Firefighters let house burn to the ground...

Consider.

I think most of you aren't really familiar with the whole city / county aspect of how rural this property might actually be.

Example:
You live in the county and you need to pay to attend the city schools.

Does this mean that all county residence should be allowed to attend city schools without this fee? I live in the city and pay taxes and now i am paying to have your kid go to school in my city on my dime (taxes)?

Is that right?

and while logically correct.... its and asshole thing to do btw......but we all make choices and you must live with those choices otherwise people will abuse the system.
 


motto said:
Since when do people pay fees for the firefighters?

What happens with all the taxes?
Click to expand...

Did you even read the story or thread?

City taxes pay for city firefighters. This guy lives outside the city limits in the county.

The county residents voted against a tax to cover fire service. The nearest city still offered to cover county residents that pay a $75/year fee. This guy declined their offer.
 
Hav3n said:
Consider.

I think most of you aren't really familiar with the whole city / county aspect of how rural this property might actually be.

Example:
You live in the county and you need to pay to attend the city schools.

Does this mean that all county residence should be allowed to attend city schools without this fee? I live in the city and pay taxes and now i am paying to have your kid go to school in my city on my dime (taxes)?

Is that right?

and while logically correct.... its and asshole thing to do btw......but we all make choices and you must live with those choices otherwise people will abuse the system.
Click to expand...


Shut the fuck up please .
no one asked you .. what ever you wrote now is just annoying !
 
iPwnNoobs said:
whats next? Doctors violating the Hippocratic Oath if people are too broke to pay for service???
Click to expand...

No money, no help. Doesn't really matter what the moral implications are these days, people just don't give a shit and let the money do all the talking.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXP66Sstl4A"]YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.[/ame]
 
Netphase said:
Did you even read the story or thread?

City taxes pay for city firefighters. This guy lives outside the city limits in the county.

The county residents voted against a tax to cover fire service. The nearest city still offered to cover county residents that pay a $75/year fee. This guy declined their offer.
Click to expand...


That's retarded..
If I live on a farm but I still do pay my taxes I can't have access to firefighting services? Or ambulances for that matter?

I don't live in the US so I don't know how this works.
 
motto said:
That's retarded..
If I live on a farm but I still do pay my taxes I can't have access to firefighting services? Or ambulances for that matter?

I don't live in the US so I don't know how this works.
Click to expand...

The people living on the farms in this area specifically voted against a tax to cover firefighting.
 
From a long-term business stand-point, letting the house burn down is probably the best fear-based advertising for the $75 fee that the gov't could have got. I'm willing to bet that a LOT more people in Tennessee are now paying that fire insurance.
 
Rexibit said:
I'm not Liberal, but you pay taxes on your home or an equally related tax on your Income or Sales tax depending on the state. Tennessee doesn't have property tax, the increased Sales tax goes to cover fire and police protection.

That's a bitch move on the county and one that will end up in Federal court, costing the county money.
Click to expand...

The key to your statement is "county", county and city services may overlap in coverage but they are not necessarily the same. Counties have sheriff departments, cities have police departments. You can't just say this state has money so everybody in the state get's the same service. Look at how property taxes vary city by city within a state, it's because each city and each county has its own budget. If a city or county doesn't want to provide a service in house then they contract to another municipality, it's actually pretty common, you just don't often see an opt in scenario (and the consequences) like in we have here.

I don't why this should end up in court like you think, that doesn't mean some asshole ambulance chaser won't take the case on spec, but from a purely logical perspective everything looks okay.
 
BenPOF said:
From a long-term business stand-point, letting the house burn down is probably the best fear-based advertising for the $75 fee that the gov't could have got. I'm willing to bet that a LOT more people in Tennessee are now paying that fire insurance.
Click to expand...


Was going to say the same thing, I bet the very next day(s) were their highest earners. Still a horrible thing to do though.
 
I'm shocked by the number of commenters on here that truly think this homeowner was "wronged", and that the city/firefighters were evil/lazy/greedy, etc.

Did you READ the story? He DOES NOT live in the city, it is a nearby CITY fire department. They offer AS AN OPTIONAL SERVICE protection for $75, payable in advance (for obvious reasons) to people in the nearby county, of course the actual cost of battling a blaze is >$75, he doesn't get to just pay $75 AFTER the nearby city fire dept risks their lives and incurs their expenses because his dumbass kid started the place on fire. They don't owe him anything, his tax dollars don't support that city's fire department, so what's with the sense of entitlement? Why would any of you think you can buy insurance after you wreck your car? If you could, would you expect the cost of fixing your totaled vehicle to only be the same cost as if you had purchased insurance beforehand?? Of course not.

The fact that he said "oh, now that my house is on fire, I'll pay anything" is the most convenient, self-serving thing I've ever heard. I'll try that one out the next time I decide not to renew my health insurance, and then end up with serious medical issues that I want covered on somebody else's dime "Ya, now that I'm sick with the Plague, where should I send my $60 monthly premium to again?" Ridiculous. To those that say they should have fought the fire and just billed him for it; somehow, a guy that didn't pay the $75 up-front doesnt sound like too good of a credit risk after a fire department risks their men and runs up a couple thousand dollar bill fighting it.And kiss goodbye to ever gettting the upfront $75 from any other homeowner who hears about that deal.

This isn't a political question, and it's not an issue of "now only the rich get basic gov't services, durr." If a city fire department provides free service to the much larger county population in surrounding areas, it will go broke, and there will be NO fire service for the city residents whose taxes DO pay for it. He took his risk, he paid the price. Whether he "forgot" to pay it, or chose to spend that money on something else is immaterial; he did not pay the fee, he knew what the fee was, and he wasn't covered. Period. If my house was robbed, I wouldn't expect police in the next state over to work overtime to catch the thief, but all of you pro-homeowner posters think this guy is somehow "owed" something by any/all government within a hundred-mile radius, on the backs of the people who DO pay for it. Shocking.

<done raging, back to work>
 
BenPOF said:
From a long-term business stand-point, letting the house burn down is probably the best fear-based advertising for the $75 fee that the gov't could have got. I'm willing to bet that a LOT more people in Tennessee are now paying that fire insurance.
Click to expand...

ncmedia said:
Was going to say the same thing, I bet the very next day(s) were their highest earners. Still a horrible thing to do though.
Click to expand...

Fire depts != profit centers. At $75 a house that doesn't come close to what the county would have to pony up to support their own fire service. If there are ~2300 county residents outside the city borders that's $172,500 dollars in tax dollars. A new pump apparatus (fire truck) goes for around $150K - $400K so those tax dollars probably wouldn't even cover a single truck, not to mention the crew to man it, or the station to house it. I'm willing to bet that when you figure increased coverage and manpower needs for the county area $75 bucks a house is pretty much charity.

At a certain point I can start to sympathize with the fire chief, if the home owner doesn't think a measly 75 bucks is worth it to ensure protection of his own home why should the chief give a shit? It was an expensive lesson for the home owner to learn.
 
justo_tx said:
Fire depts != profit centers. At $75 a house that doesn't come close to what the county would have to pony up to support their own fire service. If there are ~2300 county residents outside the city borders that's $172,500 dollars in tax dollars. A new pump apparatus (fire truck) goes for around $150K - $400K so those tax dollars probably wouldn't even cover a single truck, not to mention the crew to man it, or the station to house it. I'm willing to bet that when you figure increased coverage and manpower needs for the county area $75 bucks a house is pretty much charity.

At a certain point I can start to sympathize with the fire chief, if the home owner doesn't think a measly 75 bucks is worth it to ensure protection of his own home why should the chief give a shit? It was an expensive lesson for the home owner to learn.
Click to expand...

That's why I said long-term business strategy :)$172,500 over 10 years is $1,725,000. And they could even raise it to $100 midway through, people who are scared of non-protection will still pay.
 
justo_tx said:
At $75 a house...

It was an expensive lesson for the home owner to learn.
Click to expand...

Yep great points, however this is just ONE house and it probably caused quite the stir.

End of the day you're right, his own fault, though I'd be far fetched to believe this was the only option. This appears to be more to set example, or maybe they need a new fire-truck and this was a good op to get it.
 
Trademark said:
Toward the bottom of his post, Tucker links to Robert Murphy's take on Salon's treatment of the episode. Here is Murphy's piece...

Salon’s Misguided Attack on Libertarianism
Click to expand...

I saw that piece in Salon too, I've never read anything on that site that indicates any of their authors understand economics, markets, or anything even remotely business related. They were HuffPo for the 10 years before HuffPo existed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom