national fire levels when you're talking about localized forest fires and the need to surge to protect.
If your house is burning, but your rich neighbor is fine, you start asking questions. So what you get is "my house is burning and the mayor is saying there aren't enough resources to save it but only the rich guy got the mitigation" - people start asking questions.
The solution is (like all things) somewhere in the middle - raise the level of public services in a way that allows for better mitigation / protection (which requires money), so that the reasons for misperception are no longer there (the house doesn't burn).
Second, it's difficult to talk about compare national fire levels when you're talking about localized forest fires and the need to surge to protect.
If your house is burning, but your rich neighbor is fine, you start asking questions. So what you get is "my house is burning and the mayor is saying there aren't enough resources to save it but only the rich guy got the mitigation" - people start asking questions.
The solution is (like all things) somewhere in the middle - raise the level of public services in a way that allows for better mitigation / protection (which requires money), so that the reasons for misperception are no longer there (the house doesn't burn).
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.
That's true if their efforts do protect the whole region and not just their local rich neighborhood.
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 reduce our services in the area."
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 reduce our services in the area."
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. (Which, after all, are what pay for your local government functions like fire service.)
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. (Which, after all, are what pay for your local government functions like fire service.)
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.
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?
The companies are using our services, which indirectly benefits these investors. Media companies for example benefit from US enforcement of copyright law. Similarly enforcement of contracts and private property, plus all the little things that allow the US to be such a prosperous society.
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).
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.
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.
A few differences:
- VAT is applied to business to business transactions. Sales taxes are just applied to consumer transactions.
- Sales taxes are applied to total amount of sales. The amount of VAT that the user pays is on the cost of the product, less any of the costs of materials used in the product that have already been taxed.
- Since value is not generally created in a second hand sale. (Unless the item is restored) VATs are usually not applied to used/second hand items. Sales taxes are.
- VAT is applied to business to business transactions. Sales taxes are just applied to consumer transactions.
- Sales taxes are applied to total amount of sales. The amount of VAT that the user pays is on the cost of the product, less any of the costs of materials used in the product that have already been taxed.
- Since value is not generally created in a second hand sale. (Unless the item is restored) VATs are usually not applied to used/second hand items. Sales taxes are.
> VAT is applied to business to business transactions. Sales taxes are just applied to consumer transactions.
This is not true. The final user pays the sales tax. So if a company buys a bolt and uses it to make its product: no tax. If they buy bolts and build shelves to hold inventory: pay the tax.
This is not true. The final user pays the sales tax. So if a company buys a bolt and uses it to make its product: no tax. If they buy bolts and build shelves to hold inventory: pay the tax.
>If they buy bolts and build shelves to hold inventory: pay the tax.
At least for Germany even that is not true. As a business all VAT payments are refunded (Vorsteuerabzug).
At least for Germany even that is not true. As a business all VAT payments are refunded (Vorsteuerabzug).
I'm sorry I wasn't clear: I was clarifying that all end consumers pay sales tax in the USA (for transactions subject to sales tax; not every jurisdiction has them, or has them for all products).
However your comment is about VAT and the end result is also the same: the Vorsteuerabzug only applies to goods sold on to a subsequent buyer.
So the business pays VAT on everything it buys (that is subject to tax), but when it sells something it collects VAT on the sale. It can then deduct VAT paid on the inputs to that sale (i.e. the bolts in my example). This is central to the concept of VAT thus is basically how it works in every country with a VAT/GST.
This is explained in the law itself: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/ustg_1980/__15.html
However your comment is about VAT and the end result is also the same: the Vorsteuerabzug only applies to goods sold on to a subsequent buyer.
So the business pays VAT on everything it buys (that is subject to tax), but when it sells something it collects VAT on the sale. It can then deduct VAT paid on the inputs to that sale (i.e. the bolts in my example). This is central to the concept of VAT thus is basically how it works in every country with a VAT/GST.
This is explained in the law itself: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/ustg_1980/__15.html
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 shop.
(In every case the advertised price includes VAT, although the middle case may use 19% until I input a delivery address, depending on how they guess my location.)
My understanding is that, in reality, people pay 0% in the USA if they order from a different state.
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 shop.
(In every case the advertised price includes VAT, although the middle case may use 19% until I input a delivery address, depending on how they guess my location.)
My understanding is that, in reality, people pay 0% in the USA if they order from a different state.
I pay 0% VAT if I order from a country with VAT and ship to the US.
The key here is that when something is classified as "interstate commerce" different laws apply than if you're buying something in-state. Enforcement varies, and can be expensive, and the laws are catching up sometimes, and purposefully not present in others, depending on the state and their approach to interestate commerce.
As an American, I'm quite happy there is no Federal sales tax. There is no reason to capture value at that level and allocate at the Federal level. States already have these taxes, and are much better equipped (in terms of need / proximity - not in terms of functioning government at times) to allocate the money toward local services.
The key here is that when something is classified as "interstate commerce" different laws apply than if you're buying something in-state. Enforcement varies, and can be expensive, and the laws are catching up sometimes, and purposefully not present in others, depending on the state and their approach to interestate commerce.
As an American, I'm quite happy there is no Federal sales tax. There is no reason to capture value at that level and allocate at the Federal level. States already have these taxes, and are much better equipped (in terms of need / proximity - not in terms of functioning government at times) to allocate the money toward local services.
> My understanding is that, in reality, people pay 0% in the USA if they order from a different state.
That used to be the case, but online retailers now must collect sales tax for any state that demands it [0]. Many states have complicated rules on the matter, for details consult an attorney.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Wayfair%2C_Inc.
That used to be the case, but online retailers now must collect sales tax for any state that demands it [0]. Many states have complicated rules on the matter, for details consult an attorney.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Wayfair%2C_Inc.
Amazon started to collect sales tax a while ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_tax#targetText=On%20Oct....
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 do it (because I buy so little online). Also, Illinois (and maybe other states) published tables saying "if you don't want to calculate it, pay this amount instead."
Most states are now imposing sales tax on online retailers, so the point is pretty much moot now.
Most states are now imposing sales tax on online retailers, so the point is pretty much moot now.
Okay, I stand corrected. Almost no one does.
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.
One is embedded so you do not easily identify just how much all those free services cost you.
embedded taxes benefit the tax man and the easiest to make regressive thereby clawing back much of the money spent on services
embedded taxes benefit the tax man and the easiest to make regressive thereby clawing back much of the money spent on services
Ya, Canada used to have a VAT like tax, and then got rid of it in the 90s.
My question was honest though. Is there something special (good) about VAT vs. sales tax that I'm missing? Because the OP implied we don't pay sales tax in the US, which is (generally) not true.
My question was honest though. Is there something special (good) about VAT vs. sales tax that I'm missing? Because the OP implied we don't pay sales tax in the US, which is (generally) not true.
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 of the year like Canada does? $70 hardly covers the bite of the sales tax!
[0] Including my in-laws, so I'll admit this is a bit personal.
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 of the year like Canada does? $70 hardly covers the bite of the sales tax!
[0] Including my in-laws, so I'll admit this is a bit personal.
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.
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.
There are more solutions than a high VAT, and since it is a regressive tax, it is actually a bad solution. The fact that some countries with high VAT use the funds better than other countries use their tax income does not make it a good tax. Of course corporate income tax can never solve all tax shortfalls, but it is still a reasonable piece of the puzzle.
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).
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.
> 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...
https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/sites/taxation/files/r...
Germany has a reduced rate for certain goods but in practice it is pretty arbitrary and mostly the result of lobbying.
Note that even if it were applied entirely consistently and without bias it would still only reduce the regressivity, it wouldn't make it non-regressive.
If a person with low income buys a gallon of milk they pay the same VAT on it as a person with high income would. If they buy cheap off-brand cheese they pay the same VAT rate as they would pay for expensive luxury cheese (except they likely can't afford the latter).
VAT doesn't account for income inequality, it just makes everything more expensive for everyone. Income tax OTOH impacts high income households more than those with low income. At least in theory: in practice income tax (especially in the US) has massively gone down for high income households, again just affecting everyone equally like VAT does.
Note that even if it were applied entirely consistently and without bias it would still only reduce the regressivity, it wouldn't make it non-regressive.
If a person with low income buys a gallon of milk they pay the same VAT on it as a person with high income would. If they buy cheap off-brand cheese they pay the same VAT rate as they would pay for expensive luxury cheese (except they likely can't afford the latter).
VAT doesn't account for income inequality, it just makes everything more expensive for everyone. Income tax OTOH impacts high income households more than those with low income. At least in theory: in practice income tax (especially in the US) has massively gone down for high income households, again just affecting everyone equally like VAT does.
POTUS candidate Andrew Yang's foundation for his #1 policy/solution is a 10% VAT tax.
Edit: Curious why facts are downvoted? Does HN not like discussing solutions and people actively working on solutions?
Edit: Curious why facts are downvoted? Does HN not like discussing solutions and people actively working on solutions?
I almost never weigh in on political stuff. But, F* that. Do you want to be able to never afford anything? Because, that's a good start. What we really need to do is balance the budget by cutting back on the quantity and expensiveness of existing programs. The government needs to optimize. We are spending too much. Which are dirty words no one wants to hear or perform.
You’re right that VAT is regressive and the middle class would bear the brunt of it, but I encourage you to consider other ways to address the issue. “Cutting spending“ is almost always code for “cutting spending on stuff the middle class and poor need,” which only pits workers against workers. Rather than die in a circular firing squad, how else could the shortfall be explained? Look into stagnant wages, wealth inequality, and ask where all the productivity gains of the computing revolution have gone.
Not the parent poster, but we should probably start with our biggest outlays, and work down from there. I'm assuming that's military spending and entitlement programs. If I'm wrong, we can start with whatever the two largest outlays actually are.
I believe that Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security make up close to 50% of the government's budget. Put military spending in there, and I'd be surprised if it didn't go over 75%.
Note that at all levels of government, spending is close to $7 trillion annually, with only $4 trillion from the federal government. Medicare and SS are together about $1.5 trillion. Defense is about $700 billion. Roads, education, schools, etc., make up most of the $3 trillion state spending.
I'm not against sales tax; there are many benefits to it.
However
A 10% sales tax is a 10% tax on poor people's disposable income since they have almost no savings. How do we square that regressive circle?
However
A 10% sales tax is a 10% tax on poor people's disposable income since they have almost no savings. How do we square that regressive circle?
In Europe they largely don’t try to square the circle, aside from maybe exempting necessities like food. They offer efficient, high quality welfare services to low income people in return for those taxes. (Of course, low income people get much more in services than they pay in VAT.)
But they do, in a way, by using those increased revenues to fund a comprehensive social safety net. If you just add VAT in the US, yeah it would be a disaster.
In the UK at least a lot of "basic" things are exempt from VAT, although the rules are quite complex:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/rates-of-vat-on-different-goods-...
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/rates-of-vat-on-different-goods-...
In Yang's case, the 10% VAT is accompanied by a $1000/month Universal Basic Income.
That should eliminate all the income from the VAT and then some, so the firefighters are still dropping your calls.
$ 1000/adultmonth = $ 12 000 / adultyear. -> requires $120 000 of disposable income spent per adult. Very few people spend $120 000 of VATable (A family making $300 000, a good income, doesn't spend anywhere near $120 000)
$ 1000/adultmonth = $ 12 000 / adultyear. -> requires $120 000 of disposable income spent per adult. Very few people spend $120 000 of VATable (A family making $300 000, a good income, doesn't spend anywhere near $120 000)
This assume everything is taxed under VAT. As Yang has discussed, necessities don't need to be taxed. Luxury items can have a higher tax.
It's called Goods and Services Tax (GST) in Canada. There was confusion when it was first implemented over what was or wasn't taxed. For example a muffin wouldn't be taxed but that same muffin if heated would be taxed.
My province was really raking it in. We paid a 10% provincial ("state") tax and then the GST on top of that tax. Yes a tax on a tax.
My province was really raking it in. We paid a 10% provincial ("state") tax and then the GST on top of that tax. Yes a tax on a tax.
I am looking into https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates and i dont see the numbers you mentioned.
Those are rates, not revenue. The OECD has profiles that show how much of each country’s tax revenue comes from different sources. For example Sweden: https://www.oecd.org/tax/revenue-statistics-sweden.pdf
They pay sales tax at the state and some times city level which is effectively VAT
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.
If anyone has more info on this apparently discriminatory action I'd love to chat more.
"Hey man, it's a free market! If you don't like, start your own competitor."
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 than running them above ground, and he has had this experience across multiple different projects.
So when people say "it's expensive" they are literally referring to a factor of 10x cost increase. Maybe it's worth it in some cases compared to the costs of power outages and fires, but understand that we're not talking about a "slight increase" here, and that the people making these decisions are generally highly trained and experienced subject matter experts who are already doing cost/benefit analyses to take the best course of action that they can.
His testimony was based around the fact that on average the cost to bury lines is roughly 10x more expensive than running them above ground, and he has had this experience across multiple different projects.
So when people say "it's expensive" they are literally referring to a factor of 10x cost increase. Maybe it's worth it in some cases compared to the costs of power outages and fires, but understand that we're not talking about a "slight increase" here, and that the people making these decisions are generally highly trained and experienced subject matter experts who are already doing cost/benefit analyses to take the best course of action that they can.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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-...
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-...
$1m/mile is off by like a factor if 10. PG&E thinks it costs $3-5m/mile to bury _distribution_ lines: http://www.pgecurrents.com/2017/10/31/facts-about-undergroun...
Good argument for burying PG&E, then, and starting over.
> the estimate price of these multi-day blackouts is on the order of $1 billion per blackout
But that's not the cost to PG&E. PG&E (or the state) would have to find a way to get some of that somewhat hidden opportunity cost.
But that's not the cost to PG&E. PG&E (or the state) would have to find a way to get some of that somewhat hidden opportunity cost.
The state already does that through regular, economy-wide taxes. (Maybe this is why it's a bad idea to grant a monopoly to a for-profit company like PG&E that doesn't take into account the externalities of power outages... Then again, Texas' very deregulated but non-monopoly ERCOT seems to do pretty well. So either state-owned OR deregulated may be optimums compared to PG&E...)
It is physically impossible to have long distance underground high voltage AC transmission lines due to capacitance: http://www.puc.nh.gov/2008IceStorm/ST&E%20Presentations/NEI%...
HVDC wouldn't have that issue, but there's not much experience with HVDC in North America.
The issue is more with burying AC as I'm aware, the ground takes energy out by interacting with the magnetic field. With DC there is only a static field and less parasitic loss and you can add enough insulation. There shouldn't be appreciable heat generation in either.
Consider the fact that we lay oceanic cables.
Consider the fact that we lay oceanic cables.
CA appears to require lots of power lines because of sprawling development patterns, electricity generation located away from population centers, and a significant proportion of electricity imported from other states which must then be distributed intrastate.
It appears that CA power line vegetation management is woefully lacking. Given the fire risks, the right of way for high tension power lines should be essentially bare of vegetation.
PG&E is less than one-third done with its 2019 tree-trimming work
https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/PG-E-is-less-th...
PG&E is less than one-third done with its 2019 tree-trimming work
https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/PG-E-is-less-th...
I suppose once could burry main lines, and have a mechanism that can remotely disable parts of overground lines, and enable them once the fire risk is over. But either way, not acting in anyway makes the US/CA look like a poor country - they certainly have all sorts of excuses for power-cuts in there, and why it is impossibly expensive to fix.
Could also upgrade some infrastructure in the process, like running fiber. Might not be free but worthwhile.
There you go. Seriously sad to read about how this happens in one of the most tech developed areas of the world.
And perhaps even begin building a superconducting grid ad for once in PG&E's history, doing something that was pro-active rather than reactive.
Is there a superconducting grid anywhere on a large scale? Last time I read up on it, the experiments by Detroit Edison were a failure due to an inability to keep the coolant from escaping because it used liquid helium. This was probably a decade ago. Have there been advances since then?
Large scale, no, but succesful in New York to bridge two power grids.
https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/08/07/12/0135227/superco...
https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/08/07/12/0135227/superco...
We don't have the technology for a superconducting grid. It also doesn't really make sense, as grid losses are not that big. On very long connections we might want to switch to HVDC, but keeping superconductors cool would most likely require more energy than you save.
Controlled burns are also important, and California has been neglecting those lately too.
They won't need any for a while after this.
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.
In my country the burying has already been done in dense areas decades ago and is progressing in the countryside.
Granted, it's about the least earthquake prone area in the world. Also differences in grid architecture between USA and Europe might make burying more expensive in USA. https://electrical-engineering-portal.com/north-american-ver...
Granted, it's about the least earthquake prone area in the world. Also differences in grid architecture between USA and Europe might make burying more expensive in USA. https://electrical-engineering-portal.com/north-american-ver...
People should be allowed to purchase the services they want and not purchase the ones they don't. So maybe some people prefer infrequent power outages at a cheap rate to reliable but expensive power.
It's not like there aren't other solutions; generators, batteries etc.
FFS with the pressing need to decarbonize energy you're upset about people not being able to handle a few days a year of intermittent power?
It's not like there aren't other solutions; generators, batteries etc.
FFS with the pressing need to decarbonize energy you're upset about people not being able to handle a few days a year of intermittent power?
Burying the power lines underground does make sense to me, but I live in a quiet inland forest in an area that hasn't seen large earthquakes in recorded history, and I don't know anything about the area affected in this particular case.
Could it be that they anticipate that future earth quakes could cause such devastation that repairs to underground cables would be too difficult/time consuming?
Could it be that they anticipate that future earth quakes could cause such devastation that repairs to underground cables would be too difficult/time consuming?
[deleted]
Is there literally no solution that exists between burying power lines and keeping the lines completely exposed that would be cost effective and improve fire safety by some factor? I imagine insulators in high risk areas might do the trick but I am no high voltage expert.
[deleted]
I personally wonder why they don't go with accessible infastructure tunnels like old city sewer systems instead of having to dig up roads for wires and pipes. The two obvious "why nots" I can see are the initial expense of such tunnels and rodents or other pests damaging it.
well there's a couple things, vague meme strawmanning isn't very constructive, and the reality is that the relevant people who have been saying stuff is too expensive is California.
This stuff goes back to Enron and even further. The liabilities utilities are exposed to in California don't match the rates people are paying, and the electricity rates are already really high. You can claw back all the profits, all the bonuses you want, the money you're talking for proper maintenance is way higher than that, the money for a complete overhaul is higher than that.
You can make the utility public, but then you have to contend with the fact that CPUC has been there every step of the way.
This stuff goes back to Enron and even further. The liabilities utilities are exposed to in California don't match the rates people are paying, and the electricity rates are already really high. You can claw back all the profits, all the bonuses you want, the money you're talking for proper maintenance is way higher than that, the money for a complete overhaul is higher than that.
You can make the utility public, but then you have to contend with the fact that CPUC has been there every step of the way.
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.
Private firefighting dates back to ancient Rome.
> The first ever Roman fire brigade was created by Marcus Licinius Crassus. He took advantage of the fact that Rome had no fire department, by creating his own brigade—500 men strong—which rushed to burning buildings at the first cry of alarm. Upon arriving at the scene, however, the fire fighters did nothing while Crassus offered to buy the burning building from the distressed property owner, at a miserable price. If the owner agreed to sell the property, his men would put out the fire, if the owner refused, then they would simply let the structure burn to the ground.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_firefighting#Rome
> The first ever Roman fire brigade was created by Marcus Licinius Crassus. He took advantage of the fact that Rome had no fire department, by creating his own brigade—500 men strong—which rushed to burning buildings at the first cry of alarm. Upon arriving at the scene, however, the fire fighters did nothing while Crassus offered to buy the burning building from the distressed property owner, at a miserable price. If the owner agreed to sell the property, his men would put out the fire, if the owner refused, then they would simply let the structure burn to the ground.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_firefighting#Rome
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.
The private security in wealthy neighborhoods is little different that the security and protected entrances of the condos from the big city.
I think that firefighers may have technically privatised before hand for resource extraction applications just because they don't like to burn money and the infastructure is generally further away. And well naval damage control is technically a subset of firefighting as well. Of course that isn't quite comparable as it is the opposite of dystopian - simply doing what is neccessary when help is far away.
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.
There was a thread last week on what are good business areas to get into, and providing security to rich people is quite promising.
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.
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.
[deleted]
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.
No idea, but it seems to be using Akamai Player: https://player.akamai.com/
It seems to have an event called "autoplayblocked": https://developer.akamai.com/tools/AdaptiveMediaPlayer/docs/...
It seems to have an event called "autoplayblocked": https://developer.akamai.com/tools/AdaptiveMediaPlayer/docs/...
The entire video loads but Firefox does block it from playing. Am on version 70 and have disabled autoplay as well. But I've come across other sites that are somehow able to play a video even with autoplay blocked.
It doesn't autoplay for me (using Firefox 70.0)
In fact, in my console there's a message that says this:
"Autoplay is only allowed when approved by the user, the site is activated by the user, or media is muted."
In fact, in my console there's a message that says this:
"Autoplay is only allowed when approved by the user, the site is activated by the user, or media is muted."
I get the same message about 6 times in the console as well, but in the end it seems to start playing anyway.
I use the Brave browser due to these kinds of things
i think it's blocked until you interact with something on the page, even if it's not the video
Idk, I use Chrome, works like a charm.
Marcus Crassus used to run private firefighters in Rome. When there was a fire his units had been assembling at selected properties and waited why Marcus had been negotiating with the property owner. Only when the deal was made and Crassus purchased the property firemen started extinguishing fire. Hence the fire sale...
> The first ever Roman fire brigade was created by Crassus. He took advantage of the fact that Rome had no fire department, by creating his own brigade—500 men strong—which rushed to burning buildings at the first cry of alarm. Upon arriving at the scene, however, the fire fighters did nothing while Crassus offered to buy the burning building from the distressed property owner, at a miserable price. If the owner agreed to sell the property, his men would put out the fire, if the owner refused, then they would simply let the structure burn to the ground. After buying many properties this way, he rebuilt them, and often leased the properties to their original owners or new tenants. [1]
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Licinius_Crassus
> The first ever Roman fire brigade was created by Crassus. He took advantage of the fact that Rome had no fire department, by creating his own brigade—500 men strong—which rushed to burning buildings at the first cry of alarm. Upon arriving at the scene, however, the fire fighters did nothing while Crassus offered to buy the burning building from the distressed property owner, at a miserable price. If the owner agreed to sell the property, his men would put out the fire, if the owner refused, then they would simply let the structure burn to the ground. After buying many properties this way, he rebuilt them, and often leased the properties to their original owners or new tenants. [1]
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Licinius_Crassus
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.
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 being contained with higher priority. If they were taking away fire fighters from the publicly funded groups or volunteers, then there would be something to bitch about.
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 being contained with higher priority. If they were taking away fire fighters from the publicly funded groups or volunteers, then there would be something to bitch about.
> It’s like complaining about people hiring private security guards when there is a police shortage.
What do you mean with that comparison? This would be quite a legitimate reason for complaining!
What do you mean with that comparison? This would be quite a legitimate reason for complaining!
Right, but should you really be blaming the people who hire the extra private policemen, or the people who decide not to hire more public ones? It seems as though it's more effective to push for more public policemen. The same applies to firemen: it's more productive to push for more public firemen than to blame the people who hire private ones due to a shortage thereof.
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.
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 infrastructure?
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 infrastructure?
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.
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.
[deleted]
[deleted]
This is mostly a zero sum game in the immediate term, and mostly zero sum in the longer term since there is a fairly limited pool of people available to fight fires. If you have the skills to be a fireman but a private individual pays you above market rate to fight their own personal fires then you will remove yourself from the pool of people fighting fires for the public and into a private pool.
Will 20 such private firemen be a problem? No, but 2,000? That would absolutely have an impact on available firefighters for the public.
Will 20 such private firemen be a problem? No, but 2,000? That would absolutely have an impact on available firefighters for the public.
Is there really a shortage of firefighters? Or is there a shortage of firefighters willing to work for the rates public service offers? How high are those rates anyway? Because given how much public servants are typically paid worldwide, I can easily imagine that the private firefighting company isn't competing with public firefighting jobs, but with all the other jobs a would-be firefighter can get that pay better than fighting fires.
It can be zero sum game short term (<1 months) but medium term (6 months) it's definitely not zero sum game. Pool of applicants that can be firemen includes all able-bodied males (and potentially female) 18-50 which is 10 million pool in California alone. Good pay will attract out of state candidates too. I would expect training to take less than 6 months or so. Considering fires happen every year, California can have as many firemen as it wants (and willing to pay for) by the time next summer fire season starts.
You've got the wrong way of looking at this. The government is unwilling to hire these people, so they're available to private individuals. If the government were winning to fork out tax dollars for private firefighters, there's nothing stopping them from doing so.
The great thing about capitalism, for better or worse, but mostly better is that you or any one other person does not get to decide what constitutes efficient use of resources. Everyone decides that for themself based on self interest and the market ends up magically having this sort of collective intelligence that allocates far better than any alternative system ever has.
The great thing about capitalism, for better or worse, but mostly better is that you or any one other person does not get to decide what constitutes efficient use of resources. Everyone decides that for themself based on self interest and the market ends up magically having this sort of collective intelligence that allocates far better than any alternative system ever has.
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 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 5: the land is then used to build luxury housing. (See that England tower fire)
>Step 2: The government can't afford firefighters.
I'm sympathetic to #1 on a general level, many (though not all) rich people have lobbied for lower taxes, and/or simply employee tax experts who can take advantage of legal ways to reduce their taxes a great deal. But in this instance at least it doesn't work, California isn't low tax. And your progression further falls apart at #2 because firefighter salaries aren't at the level of "can't afford it" even for California alone, let alone the federal government. California looks to have around a $144 billion budget for the 2018-19 period, and I see from a quick search a Fortune article indicating they had allocated a $442 million firefighting budget, total (which apparently got exhausted, and importantly does represent a sharp upward trend from the previous 5 years, in 2013 they spent $242m). But while a few hundred million more is certainly a lot of money, it's not at the level where it's killing California. And again, California isn't a low tax state anyway.
So no, I don't think you're justified here, or at least you'll need more support. There could certainly be more spent from by the public on the level of expense private firefighters represent, and it's not clear that there is any zero sum game here. And I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with multiple levels of response, at the theater and local levels. That's particularly when part of it is preventative, like creating fire perimeters on properties by cutting down and removing dangerous vegetation. That doesn't require the same skills, expense or risk as direct large fire containment but can be a big help. Finally, as with floods there are arguably private properties that the public simply shouldn't be on the hook to defend at all because they're in known very dangerous areas. If someone wishes to expend their own surplus resources on it though that's no different than any other luxury expenditure is it?
It is reasonable to debate what balance budget should have in all this, and whether the government should be doing more to invest in better infrastructure up front. For example, from what I can tell from various sources like this one [1] a few billion a year would cover a significant amount of buried HVDC distribution backbone. California apparently has around 26000 miles of high voltage primary lines, and about 240k miles of secondary. Focusing on the primary first it'd probably cost a good $35-55 billion based on what I can find, which is a lot but is the sort of project to be done over time and focusing on the most important areas (going through high vegetation risk spots) first. It'd add up over a decade or two of effort, and blackouts aren't free either. And it might at least be worth it to look into whether there are any economies of scale to be gained or standardization and improvements that can be done to bring the cost down further. Or instead, perhaps it'd be more cost effective to just abandon certain parts of the state, some towns may face the same issue as coastal ones.
But I don't think the negative reaction to private individual efforts is justified either, and unnecessarily creates bad feelings not conducive to further work.
----
1: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Indicative-capital-cost-...
I'm sympathetic to #1 on a general level, many (though not all) rich people have lobbied for lower taxes, and/or simply employee tax experts who can take advantage of legal ways to reduce their taxes a great deal. But in this instance at least it doesn't work, California isn't low tax. And your progression further falls apart at #2 because firefighter salaries aren't at the level of "can't afford it" even for California alone, let alone the federal government. California looks to have around a $144 billion budget for the 2018-19 period, and I see from a quick search a Fortune article indicating they had allocated a $442 million firefighting budget, total (which apparently got exhausted, and importantly does represent a sharp upward trend from the previous 5 years, in 2013 they spent $242m). But while a few hundred million more is certainly a lot of money, it's not at the level where it's killing California. And again, California isn't a low tax state anyway.
So no, I don't think you're justified here, or at least you'll need more support. There could certainly be more spent from by the public on the level of expense private firefighters represent, and it's not clear that there is any zero sum game here. And I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with multiple levels of response, at the theater and local levels. That's particularly when part of it is preventative, like creating fire perimeters on properties by cutting down and removing dangerous vegetation. That doesn't require the same skills, expense or risk as direct large fire containment but can be a big help. Finally, as with floods there are arguably private properties that the public simply shouldn't be on the hook to defend at all because they're in known very dangerous areas. If someone wishes to expend their own surplus resources on it though that's no different than any other luxury expenditure is it?
It is reasonable to debate what balance budget should have in all this, and whether the government should be doing more to invest in better infrastructure up front. For example, from what I can tell from various sources like this one [1] a few billion a year would cover a significant amount of buried HVDC distribution backbone. California apparently has around 26000 miles of high voltage primary lines, and about 240k miles of secondary. Focusing on the primary first it'd probably cost a good $35-55 billion based on what I can find, which is a lot but is the sort of project to be done over time and focusing on the most important areas (going through high vegetation risk spots) first. It'd add up over a decade or two of effort, and blackouts aren't free either. And it might at least be worth it to look into whether there are any economies of scale to be gained or standardization and improvements that can be done to bring the cost down further. Or instead, perhaps it'd be more cost effective to just abandon certain parts of the state, some towns may face the same issue as coastal ones.
But I don't think the negative reaction to private individual efforts is justified either, and unnecessarily creates bad feelings not conducive to further work.
----
1: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Indicative-capital-cost-...
Doesn't CA have the highest state taxes in the country?
Blame the poor who vote for these politicians, they control the elections and thereby the country, in theory. Why non-rich people insist on voting Republican (the party that caters to the wealthy) is a mystery to me.
Lobbying is a form of weak power by comparison.
Lobbying is a form of weak power by comparison.
> 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.
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.
Isn't this the "the poor [in America] see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires" phenomenon?
Because the media and manufactured consent that gets pushed down on those "more people" surely leads to them making objective educated decisions.
> the market ends up magically having this sort of collective intelligence
What if one person had enough resources to pay all firemen to not fight fires at all? The "collective intelligence" of the market has obvious blind spots.
What if one person had enough resources to pay all firemen to not fight fires at all? The "collective intelligence" of the market has obvious blind spots.
Then there would be unfilled jobs for firemen, which would increase the wages for firemen, which would prompt more people to move into a career as a firefighter, which would increase the supply of firemen until the jobs willing to pay the new prevailing wage were mostly filled, approximately.
That's exactly how pricing signals work. "Firemen" is not a fixed set of people.
That's exactly how pricing signals work. "Firemen" is not a fixed set of people.
> The "collective intelligence" of the market has obvious blind spots.
As does the collective intelligence of the voters and the state. Whichever is more, and more consistently intelligent is apparently not obvious.
As does the collective intelligence of the voters and the state. Whichever is more, and more consistently intelligent is apparently not obvious.
It's not perfect. But it is better than all the alternatives we currently have.
Intelligence does not imply perfection.
Intelligence does not imply perfection.
The number of people willing to be paid to not fight fires is unlimited.
> The government is unwilling to hire these people, so they're available to private individuals.
Show me the evidence this is happening.
Show me the evidence this is happening.
Your very own comment said "lack of supply of fireman".
Are you implying that there are open fireman positions that no one is applying for? If so your market is incredibly different from the one I know. Here in Australia a job as a fireman is very hard to get.
Are you implying that there are open fireman positions that no one is applying for? If so your market is incredibly different from the one I know. Here in Australia a job as a fireman is very hard to get.
There are open positions. Whether qualified applicants are applying, I don’t know.
https://mobile.twitter.com/CALFIRE_Careers
https://mobile.twitter.com/CALFIRE_Careers
[deleted]
I see a lot of people talking about the privatization of firefighting and the future. In this case there is a big difference between the two types of firefighting that is being talked about.
1. The first type of firefighting is your traditional city structure firefighting departments. These are the ones we see most of the time in the movies(Backdraft, Ladder 49). These are government funded by local and municipal taxes. They traditionally provided structure and medical services to a city. While the firefighting portion of these departments has stayed public the medical(ambulance) services have been heavily privatized for years. Due to the large migration we have seen of people wanting to live closer to nature, wildland Urban Interface firefighting has become a service that these traditional structure departments have stepped up to provide as they have expanded their boundaries to provide services to the ever increasing number of homes that have been built outside of the traditional city landscape.
2. Wildland firefighting has traditionally been paid for and managed by the Federal Government. Last I saw around 40% of wildland firefighting resources are privately owned. This includes fire engines, water tankers, showers, food caterers, hand crews(20 man crews that dig fire line in an attempt to contain the fire), tree fallers(loggers who are brought in to fall dangerous trees), air tankers, and helicopters. This particular part of firefighting has been privatized for 20+ years and the Federal government shows no signs of changing this trend anytime soon.
There is also a lot of talk of people leaving the structural "public" fire departments to go private. In my experience the trend is actually the opposite. Private firefighters are generally significantly underpaid compared to their government counterparts. When I was working for the Federal government 15 years ago, I was making a base wage of $15-$20 an hour, if I went out on a fire I got $2 an hour hazard pay for the entire day. If I went over 40 hours in a week I then was paid time and a half and anything over 80 was double time and a half. If I got sent out on a fire for a 14-21 day tour I would work 16 hour days for 14-21 days straight and just be raking in the money. My private crew counterparts were making somewhere between $7-$12 dollars an hour and were only getting time and a half over 40 hours.
Source: Spent 10 years as a volunteer structure and wildland firefighter.
1. The first type of firefighting is your traditional city structure firefighting departments. These are the ones we see most of the time in the movies(Backdraft, Ladder 49). These are government funded by local and municipal taxes. They traditionally provided structure and medical services to a city. While the firefighting portion of these departments has stayed public the medical(ambulance) services have been heavily privatized for years. Due to the large migration we have seen of people wanting to live closer to nature, wildland Urban Interface firefighting has become a service that these traditional structure departments have stepped up to provide as they have expanded their boundaries to provide services to the ever increasing number of homes that have been built outside of the traditional city landscape.
2. Wildland firefighting has traditionally been paid for and managed by the Federal Government. Last I saw around 40% of wildland firefighting resources are privately owned. This includes fire engines, water tankers, showers, food caterers, hand crews(20 man crews that dig fire line in an attempt to contain the fire), tree fallers(loggers who are brought in to fall dangerous trees), air tankers, and helicopters. This particular part of firefighting has been privatized for 20+ years and the Federal government shows no signs of changing this trend anytime soon.
There is also a lot of talk of people leaving the structural "public" fire departments to go private. In my experience the trend is actually the opposite. Private firefighters are generally significantly underpaid compared to their government counterparts. When I was working for the Federal government 15 years ago, I was making a base wage of $15-$20 an hour, if I went out on a fire I got $2 an hour hazard pay for the entire day. If I went over 40 hours in a week I then was paid time and a half and anything over 80 was double time and a half. If I got sent out on a fire for a 14-21 day tour I would work 16 hour days for 14-21 days straight and just be raking in the money. My private crew counterparts were making somewhere between $7-$12 dollars an hour and were only getting time and a half over 40 hours.
Source: Spent 10 years as a volunteer structure and wildland firefighter.
Relevant Planet Money episode (from June):
https://www.npr.org/2019/06/27/736715592/the-private-firefig...
https://www.npr.org/2019/06/27/736715592/the-private-firefig...
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?'
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?'
While I don't begrudge people spending their money on whatever they want, these are likely the same people that benefited from the recent tax cut for the wealthy. The government cuts taxes for the rich, reducing funding available for the public good and the rich then use those funds for themselves.
I completely understand the argument that those funds are then trickling down to the firefighters and their families; however, the fire prevention benefits are now limited to the rich neighborhoods instead of the wider area a public application of those same funds to hire firefighters would have benefited. It is a net loss.
Another thing I struggle with is that we arrest the poor and send them into harms way to protect the wealthy for $1 an hour.
We are rapidly approaching a time of the rich living in protected enclaves and the poor in polluted unsafe neighborhoods policed by forces only intent on keeping the rabble pacified. In New York City, the richest city in the world, 1/10 of public school kids are homeless...
Another thing I struggle with is that we arrest the poor and send them into harms way to protect the wealthy for $1 an hour.
We are rapidly approaching a time of the rich living in protected enclaves and the poor in polluted unsafe neighborhoods policed by forces only intent on keeping the rabble pacified. In New York City, the richest city in the world, 1/10 of public school kids are homeless...
The FOX TV Network would never run something like this. I find FOX properties online to be far less restrictive in what they can publish — even class struggles are fair game to post. This would never fly on FOX opinion shows on TV.
For the record, firefighters per neighborhood could work, but not multiple competing companies. We used to have that here in NYC. Here is a scene from Gangs of New York which is historically accurate and correctly mentions the Bowery Boys and the Municipal Police Riot (two diff sets of police)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DmsB5bcygB4
This, friends, is one of the potential pitfalls of anarcho-capitalist utopia
For the record, firefighters per neighborhood could work, but not multiple competing companies. We used to have that here in NYC. Here is a scene from Gangs of New York which is historically accurate and correctly mentions the Bowery Boys and the Municipal Police Riot (two diff sets of police)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DmsB5bcygB4
This, friends, is one of the potential pitfalls of anarcho-capitalist utopia
PG&E should get some goat herds working their most dangerous fire hazards. It might be a way to cut down on fires.
Apparently a thing already in some parts of the world.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/17/world/europe/portugal-wil...
Apparently a thing already in some parts of the world.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/17/world/europe/portugal-wil...
And the public has prison slave labor fighting its fires:
https://www.aclu.org/blog/prisoners-rights/prisoners-are-get...
https://www.aclu.org/blog/prisoners-rights/prisoners-are-get...
>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.
Funny how it was just a year ago when the media was having a meltdown over the suggesting of raking away brush.
This is what dystopia looks like.
Precisely, reminds me of Octavia Butlers' books. (Parable series)
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?
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.
Sometimes I wonder if firefighting is privatized, insurance companies would require more fire-resistant building materials and design (instead of the typical match-box American single-family home or low rise apartment). At least this the libertarian argument argued here (pg 241): https://mises-media.s3.amazonaws.com/For%20a%20New%20Liberty...
>if firefighting is privatized, insurance companies would require more fire-resistant building materials and design (instead of the typical match-box American single-family home or low rise apartment)
This is what happens when firefighting and house maintenance are in the same interest. The libertarian argument argues for a private interest, but it could very well be turned on its head in favor of a public interest.
This is what happens when firefighting and house maintenance are in the same interest. The libertarian argument argues for a private interest, but it could very well be turned on its head in favor of a public interest.
I think the point is that there are externalities of me building a tinder-box house; namely, the costs of the fire-fighting and potentially burning down the homes of my neighbors. One of the keys to privatization is each would be responsible for the damage his house burning down could cause to others. Thus, if I want insurance, my company may give me a huge discount for building a house of concrete. It would also likely provide my fire-fighting, as it's cheaper than paying for a whole new house.
Should the public pay for the fire protection of extravagant villas built in the forest? Of should those be mandatorily left to burn to satisfy some perverse feeling of class revenge?
> However, private firefighters are more likely to contract with insurance companies like USAA to offer mitigation services to customers. Sometimes neighborhood associations hire private firefighters, according to The Post.
+
> Homeowners hiring private firefighters make up about 5% of the industry, David Torgerson of Wildfire Defense Systems told The Los Angeles Times last year.
+
> Firefighting crews working for insurance companies do not just wait around for the fire to spread to the areas they're protecting. They often install sprinkler systems and spray retardant, according to The Post.
+
> 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.
=
> title: Private firefighters go to work for California's wealthy