|
On October 07 2010 03:24 kojinshugi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 03:21 No_Roo wrote:
But to stand there and watch it happen while callously refusing to help over a matter of principle? It wasn't even a matter of money, they offered to pay anything... It disgusts me that something like this could happen in our country. That's not what happened. They just didn't respond to his call because he wasn't part of their "jurisdiction". Two hours later they went there because another person who they were under contract with called them. At this point the first guy's house was just a flaming pile of timber. What difference would it make for them to put it out? They didn't stand there for hours roasting marshmallows on his house.
Proximity isn't relevant to my disgust. Dispatchers to sit there and listen to it is just as bad.
|
So basically if my house in DC catches fire I should call the FDNY and then whine if they don't dispatch a brigade?
|
The amount of ignorant people claiming that this should have been covered in the taxes he paid is nothing short of mindboggling.
|
On October 07 2010 04:37 FabledIntegral wrote:
The amount of ignorant people claiming that this should have been covered in the taxes he paid is nothing short of mindboggling.
The number of people claiming they were right in letting his house burn is more so. That system should have never been proposed, it was rather short sighted.
They should change it forthwith, eliminate the fee, and fund it through taxes. At the very least, they should have had a provision for emergencies such as this on the books, and just fined him. (As in, a provision for a fine, not firefighters randomly extorting him).
The value of that house was very high compared to the effort the firefighters would have had to put forth, and compared to $75. So it's a net loss for the economy anyway. Anyone who thinks this situation is in anyway acceptable is completely ignorant of basic principles of economics and civics.
|
On October 07 2010 04:40 Ancestral wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 04:37 FabledIntegral wrote:
The amount of ignorant people claiming that this should have been covered in the taxes he paid is nothing short of mindboggling. The number of people claiming they were right in letting his house burn is more so. That system should have never been proposed, it was rather short sighted. They should change it forthwith, eliminate the fee, and fund it through taxes. At the very least, they should have had a provision for emergencies such as this on the books, and just fined him. (As in, a provision for a fine, not firefighters randomly extorting him). The value of that house was very high compared to the effort the firefighters would have had to put forth, and compared to $75. So it's a net loss for the economy anyway. Anyone who thinks this situation is in anyway acceptable is completely ignorant of basic principles of economics and civics.
No, not at all. First of all, you are one of those people. Who is going to tax him? He doesn't live in any municipal area with a fire station. He has nowhere to pay taxes to. Guess what happens if you eliminate the fee? He gets taxed $75. That's the economic equivalent. And what are you going to tax him on? Property tax? Once again, he doesn't live in a city with a fire station.
Fining him leads to people being aware of the fine and not paying the $75. Ironic that you are stating you have some basic concept of economics. Even if you made the fee an exorbitant amount, no one would pay the fee. It'd just be a bunch of angry people wondering when their house DOES burn down why they are being charged $7,500 or whatever amount.
Effort firefighters would have put forth? What if the situation was more dangerous? Is it now a case-by-case basis? It's not a net loss for the economy at all simply because rational people would see hte situation and see him being saved anyways.
Anyone who thinks this situation is in anyways unacceptable is completely ignorant of basic principles of economics.
EDIT: Can we start buying life insurance for family members after they die, for something like 10 times what the premium payment is? Pretty please?!
|
On October 07 2010 04:40 Ancestral wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 04:37 FabledIntegral wrote:
The amount of ignorant people claiming that this should have been covered in the taxes he paid is nothing short of mindboggling. The number of people claiming they were right in letting his house burn is more so. That system should have never been proposed, it was rather short sighted. They should change it forthwith, eliminate the fee, and fund it through taxes. At the very least, they should have had a provision for emergencies such as this on the books, and just fined him. (As in, a provision for a fine, not firefighters randomly extorting him). The value of that house was very high compared to the effort the firefighters would have had to put forth, and compared to $75. So it's a net loss for the economy anyway. Anyone who thinks this situation is in anyway acceptable is completely ignorant of basic principles of economics and civics.
He does not pay taxes. He is outside any town, so he pays nothing to the municipal taxes, which fund the fire department. The town laws have no application outside the town boundaries, so they can make what ever laws they want, and the farmers in the surrounding area still don't need to follow them, and can still sue for extortion in this situation.
Anyone who thinks this situation is in anyway unacceptable is completely ignorant of basic principles of taxation and civics.
I'm starting to think that this towns policy exists because as a way to try to force them into finally accepting a county fire department. The county said they were going to do it ~20 years ago, there is a very well thought out and reasonable plan that has been in circulation since 2008. Maybe this will finally get the county to actually take action.
|
On October 07 2010 04:40 Ancestral wrote:
.....The value of that house was very high compared to the effort the firefighters would have had to put forth, and compared to $75. So it's a net loss for the economy anyway. Anyone who thinks this situation is in anyway acceptable is completely ignorant of basic principles of economics and civics.
How can you manage to make every single sentence logically wrong like that?
|
On October 07 2010 04:56 NukeTheBunnys wrote:
I'm starting to think that this towns policy exists because as a way to try to force them into finally accepting a county fire department. The county said they were going to do it ~20 years ago, there is a very well thought out and reasonable plan that has been in circulation since 2008. Maybe this will finally get the county to actually take action.
Yes I think so too. This is just another political move by yet another political entity. People who disagree are just ignorant of science, logic, economics, politics, and everything else IMO.
|
On October 07 2010 04:40 Ancestral wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 04:37 FabledIntegral wrote:
The amount of ignorant people claiming that this should have been covered in the taxes he paid is nothing short of mindboggling. The number of people claiming they were right in letting his house burn is more so. That system should have never been proposed, it was rather short sighted. They should change it forthwith, eliminate the fee, and fund it through taxes. At the very least, they should have had a provision for emergencies such as this on the books, and just fined him. (As in, a provision for a fine, not firefighters randomly extorting him). The value of that house was very high compared to the effort the firefighters would have had to put forth, and compared to $75. So it's a net loss for the economy anyway. Anyone who thinks this situation is in anyway acceptable is completely ignorant of basic principles of economics and civics.
I am so glad you understand how this system came into being. I am so glad that you think you understand how economics and civics works as well.
The amount of people pretending to understand the context of the situation is mind boggling indeed.
|
On October 07 2010 04:32 kojinshugi wrote:
So basically if my house in DC catches fire I should call the FDNY and then whine if they don't dispatch a brigade?
This is a serious discussion, stop being glib. You will call 911report a fire (as these people did, they did not call a fire department) and 911 dispatchers will dispatch the closest available unit. That is why we have dispatchers in the first place.
|
On October 06 2010 10:50 Jonoman92 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 10:44 funnybananaman wrote:
Since when do you have to pay a fee for firefighters? what the fuck is that? thats a public service you shouldn't have to pay a fee for it thats why we pay taxes. And that sucks really bad for that guy i don't get why he didn't pay the fee though.
Solution: when there's a fire at somebody's house who didn't pay the fee, you have them sign some paper real quick saying they'll pay twice as much if the firefighters put the fire out. problem solved, fire department gets more money and the guy gets to have his house.
But seriously, paying extra fees for firefighter service? only in some dumbass place like tennessee would you have that rofl. I think the guy lives in some rural county that doesn't have it own fire department and the other county doesn't directly tax him unless he willingly pays for the service. And charging him x2 as much wouldn't be nearly enough to make it fair, it'd have to be much more. I mean I figure most property owners pay for fire/other natural cause insurance for years and years and most likely never have a substantial disaster.
Well this isn't talking about paying for fire insurance its talking about paying for firefighting service, very different. firefighters do their best to save ur house if its on fire but they don't reimburse you for any damage that the fire does. Insurance reimburses you for damage from the fire but doesn't help fight the fire which is what we're talking about. and the firefighting service costs 75$ according to the article a year so why wouldn't twice as much be fair? the extra 75 would be for paying late i guess.. idk. but i guess no one would pay the 75 every year if the thought they could just pay 150 if there was actually a fire (which in all probability there won't be so you won't pay anything, i.e. if you have 1 fire every 3 years you pay less paying 150 per fire than 75 a year. So the county would actually lose a ton of money that way, yeah never mind. That guy should have payed the bill idk why he wouldn't.
|
By the way the International Association of fire fighters have condemned the city of south fulton and the fire department involved over this incident. Good call.
http://www.iaff.org/Comm/PDFs/SouthFulton.pdf
+ Show Spoiler +
“The decision by the South Fulton Fire Department to allow a family’s home to burn to the ground was incredibly irresponsible. This tragic loss of property was completely avoidable. Because of South Fulton’s pay-to-play policy, fire fighters were ordered to stand and watch a family lose its home."
“Everyone deserves fire protection because providing public safety is among a municipality’s highest priorities."
“Instead, South Fulton wants to charge citizens outside the city for fire protection. We condemn South Fulton’s ill-advised, unsafe policy. Professional, career fire fighters shouldn’t be forced to check a list before running out the door to see which homeowners have paid up. They get in their trucks and go.”
|
On October 07 2010 04:49 FabledIntegral wrote:
The number of people claiming they were right in letting his house burn is more so. That system should have never been proposed, it was rather short sighted.
They should change it forthwith, eliminate the fee, and fund it through taxes. At the very least, they should have had a provision for emergencies such as this on the books, and just fined him. (As in, a provision for a fine, not firefighters randomly extorting him).
The value of that house was very high compared to the effort the firefighters would have had to put forth, and compared to $75. So it's a net loss for the economy anyway. Anyone who thinks this situation is in anyway acceptable is completely ignorant of basic principles of economics and civics.
you mean emergencies like a house fire? i mean every time the firefighters are needed its an emergency lol. and i agree that would make sense but apparently the ppl who have to pay $75 for firefighters don't live in the same county that provides the firefighting service so the county isn't allowed to tax them.
|
On October 07 2010 05:32 No_Roo wrote:By the way the International Association of fire fighters have condemned the city of south fulton and the fire department involved over this incident. Good call. http://www.iaff.org/Comm/PDFs/SouthFulton.pdf+ Show Spoiler +
“The decision by the South Fulton Fire Department to allow a family’s home to burn to the ground was incredibly irresponsible. This tragic loss of property was completely avoidable. Because of South Fulton’s pay-to-play policy, fire fighters were ordered to stand and watch a family lose its home."
“Everyone deserves fire protection because providing public safety is among a municipality’s highest priorities."
“Instead, South Fulton wants to charge citizens outside the city for fire protection. We condemn South Fulton’s ill-advised, unsafe policy. Professional, career fire fighters shouldn’t be forced to check a list before running out the door to see which homeowners have paid up. They get in their trucks and go.”
An interesting note, especially when you consider that South Fulton is a volunteer fire department. I doubt this changes their statement at all, but I would have thought they would do more research.
|
On October 07 2010 05:35 funnybananaman wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 04:49 FabledIntegral wrote:
The number of people claiming they were right in letting his house burn is more so. That system should have never been proposed, it was rather short sighted.
They should change it forthwith, eliminate the fee, and fund it through taxes. At the very least, they should have had a provision for emergencies such as this on the books, and just fined him. (As in, a provision for a fine, not firefighters randomly extorting him).
The value of that house was very high compared to the effort the firefighters would have had to put forth, and compared to $75. So it's a net loss for the economy anyway. Anyone who thinks this situation is in anyway acceptable is completely ignorant of basic principles of economics and civics. you mean emergencies like a house fire? i mean every time the firefighters are needed its an emergency lol. and i agree that would make sense but apparently the ppl who have to pay $75 for firefighters don't live in the same county that provides the firefighting service so the county isn't allowed to tax them.
For reference, South Fulton is the city in question. South Fulton and the property that caught fire are both in the same county, Obion County
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obion_County,_Tennessee
|
It's a political move by the IAFF, pretty kneejerk, but that's what you get in today's world of mass media.
|
On October 06 2010 22:55 kojinshugi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 18:05 Ordained wrote:
Those "firefighters" should not receive any money from the state if they refuse to help a taxpayer.
I was under the impression that they don't.
Sorry, didnt know that an entire city's "Firefighters" were paid solely off of a once a year $75 payment by each household. I just dont buy that. How big is the Fire department? $75 from every house in the town would never be able to cover everything. Where do they get the rest of their living expenses? Are they volunteer firefighters with other jobs?
Where does their pay come from?
This is like saying a police officer can give you traffic citations but unless you pay them $75 yearly they wont find your daughter who got kidnapped and raped.
This is why I truly hate my country some times.
|
On October 07 2010 05:51 Judicator wrote:
It's a political move by the IAFF, pretty kneejerk, but that's what you get in today's world of mass media.
Mass media? It's a .PDF on a website that no one has ever heard of.
As for political move, I suppose you could say that. They probably only want to associate their institution with the kind of fire fighters that put fires out.
|
People have a gut reaction when they see that firefighters "let a house burn down". If the man had been allowed to pay the fee after the fact, the moral hazard would be so great that no one would have an incentive to pay the fee in the first place. So people say, it should have been funded by taxes, even though in this situation, the rural area makes that not feasible or the voters are unwilling to consent to taxes. You have to design a system in the context of what is politically possible.. What many people I think have not considered is that the man may have made the right decision by choosing not to pay the fire fee.
Of course after the fact, you can say he should have paid the fee. But you cant make decisions like that because you cant know the future with certainty. You can only speak of the likelihood of future events. If he judged the probability of his property catching fire low enough, then the decision to not pay the fee would have been optimal in terms of expected value theory.
The problem of moral hazard is often overlooked. You see this in support for many government programs. Freakanomics, if you ever get a chance to read it, has a good explanation of this problem. Sometimes you just have to let the house burn, or there will be no fire department and more houses will burn.
|
Mass media means that someone like you can find it relatively quickly if they so inclined to. You don't think if someone wanted to make a story or spin this one way or another can't spend 10 mins digging up all of the major representative groups for firefighters and ask for their take on the situation?
On October 07 2010 05:56 Ordained wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 22:55 kojinshugi wrote:On October 06 2010 18:05 Ordained wrote:
Those "firefighters" should not receive any money from the state if they refuse to help a taxpayer.
I was under the impression that they don't. Sorry, didnt know that an entire city's "Firefighters" were paid solely off of a once a year $75 payment by each household. I just dont buy that. How big is the Fire department? $75 from every house in the town would never be able to cover everything. Where do they get the rest of their living expenses? Are they volunteer firefighters with other jobs? Where does their pay come from? This is like saying a police officer can give you traffic citations but unless you pay them $75 yearly they wont find your daughter who got kidnapped and raped. This is why I truly hate my country some times.
You love making assumptions then proceeding to run with them don't you? No one cares if you buy it or not, the fact is that you don't have an idea how the budget is broken up and how much resources the department gets, but insists on asking irrelevant questions that have no bearing on the matter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
