4 ms·

I sense fear. Is it not ok to tell the world that you're scared even if you have no solution to offer? The fear is that a public service that should, within t

by clarry 7y ago

I sense fear. Is it not ok to tell the world that you're scared even if you have no solution to offer? The fear is that a public service that should, within their capability, protect everyone without discrimination is over time going to be replaced by private services that only protect those who can pay. I believe that is the point. Now we can contemplate whether that fear is justified, whether it should be dismissed, or if something should be done to resolve it. Of course security and safety is already a privilege of the rich (to an extent), but you could go further in that direction. Or try to swing back.

fortran77 7y ago
Someone who has a very large house with very large grounds paying for additional private services for fire protection seems _fair_ to me. Should the public pay for the increased cost to cover someone with a house and property much larger than what the median home and property is? The wealthy are stepping up to the plate and paying for the additional services they need without public help. And keeping the fires from spreading though their own property will no doubt have a beneficial effect on those around them, too.
- david-gpu 7y ago
  > Should the public pay for the increased cost to cover someone with a house and property much larger than what the median home and property is? A large real estate property pays large property taxes every year, so I don't understand your argument.
- clarry 7y ago
  I'm somewhat inclined to agree that there's nothing wrong per se with paying for additional services that you desire. The problem is manyfold. > Someone who has a very large house with very large grounds paying for additional private services for fire protection seems _fair_ to me. The need to pay for additional services at all is indicative that the public service is insufficient to keep us and our property safe. Fire does not discriminate between rich and poor; that should be a concern for everyone, but only the rich can do something about it (by throwing money at it). > Should the public pay for the increased cost to cover someone with a house and property much larger than what the median home and property is? If the rich have more land and property to risk, then they should be paying more taxes too. The public service should not discriminate against them. Why is the service insufficient to keep their property safe, and how can we trust them to keep the poor safe? Of course you can have more land than the average citizen without being FU rich. In that case, the land is probably your job, and someone else's food or job down the chain. Shouldn't the public service protect those too? > And keeping the fires from spreading though their own property will no doubt have a beneficial effect on those around them, too. Yep, helps all the rich in their rich enclave where the poor cannot afford to live. > The wealthy are stepping up to the plate and paying for the additional services they need without public help. One of the fears I perceive here is that it's a slippery slope. If public service is insufficient and privatization becomes more prominent, one day it's going to be the one and same fire service everyone needs, but only the rich can afford. See health care, etc.
  - SamReidHughes 7y ago
    The rich do pay more taxes. That’s how property taxes are supposed to work.
    - erik_seaberg 7y ago
      Recent buyers do, but some Californians have inherited property with assessments based on market values from the 1980s.
    - dragonwriter 7y ago
      > The rich do pay more taxes. That’s how property taxes are supposed to work. It's not how property taxes on California work, in practice, because of Prop 13.
      - SamReidHughes 7y ago
        Which is why I used "supposed to." They do get dinged on CA income tax, though.
      - foogazi 7y ago
        How does prop 13 discriminate between rich and poor in California?
        dragonwriter 7y ago
        There's a number of ways to do multiple excluded (no full-value reset) transfers involving trusts that, because of the costs associated with establishing the trust, are more accessible to the rich.

by clarry 7y ago

fortran77 7y ago

Someone who has a very large house with very large grounds paying for additional private services for fire protection seems _fair_ to me. Should the public pay for the increased cost to cover someone with a house and property much larger than what the median home and property is? The wealthy are stepping up to the plate and paying for the additional services they need without public help. And keeping the fires from spreading though their own property will no doubt have a beneficial effect on those around them, too.

david-gpu 7y ago
> Should the public pay for the increased cost to cover someone with a house and property much larger than what the median home and property is? A large real estate property pays large property taxes every year, so I don't understand your argument.
clarry 7y ago
I'm somewhat inclined to agree that there's nothing wrong per se with paying for additional services that you desire. The problem is manyfold. > Someone who has a very large house with very large grounds paying for additional private services for fire protection seems _fair_ to me. The need to pay for additional services at all is indicative that the public service is insufficient to keep us and our property safe. Fire does not discriminate between rich and poor; that should be a concern for everyone, but only the rich can do something about it (by throwing money at it). > Should the public pay for the increased cost to cover someone with a house and property much larger than what the median home and property is? If the rich have more land and property to risk, then they should be paying more taxes too. The public service should not discriminate against them. Why is the service insufficient to keep their property safe, and how can we trust them to keep the poor safe? Of course you can have more land than the average citizen without being FU rich. In that case, the land is probably your job, and someone else's food or job down the chain. Shouldn't the public service protect those too? > And keeping the fires from spreading though their own property will no doubt have a beneficial effect on those around them, too. Yep, helps all the rich in their rich enclave where the poor cannot afford to live. > The wealthy are stepping up to the plate and paying for the additional services they need without public help. One of the fears I perceive here is that it's a slippery slope. If public service is insufficient and privatization becomes more prominent, one day it's going to be the one and same fire service everyone needs, but only the rich can afford. See health care, etc.
- SamReidHughes 7y ago
  The rich do pay more taxes. That’s how property taxes are supposed to work.
  - erik_seaberg 7y ago
    Recent buyers do, but some Californians have inherited property with assessments based on market values from the 1980s.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > The rich do pay more taxes. That’s how property taxes are supposed to work. It's not how property taxes on California work, in practice, because of Prop 13.
    - SamReidHughes 7y ago
      Which is why I used "supposed to." They do get dinged on CA income tax, though.
    - foogazi 7y ago
      How does prop 13 discriminate between rich and poor in California?
      - dragonwriter 7y ago
        There's a number of ways to do multiple excluded (no full-value reset) transfers involving trusts that, because of the costs associated with establishing the trust, are more accessible to the rich.