Firefighters watch as house burns to the ground

I don't see why they can't just do what one of the comments on the article mentioned. Pay the $75 a year and the fire will be put out and thats it, if you don't pay the $75 a year then you got the choice of having it not put out, or having it put out but face a big fine for having to have it put out without paying the yearly fee. That way you can still have the fire put out, but the big fine would encourage people to pay the yearly fee.
 
" if homeowners don't pay, they're out of luck." So what happens when someone is inside screaming for help, for example a mother and child?
 
Are all people subjected to this fee though, or does it only apply to people outside the catchment area?

Don't get me wrong, this country is far too soft on those that are idle, but public services are something we should have, and crucially, they have the potential to be optimized for fairness through taxation, and tightening up the welfare state.

To privatise fundamental services Is simply unethical.
 
Burned_Alive said:
Seems fair enough to me really. I'm sure the Cranicks were absolutely aware of how the system worked when they decided not to pay the fee.
Click to expand...
I wish we had that option to pay for services but obviously the government wouldn't want us to realise half of our money keeps the undesirable underclasses in smokes and beers with only a tiny pittance actually paying for firefighting or similar :rolleyes:.
 
Last edited:
Talking to one of my friends stateside I believe it may work something like this...

In some areas if you live in the city boundary, you pay city taxes, think something akin to our council. If you live outside of the city boundary, you don't. For those living outside the boundary they have the option of paying for fire coverage. Don't pay and the obvious happens.

So if you don't pay then you are risking your house to fire. He also said that in most cases if people were at risk the fire service would respond, but only to rescue the people, property would still be left to burn. But it is the US, so you never know...
 
Seems fair, can't have everyone avoiding paying except when there's an actual fire, the fire service couldn't run if that happened

A precedent has to be set somehere or no one would pay.
 
Wicksta said:
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.
Click to expand...

We have 60+million people but heavily concentrated in key area's so we don't waste a whole lot of cash on covered hundreds of square miles with only a few people around, different terraine DOES lead to different costs and different systems, that is life, its not America, thats any other country in the world to be honest.

They were outside the catchment area, they knew they could pay, and didn't, their fault. Firefighters risk their lives, don't forget that, even if its a fairly simple fire they just have to put out from a distance with very little risk.

You're all ignoring other factors, if there 300 square miles to cover and 90% don't pay and only want to pay $75 when it happens, that fire department can only afford to run one fire truck for the whole region, so they put out that fire, theres another fire on the other side of town, 5 kids and their parents die because the fire truck was out saving a cheap families house using their water supply, unable to make it to the other house in time.

If 90% of the people DO pay, that fire house can afford 10 trucks, one truck goes to one area, takes them 30 minutes to get there, they put out the fire because they guys paid, another truck goes to another one an hour away from the first, without the extra truck and personel ALREADY BOUGHT AND PAID FOR IN ADVANCE, they simply wouldn't be there to save the other family.

Not paying has dire consequences for OTHER people and they were 100% right to do nothing, even if it serves as a lesson to everyone else.

What would have happened, especially to the firemen, in the situation I highlighted, no one paid, they put this fire out already, another family DID pay on the other side of town, that family died, they paid and the firemen didn't provide the service, do they end up all sued, bankrupt, homeless and lose their own families?

Its not a easy choice or a simple situation, a fire truck fighting one fire can't be somewhere else fighting another one. If no one pays for the service they can't hire enough people to do whats then later expected of them.
 
Shocking, someone could have died due to their irresponsibility. Can't believe they let the fire spread to neighbouring houses.
 
I'm going with 1 of the comments from that link...

This sounds remarkably like the Ankh Morpork Firefighters Guild...

I can see the logic behind it but seriously what is stopping people committing arson on properties without cover?
 
Jokester said:
Only those outside the catchment area that don't pay city taxes.
Click to expand...

Ok. So if that is the case, then they pay a lot less tax? That's pretty hard to argue with, if their equivelant of council tax is essentially optional.

On a slightly off topic note:

The fire brigade obviously made it to the fire in good time, quick enough to watch the house burn down and spread to a neighbouring property. so how are they out of catchment?
Why are they not paying city rates?

Sounds like their system is just as messed up as ours, but in a different, more sub-human way.

Just for the record, I live on my own and I am a self employed contractor, earning not much more than the accepted national average. I arguably get hit the hardest of all sections of society In terms of tax, but I still believe in vital services, such as emergency and nhs.

The American model can be at best be described as unethical.
 
I'm with Fox*

He knew he had to pay the money to get the protection, he didn't. He chose to take the risk. If they'd put the fire out, how is that fair to all the people who have been paying their money?

His quote says it all..

"I thought they'd come out and put it out, even if you hadn't paid your $75, but I was wrong," said Gene Cranick.
Click to expand...

And it didn't spread to neighbouring houses, it spread to a field.

*I agree with him too. oWWWWWWWWWW
 
it all depends on the laws in that certain state.

If they aren't paid they may not be covered under insurance terms due to crappy legislation.

They help, homeowner gets burnt and joins the sue everything culture, firemen lose their livelihood.
 
They would have put it out if someone was in there... thats why they probably turned up. Seems fair... if everyone tried to pay on the spot the service wouldn't exist. Imagine doing that with car insurance? I'll just pay Direct Line £400 when I crash my car costing them £4000.

If they put it out everyone would stop paying the fee and just pay if / when it happened.
 
It seems 'not THAT bad', until you read the bit where he offered to pay the 75$ and they still refused.

Also, what if someone was inside? Would they still refuse?

Glad I live in the UK.
 
EdGey said:
It seems 'not THAT bad', until you read the bit where he offered to pay the 75$ and they still refused.

Also, what if someone was inside? Would they still refuse?

Glad I live in the UK.
Click to expand...

If you could pay $75 in the event of a fire, why would you pay annually?

We pay our firebrigades through taxes, I believe Americas taxes vary state by state. If you're covered by one state, but live in another, I think they're saying that if you pay the fireservice, you will be covered - ie if you lived in the state of the service, you'd be paying anyway through taxation.
 
Perfectly reasonable, $75 over a year is nothing to ensure your house is safe from grass fires if you live out in the sticks. "I offered to pay them anything to put it out" Should have payed the 75 bucks in the first place then instead of being a tight arse.
 
EdGey said:
It seems 'not THAT bad', until you read the bit where he offered to pay the 75$ and they still refused.

Also, what if someone was inside? Would they still refuse?
Click to expand...

Why shouldn't they refuse? Its been said many times, you can't just ignore the annual fee then suddenly expect them to help you when you need it. If you ignored them for 10 years to save $750 then suddenly paid them $75 when you had a fire don't you think everyone else who has been paying it willingly would be pretty ****ed?

And they probably would yes. Otherwise you could just circumvent the entire thing by claiming someone is still inside or alternatively going back inside and getting 'stuck' when you heard them coming. It may not be life and death when your dealing with something like travel insurance but its the same principle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom