|
On October 06 2010 02:04 Piy wrote:
Isn't capitalism wonderful.
Other options?
But on topic, I think the firefighters did the right thing. As people pointed out, on an economic standpoint they had no other choice. If people figured out that you could not pay the monthly fee and then just be charged a large sum of money IF your house caught on fire everyone would go for that because the chances of a house fire are pretty small. This would cripple the fire department which would then not be able to save anyones houses.
Just having the $75 be mandatory would solve this whole problem though...
|
that is fucking pathetic, isn't it if you call 911 and say my god damn house is on fire, they send people? i dont understand this bs...
|
On October 06 2010 02:10 comis wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 01:43 Jibba wrote:On October 06 2010 01:13 MiraMax wrote:
I am also amazed at how many people try to defend the firefighters. Just imagine the following scenario:
What if next to this guy's house was a bank, whose CEO didn't want pay fees either, but instead trained his own employees to fight a fire and invested in firefighting equipment. As soon as the fire started the CEO would order his employees to use any resource available as soon as the fire started to spread to the bank, but would forbid them to do anything to extinguish the fire and save the house. How many of you would sympathize with bank clerks standing by, hoses ready, but not doing a thing to help? Mind you, they could lose their job if they didn't obey the CEO's orders (yeah, right...).
Why do I keep thinking that some reactions would be much different. What if instead of it being a person that didn't pay their taxes, it was a country that was a little irresponsible with its economic policies, and where no one wanted to pay taxes. If that country was on the verge of "going up in flames", if you will, would you be willing to help? If I was already standing next to said country with a "fix all that country's fucking problems button" (ie: a fire hose) then yea I'd press it and settle up with them after the fact. They'd find some way to work off the debt. But obviously the point you were making is much more complicated than this - and that's the problem. This situation wasn't complicated. These "firefighters" could have solved the problem instantly and let the city deal with how to make sure the man paid his debt. Instead they watched his house burn to prove some mafia-style point of "better pay your protection money fuckers". That's insane.
What entitles you to this help? There is plenty of people out in the world that need this help, and it sounds like you are saying that everyone is required to help them. Why are you not helping them. There are thousands in the world who you could make a significant difference too, but I'm betting you don't do anything and just look down your nose at these firefighters because they didn't risk their lives unnecessarily. I'm not trying to attack you, just hold you up to the standards that you are holding these firefighters to, and just like them you are failing to measure up.
And the fire department isn't an instant fix like you seem to think it is. Its more of a have the fire fighters risk their lives and still have the house completely destroyed, and thats if everything goes well.
|
The guy lost everything he owned because he didn't pay seventy five dollars!
Show some sympathy.
|
On October 05 2010 22:22 Electric.Jesus wrote:
Some services are just not well-suited for privatization, this being one of them.
Indeed, I already hate the fact that electricity has been privatised in Germany (now we have a couple of four corperations with incredible profits while raising prices for absolutely no reason) and our gouvernment still attempts to sell Deutsche Bahn (german railroad) at the stock market. There's simply no reason to do so, instead many will suffer from worse conditions and higher prices while the profits will be invested in higher chairman loans (not higher loans for usual employees of course, those will most likely drop further) and other countries...
Privatisation of certain things only worsens conditions for the people, but as most gouverments only gouvern to satisfy the economic system they'll never acknowledge that.
|
If the dude was offering to pay on the spot with his house burning in the background, the goddamn FireFighters should've gotten off their asses and helped him. Yes he should've payed the fee in advance, but they should've still had a heart. I can't possibly imagine someone standing by getting begged to help and just just watching the house burn down instead.
|
First of all, it's is kinda stupid to not include fire-protection in taxes.
Also they could have just saved the house and made a bill for the operation to cover the expenses. Everything would be fine.
Letting the house burn no matter what to make an example is just stupid.
|
This thread is an excellent example of how people never read the whole news article or visit the source, particular those calling the firefighters douchebags.
The man lived outside city limits so he doesn't pay for firefighting services in taxes. The city offered to cover him anyways for a fee that he didn't pay. The firefighters showed up anyways because his neighbour did pay and they were legally obligated to protect that house. The fire took 2 hours to reach the non-paying man's house and he never thought to open his door and let his pets out. Instead he offered firefighters money to put out his fire an they declined. If thy accepted the money and put out the fire, the man couldve sued the city for extortion, sued them for property damage due to water damage to his home, and for trespassing, all because his home was out of their jurisdiction so government agents have no legal power to act there. Also, the firefighters would not be covered by whatever insurance they usually have for acting outside their jurisdiction, so the city would be liable for the full cost if anythig went wrong. Why should a tiny city that can barely afford to run a fire service risk being sued for millions to act outside their jurisdiction? Remember this is sue happy America, a lawyer would've approached the man of the firefighters did act, and the temptation of winning millions from "the government" would almost certainly have lead to disaster for the city.
Does this situation suck? Yes. Are the firefighters to blame? No. The county should've charged mandatory fire service tax to homes that exist out of city limits. However the anti-government sentiment of rural areas probably lead to someone getting elected for promising to make fire service fees optional. Fire service fees should be mandatory and part of property tax, even in counties with no fire service, so they can send that money to the nearest city to buy coverage.
As for the home owner, he had 2 hours to either fight the fire himself or let his pets out an did neither, even though at that point he knew the firefighters weren't helping. In all likelihood, he left his pets to die because he was hoping to receive a large sum in sympathy donations or if he could sue someone. If a fire is moving slowly but surely to your house and you've been told nobody is going to put it out, it's no ones fault but your own for not opening your door and calling our pets to come to you.
|
On October 06 2010 02:27 Skee wrote:
The guy lost everything he owned because he didn't pay seventy five dollars!
Show some sympathy.
Why should I show any sympathy. Its the same as if he was driving his car, not wearing a seatbelt, and no air bags, then he got into an accident and flew through his windshield and died a horrible painful death. It was his own fault for not taking the precautions he should have.
|
On October 06 2010 02:34 Zzoram wrote:
This thread is an excellent example of how people never read the whole news article or visit the source, particular those calling the firefighters douchebags.
The man lived outside city limits so he doesn't pay for firefighting services in taxes. The city offered to cover him anyways for a fee that he didn't pay. The firefighters showed up anyways because his neighbour did pay and they were legally obligated to protect that house. The fire took 2 hours to reach the non-paying man's house and he never thought to open his door and let his pets out. Instead he offered firefighters money to put out his fire an they declined. If thy accepted the money and put out the fire, the man couldve sued the city for extortion, sued them for property damage due to water damage to his home, and for trespassing, all because his home was out of their jurisdiction so government agents have no legal power to act there.
Does this situation suck? Yes. Are the firefighters to blame? No. The county should've charged mandatory fire service tax to homes that exist out of city limits. However the anti-government sentiment of rural areas probably lead to someone getting elected for promising to make fire service fees optional. Fire service fees should be mandatory and part of property tax, even in counties with no fire service, so they can send that money to the nearest city to buy coverage.
As for the home owner, he had 2 hours to either fight the fire himself or let his pets out an did neither, even though at that point he knew the firefighters weren't helping. In all likelihood, he left his pets to die because he was hoping to receive a large sum in sympathy donations or if he could sue someone. If a fire is moving slowly but surely to your house and you've been told nobody is going to put it out, it's no ones fault but your own for not opening your door and calling our pets to come to you.
Hey, thanks for reading the article. I just went through 19 pages of this thread where people did not read the thread and went "what? my country covers fire protection with taxes! why is america so terrible!"
|
On October 05 2010 14:23 Manifesto7 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 14:21 FabledIntegral wrote:
Honestly... I kinda agree. Otherwise it just goes to show you can not pay the fee and still get the protection when the fire happens. Or they could have put it out for $7500, saved the man's house, and still sent the same message. Honestly though, this is why funding for the fire department should come from the city, which collects from people through land taxes, rather than each entity collecting separately for each thing. A fire department shouldn't be run like the cable company.
Couldn't agree more. This story is absolutely ridiculous. Why are there fees in the first place? Honestly, what the hell is going on down in the US when this can happen? I know everything's about money there, but come on.
|
On October 06 2010 02:41 MutaDoom wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 14:23 Manifesto7 wrote:On October 05 2010 14:21 FabledIntegral wrote:
Honestly... I kinda agree. Otherwise it just goes to show you can not pay the fee and still get the protection when the fire happens. Or they could have put it out for $7500, saved the man's house, and still sent the same message. Honestly though, this is why funding for the fire department should come from the city, which collects from people through land taxes, rather than each entity collecting separately for each thing. A fire department shouldn't be run like the cable company. Couldn't agree more. This story is absolutely ridiculous. Why are there fees in the first place? Honestly, what the hell is going on down in the US when this can happen? I know everything's about money there, but come on.
There are fees because the area where the man lived under was outside the jurisdiction of the city. The city cannot tax the man unless they want to get into a nice dispute over their domain of power. They cannot impose a mandatory fee for the same reason. So they can only provide an optional fee to provide fire services.
|
My first post in the forums hi to all. After reading first 5 pages of comments I had say something.
I would love if all services would be like this, you pay -> you get service or you don't pay -> you don't get service.
Where I live the system is = You get paycheck -> goverment takes large % of it -> goverment takes care of people and same time stops every free market solution to work -> some people are stupid or not taking care of their lives -> goverment pays stupid people so they don't die to whatever they are caused to themselves -> stupid people become more stupid -> goverment needs % of my money to take care of other people -> I don't have any point to go to work cause I can sit on my fat ass front of compputer and go ask money from goverment every 2 weeks and I still get paid about the same -> goverment can't deliver what they are paid anymore cause it requires too much money -> goverment fund healthcare and fire fighting simply don't have enough money, it simply can not operate anymore -> no more firefighting -> everyones house burn down because most of people thought it would be NICE that goverment takes care of everyone.
basically I'm glad the firefighters just stood there and not do anything. Yes, if that man was me I would be very mad atm but maybe next time I would realize that I have to pay for service if I want it.
|
On October 06 2010 02:38 JinDesu wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 02:34 Zzoram wrote:
This thread is an excellent example of how people never read the whole news article or visit the source, particular those calling the firefighters douchebags.
The man lived outside city limits so he doesn't pay for firefighting services in taxes. The city offered to cover him anyways for a fee that he didn't pay. The firefighters showed up anyways because his neighbour did pay and they were legally obligated to protect that house. The fire took 2 hours to reach the non-paying man's house and he never thought to open his door and let his pets out. Instead he offered firefighters money to put out his fire an they declined. If thy accepted the money and put out the fire, the man couldve sued the city for extortion, sued them for property damage due to water damage to his home, and for trespassing, all because his home was out of their jurisdiction so government agents have no legal power to act there.
Does this situation suck? Yes. Are the firefighters to blame? No. The county should've charged mandatory fire service tax to homes that exist out of city limits. However the anti-government sentiment of rural areas probably lead to someone getting elected for promising to make fire service fees optional. Fire service fees should be mandatory and part of property tax, even in counties with no fire service, so they can send that money to the nearest city to buy coverage.
As for the home owner, he had 2 hours to either fight the fire himself or let his pets out an did neither, even though at that point he knew the firefighters weren't helping. In all likelihood, he left his pets to die because he was hoping to receive a large sum in sympathy donations or if he could sue someone. If a fire is moving slowly but surely to your house and you've been told nobody is going to put it out, it's no ones fault but your own for not opening your door and calling our pets to come to you. Hey, thanks for reading the article. I just went through 19 pages of this thread where people did not read the thread and went "what? my country covers fire protection with taxes! why is america so terrible!"
See, while he brings up a very good point, it doesn't answer the question as to why there was a fee in the first place. It should be included in property taxes. Was it someone they elected who made fire protection optional? I don't blame the firefighters, I blame whoever is the idiot who proposed there be a fee in the first place.
|
On October 06 2010 02:11 Owompa wrote:Other options? But on topic, I think the firefighters did the right thing. As people pointed out, on an economic standpoint they had no other choice. If people figured out that you could not pay the monthly fee and then just be charged a large sum of money IF your house caught on fire everyone would go for that because the chances of a house fire are pretty small. This would cripple the fire department which would then not be able to save anyones houses. Just having the $75 be mandatory would solve this whole problem though...
The funny thing is, it wasnt even capitalism(the free market sort anyway). A free market profit organisation would no doubt have helped - for a fee. It is the government funded bureaucratic system that led to this disaster, where monetary incentives could not help the family out due to lack of owner of fire depot capital existing.
On October 06 2010 02:29 teekesselchen wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 22:22 Electric.Jesus wrote:
Some services are just not well-suited for privatization, this being one of them. Indeed, I already hate the fact that electricity has been privatised in Germany (now we have a couple of four corperations with incredible profits while raising prices for absolutely no reason) and our gouvernment still attempts to sell Deutsche Bahn (german railroad) at the stock market. There's simply no reason to do so, instead many will suffer from worse conditions and higher prices while the profits will be invested in higher chairman loans (not higher loans for usual employees of course, those will most likely drop further) and other countries... Privatisation of certain things only worsens conditions for the people, but as most gouverments only gouvern to satisfy the economic system they'll never acknowledge that. The only tool in the hands of humans that is capable of driving capital according our desires is Demonstrated Preference. Without demonstrating our preferences, the preferences do not even exist. And the only tool for demonstrating preference in regards to distribution of possessions is Exchange. Therefore, only through Exchange can an economic system exist. And the only Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma-optimal use of Nonexchange in distribution of goods is to counter Nonexchange(aka violence only allowed against aggressors). Therefore non-exchange systems are uneconomical(including state enforced regulations) and the only economically sound system is Libertarianism, in its economic form the pure Free Market.
|
On October 06 2010 02:45 MutaDoom wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 02:38 JinDesu wrote:On October 06 2010 02:34 Zzoram wrote:
This thread is an excellent example of how people never read the whole news article or visit the source, particular those calling the firefighters douchebags.
The man lived outside city limits so he doesn't pay for firefighting services in taxes. The city offered to cover him anyways for a fee that he didn't pay. The firefighters showed up anyways because his neighbour did pay and they were legally obligated to protect that house. The fire took 2 hours to reach the non-paying man's house and he never thought to open his door and let his pets out. Instead he offered firefighters money to put out his fire an they declined. If thy accepted the money and put out the fire, the man couldve sued the city for extortion, sued them for property damage due to water damage to his home, and for trespassing, all because his home was out of their jurisdiction so government agents have no legal power to act there.
Does this situation suck? Yes. Are the firefighters to blame? No. The county should've charged mandatory fire service tax to homes that exist out of city limits. However the anti-government sentiment of rural areas probably lead to someone getting elected for promising to make fire service fees optional. Fire service fees should be mandatory and part of property tax, even in counties with no fire service, so they can send that money to the nearest city to buy coverage.
As for the home owner, he had 2 hours to either fight the fire himself or let his pets out an did neither, even though at that point he knew the firefighters weren't helping. In all likelihood, he left his pets to die because he was hoping to receive a large sum in sympathy donations or if he could sue someone. If a fire is moving slowly but surely to your house and you've been told nobody is going to put it out, it's no ones fault but your own for not opening your door and calling our pets to come to you. Hey, thanks for reading the article. I just went through 19 pages of this thread where people did not read the thread and went "what? my country covers fire protection with taxes! why is america so terrible!" See, while he brings up a very good point, it doesn't answer the question as to why there was a fee in the first place. It should be included in property taxes. Was it someone they elected who made fire protection optional? I don't blame the firefighters, I blame whoever is the idiot who proposed there be a fee in the first place.
I answered it subsequently:
On October 06 2010 02:43 JinDesu wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 02:41 MutaDoom wrote:On October 05 2010 14:23 Manifesto7 wrote:On October 05 2010 14:21 FabledIntegral wrote:
Honestly... I kinda agree. Otherwise it just goes to show you can not pay the fee and still get the protection when the fire happens. Or they could have put it out for $7500, saved the man's house, and still sent the same message. Honestly though, this is why funding for the fire department should come from the city, which collects from people through land taxes, rather than each entity collecting separately for each thing. A fire department shouldn't be run like the cable company. Couldn't agree more. This story is absolutely ridiculous. Why are there fees in the first place? Honestly, what the hell is going on down in the US when this can happen? I know everything's about money there, but come on. There are fees because the area where the man lived under was outside the jurisdiction of the city. The city cannot tax the man unless they want to get into a nice dispute over their domain of power. They cannot impose a mandatory fee for the same reason. So they can only provide an optional fee to provide fire services.
You cannot expect cities to just take over areas not under their area of taxation. Otherwise, you're going to have what amounts to a civil war.
*edit* Thanks, NukeTheBunny, for catching my typo.
|
On October 06 2010 02:45 MutaDoom wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 02:38 JinDesu wrote:On October 06 2010 02:34 Zzoram wrote:
This thread is an excellent example of how people never read the whole news article or visit the source, particular those calling the firefighters douchebags.
The man lived outside city limits so he doesn't pay for firefighting services in taxes. The city offered to cover him anyways for a fee that he didn't pay. The firefighters showed up anyways because his neighbour did pay and they were legally obligated to protect that house. The fire took 2 hours to reach the non-paying man's house and he never thought to open his door and let his pets out. Instead he offered firefighters money to put out his fire an they declined. If thy accepted the money and put out the fire, the man couldve sued the city for extortion, sued them for property damage due to water damage to his home, and for trespassing, all because his home was out of their jurisdiction so government agents have no legal power to act there.
Does this situation suck? Yes. Are the firefighters to blame? No. The county should've charged mandatory fire service tax to homes that exist out of city limits. However the anti-government sentiment of rural areas probably lead to someone getting elected for promising to make fire service fees optional. Fire service fees should be mandatory and part of property tax, even in counties with no fire service, so they can send that money to the nearest city to buy coverage.
As for the home owner, he had 2 hours to either fight the fire himself or let his pets out an did neither, even though at that point he knew the firefighters weren't helping. In all likelihood, he left his pets to die because he was hoping to receive a large sum in sympathy donations or if he could sue someone. If a fire is moving slowly but surely to your house and you've been told nobody is going to put it out, it's no ones fault but your own for not opening your door and calling our pets to come to you. Hey, thanks for reading the article. I just went through 19 pages of this thread where people did not read the thread and went "what? my country covers fire protection with taxes! why is america so terrible!" See, while he brings up a very good point, it doesn't answer the question as to why there was a fee in the first place. It should be included in property taxes. Was it someone they elected who made fire protection optional? I don't blame the firefighters, I blame whoever is the idiot who proposed there be a fee in the first place.
That's a different discussion. There are two discussions going on here.
1) Should the firefighters have put out the fire despite the guy having decided not to pay previously?
2) Should the government use a system which forces him to pay?
|
Threads like this always suk because even after 19 pages there are still "outraged" posters who haven't bothered to read the news article and watch the news video. Getting the facts + understanding law makes it obvious te firefighters did nothing wrong.
If you dont like the shrinking of government services, stop voting republican because schools are next. All those rich Christians love sending their kids to private christian schools and want to be able to opt out of the part of taxes that pays for public schools. Republicans are all for it, but that only degrades the quality of public schools by reducing their funding. Also since the private schools Can spend more money due to charging tuition per student much higher than the government budgets to schools per child, they can pay teachers more and steal the best ones.
|
1) Should the firefighters have put out the fire despite the guy having decided not to pay previously?
2) Should the government use a system which forces him to pay?
In my opinion:
1)no
2)no
|
On October 06 2010 02:53 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 02:45 MutaDoom wrote:On October 06 2010 02:38 JinDesu wrote:On October 06 2010 02:34 Zzoram wrote:
This thread is an excellent example of how people never read the whole news article or visit the source, particular those calling the firefighters douchebags.
The man lived outside city limits so he doesn't pay for firefighting services in taxes. The city offered to cover him anyways for a fee that he didn't pay. The firefighters showed up anyways because his neighbour did pay and they were legally obligated to protect that house. The fire took 2 hours to reach the non-paying man's house and he never thought to open his door and let his pets out. Instead he offered firefighters money to put out his fire an they declined. If thy accepted the money and put out the fire, the man couldve sued the city for extortion, sued them for property damage due to water damage to his home, and for trespassing, all because his home was out of their jurisdiction so government agents have no legal power to act there.
Does this situation suck? Yes. Are the firefighters to blame? No. The county should've charged mandatory fire service tax to homes that exist out of city limits. However the anti-government sentiment of rural areas probably lead to someone getting elected for promising to make fire service fees optional. Fire service fees should be mandatory and part of property tax, even in counties with no fire service, so they can send that money to the nearest city to buy coverage.
As for the home owner, he had 2 hours to either fight the fire himself or let his pets out an did neither, even though at that point he knew the firefighters weren't helping. In all likelihood, he left his pets to die because he was hoping to receive a large sum in sympathy donations or if he could sue someone. If a fire is moving slowly but surely to your house and you've been told nobody is going to put it out, it's no ones fault but your own for not opening your door and calling our pets to come to you. Hey, thanks for reading the article. I just went through 19 pages of this thread where people did not read the thread and went "what? my country covers fire protection with taxes! why is america so terrible!" See, while he brings up a very good point, it doesn't answer the question as to why there was a fee in the first place. It should be included in property taxes. Was it someone they elected who made fire protection optional? I don't blame the firefighters, I blame whoever is the idiot who proposed there be a fee in the first place. That's a different discussion. There are two discussions going on here. 1) Should the firefighters have put out the fire despite the guy having decided not to pay previously? 2) Should the government use a system which forces him to pay?
1. If thy accepted the money and put out the fire, the man couldve sued the city for extortion, sued them for property damage due to water damage to his home, and for trespassing, all because his home was out of their jurisdiction so government agents have no legal power to act there.
even if they did it for free they are still opening themselves up to the trespassing, and water damage. Since you cant determine if the damage was caused by water or the fire you would end up with a situation where they would be liable for most of the value of the home.
2. You cannot expect cities to just take over areas [not] under their area of taxation. Otherwise, you're going to have what amounts to a civil war.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
