Firefighters watch as house burns to the ground
- Thread starter matthewhotdude
- Start date
indeed and being rural hicksville, lets take a wild stab in the dark that they were all god fearing "christians" as well
If they had done that everyone who paid up would be asking for their money back. How can the fire department cover it's operating costs without adequate funding?
You get what you pay for. The Cranicks are minus one home because they were too stingy to cough up $75.
I think its fine. Either its compulsory or you have to behave like this. Otherwise no one will pay and only when a fire occurs will homeowners cough up the $75. That wouldn't raise much money.
Even if you have a penalty charge of say $3000, I personally would just pay that if a fire were to occur rather than $75 each year.
Even if you have a penalty charge of say $3000, I personally would just pay that if a fire were to occur rather than $75 each year.
That wouldn't work, there are massive fixed costs.
If everyone paid variable costs in the event of a fire, then such a service wouldn't exist.
The whole point of the system is that it is a pooled insurance scheme.
They could charge for each firefighter there ,the time spent putting the blaze out and a nominal fee for equipment usage
or they could have a set charge of a few $k for people who haven't paid
You could build a business like that. I doubt it will work very well though.
The pooled insurance setup already in place is better imo.
How many people in the UK default on council tax? Yet we wouldn't let their house burn with their pets inside, to the point when next door's property is in jeopardy.
I know which system I feel happier about.
Perhaps we should (so long as they don't live in a flat/terraced/semi-detached home) then charge them retrospectively.
Of course, I prefer a public fire department as well. However, the key argument for one is that there are massive external costs when a fire starts as it spreads.
This is America where using an argument using subjective ideas of external costs in order to replace private provision is argued against ferociously. And you can understand this is areas where detached housing or in rural areas where external costs are low.
But if you are to have a private system, you cannot act out of sympathy as it will undermine the entire funding system.
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
How? These people live outside the town - the town has no jurisdiction over them. They cant make them do anything any more than the state of Texas can make somebody living in Utah do anything.
There was no threat to life only property. Once you let one guy off, how many others will realise they have no need to pay?
If I ran a business and someone called me saying their house was burning down with their pets inside I'd go there and help. Hell if my neighbour here in the UK knocked on my door and said the same thing I'd try and help. It's typical of America though, money first, help later. I know the USA is your latest dream place to live after a short holiday though Fox so I'll give up trying to argue. 
Presumably they pay the same taxes as those who live within the fire brigade catchment, and those within catchment don't have to pay this fee. It's an outrage to be fair, unless they get some kind of rebate for the fire coverage fee.
If that is correct I can't believe a fireman would standby whilst the property burned, its sickening.
Am I missing something?
If that is correct I can't believe a fireman would standby whilst the property burned, its sickening.
Am I missing something?
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,471
I wonder would his insurance even be valid if he had not paid for firefighters, might find that they exclude it in small print, exclude the fire aspect of things.
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,471
Yes, you are missing the American way and the American dream, everything is private business. If you don't pay you don't get. Without money or health insurance they won't operate on you, without fire insurance they will let your house burn to the ground.
A private business is supported by its customers, here we have fire brigade covers as we pay taxes, in that area they have cover if they pay the same fee. Here spongers get all the services free, there if they don't pay their house burns to the ground.
Why do you presume that? I presume they don't pay the city anything given they dont live there?
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Nov 2006
- Posts
- 4,245
- Location
- Inverkip
This would seem to hark back to the days of private fire services attached to insurance companies. You would be required to stick a plate on the wall of your dwelling or business showing which company you paid insurance to and in the event of a fire their service would put the fire out. No plate on the wall, no stopping of the flames.
The UK Fire Service is paid for by local councils, ergo, we put out all fires in the council's area. We would not stand by and let a property burn even if we knew they where council tax defaulters, but then, don't most properties in dodgy council estates fall under this particular problem?
The UK Fire Service is paid for by local councils, ergo, we put out all fires in the council's area. We would not stand by and let a property burn even if we knew they where council tax defaulters, but then, don't most properties in dodgy council estates fall under this particular problem?