Firefighters watch as house burns to the ground

Hmm, Ok.

Maybe im just used to living in a place where the fire service do not watch my house burn down.

I do get it though.

Why dont they just cover it with tax like we do? Surely it makes way more sense?
 
Last edited:
EdGey said:
Why dont they just cover it with tax like we do? Surely it makes way more sense?
Click to expand...

Because the houses are outside of the city that is offering the cover. The city can't force anyone outside it limits to pay a tax. Thats why its a voluntary fee. The houses outside the city limits dont pay the city tax either so its not like they are having to pay twice
 
Repta said:
Because the houses are outside of the city that is offering the cover. The city can't force anyone outside it limits to pay a tax. Thats why its a voluntary fee. The houses outside the city limits dont pay the city tax either so its not like they are having to pay twice
Click to expand...

Ok, so if the house is just outside one zone, then surely it is just inside another?

Also, what I meant was that they should use the same system as we use here. In that EVERYONE has to pay for it. Not just in a certian city or anything daft. That way everyone is covered and there are no problems.
 
EdGey said:
Ok, so if the house is just outside one zone, then surely it is just inside another?

Also, what I meant was that they should use the same system as we use here. In that EVERYONE has to pay for it. Not just in a certian city or anything daft. That way everyone is covered and there are no problems.
Click to expand...

But the USA is a very big country with a lot of people who don't like federal involvement in most things.

I guess you could implement a state level system, then again there is a lot of heterogeneity on how states are governed and so you will always get states which won't implement universal cover.
 
Maybe the firefighter chief should have followed the business practice of Marcus Licinius Crassus, who was famous for the firefighting service he offered. He'd turn up at a fire with his firefighting team and offer to buy the house for a fraction of its worth and make very low offers for any nearby houses that the fire might spread to. If you sold him your house, he'd order his men to put the fire out or stop the fire spreading to it. If you didn't, well, hard luck. Crassus ended up owning a lot of houses.
 
Angilion said:
Maybe the firefighter chief should have followed the business practice of Marcus Licinius Crassus, who was famous for the firefighting service he offered. He'd turn up at a fire with his firefighting team and offer to buy the house for a fraction of its worth and make very low offers for any nearby houses that the fire might spread to. If you sold him your house, he'd order his men to put the fire out or stop the fire spreading to it. If you didn't, well, hard luck. Crassus ended up owning a lot of houses.
Click to expand...

That is shocking.
 
Unless I'm wrong, nobody has stated exactly why the $75 was not paid. Perhaps the victim was unaware of the fee, what with him living out in the sticks.
 
Overslop said:
Saintly for a Roman tbh! :p
Click to expand...

No, it was considered bad back then. Partly because he was so blatantly profiteering, but mostly because it involved fire. Fire was one of the most serious issues in ancient Rome, so much so that arson was a more serious crime than murder. Leaving any of Rome burning when he could have stopped it, just to increase his already incomprehensible fortune, made him widely disliked. Not that he cared, because he was so rich he didn't have to care. He recruited, trained, equipped and paid an army of 30,000 out of his own pocket - he was country-scale rich.
 
Angilion said:
No, it was considered bad back then. Partly because he was so blatantly profiteering, but mostly because it involved fire. Fire was one of the most serious issues in ancient Rome, so much so that arson was a more serious crime than murder. Leaving any of Rome burning when he could have stopped it, just to increase his already incomprehensible fortune, made him widely disliked. Not that he cared, because he was so rich he didn't have to care. He recruited, trained, equipped and paid an army of 30,000 out of his own pocket - he was country-scale rich.
Click to expand...

I meant by modern UK standards.

Scratch that, by my own standards! :p
 
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...

so because you live outside the town you arent covered by a service? :confused:

much as i hate the way this country is going. at least we just provide a blanket service and say "sorry we will do it but because you chose to live in the sticks it'll take longer to get to you"
 
Jest3r said:
so because you live outside the town you arent covered by a service? :confused:
Click to expand...

It's very simple.
They live outside of the town and don't have to pay 1000s of dollars in 'council tax' but they can opt in to pay £75 dollars towards the fire service.
I really can't see what the problem is.
If there were people in the house the firemen would have acted.
they only acted when the fields of the neighbours house caught fire and they had paid their $75.
 
Jest3r said:
so because you live outside the town you arent covered by a service? :confused:

much as i hate the way this country is going. at least we just provide a blanket service and say "sorry we will do it but because you chose to live in the sticks it'll take longer to get to you"
Click to expand...

Its my understanding (from what people have said) they also don't pay the cities tax... so yeah, under $7 a month to insure your house against fires when you live in the middle of nowhere and don't pay tax seems fine.
 
Jest3r said:
so because you live outside the town you arent covered by a service? :confused:
Click to expand...

If that service is funded by the towns people then, errr, correct? :confused:

much as i hate the way this country is going. at least we just provide a blanket service and say "sorry we will do it but because you chose to live in the sticks it'll take longer to get to you"
Click to expand...

Money doesnt grow on trees, how is a small town fire department supposed to suddenly fund expanding the area they cover by thousands of square miles?!
 
Jokester said:
Indeed, firefighters that aren't responsible for the area the guy lives offer people who live there cover if they pay a fee. Don't see what the big deal is.
Click to expand...

The Big deal is:

they STILL went to his house to stop his fire from spreading...

SO they WERE there with water and shis to put it out, He offerd to pay ANYTHING so they could have charged say 3k as a fee for doing a service....

Instead there were Redneck Prats who simply said no and watched his house burn.
If I was the fire chief i would have told the owner that he would incure a 3k fee for them to end his fire becuase he didnt pay he yearly fee... in turn they make 3k and have a party wth the money.

The USA is full of prats
 
I reckon its fair enough, he didn't pay so didn't get the coverage, and whats with all the people moaning about pets inside, says nowhere that there was a threat to life (pet or person). I'm sure if there was a pet inside that would change things...
 
I'm sorry but what part of no fee no service do you not understand? Yes it could be construed as harsh that they refused even though he offered to pay anything, but if he was willing to pay anything in the heat of the moment (hur hur) then perhaps he should've paid the annual fee? The fire department isn't a business, its a public service.

Yes the USA is full of prats, but in this case the firefighters did nothing wrong, the prat is the guy who didn't pay then expected equal treatment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom