|
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.
They probably would get fired if the refused to help a tax payer. This man is not a tax payer. He lives outside the city and pays no local taxes, only those outside the city have the $75 fee. The amount the people in the city pay for fire coverage probably does amount to about $75 a year, but i have no way of verifying that. The reason they operate on so little is because there are a small number of fires a year, so while everyone in the city is paying the same only a few actually end up using the service. The department also charges $500 for responding to a call, this is pretty standard method of operation.
And yes, they are also volunteer firefighters.
|
On October 07 2010 06:02 treekiller wrote:
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.
No this not the issue, the people who lost their house and two dogs offered to pay _any_ amount of money, not just the $75 fee. They were prepared to pay the cost of fighting the fire, which probably would have been few thousand dollars, the fire department still refused on the principle of "it's too late". Paying a few thousand dollars seems like a more than reasonable punishment for people that forgot to send off a $75 check one year.
|
On October 07 2010 05:39 NukeTheBunnys wrote:Show nested quote +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 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.
http://troy.troytn.com/Obion County Fire Department Presentation Presented to the County Commission.pdf
In here it says "Statistics indicate that the majority of all fire calls are rural in nature and are responded to by municipal fire departments. These departments are solely funded by the tax dollars belonging to each individual town or city.", emphasis mine
I don't know how much they get ofc but the information all points toward the FDs within Obion County being all city-ran and city-funded.
And for those saying that a FD can't live w\o tax or subscription, well, these folks may be one of many testament that it's possible. Everything is possible... for a price.
Here it says $1200 an hour lol.
Nukebunny why do you call them volunteers if they're being paid through taxes?
|
United States315 Posts
I this a tough one for me. On one hand I do think it is dickish that they let a property worth hundreds of thousands of dollar burn down over a 75 dollars fee. On the other hand, the fire didn't pose a danger to anyone lives and the fire fighter are technically not obligated to save that house. You then also have to consider the consequences of saving the house of a homeowner who refuses to pay for the services until the fire come knocking at his door. Saving that house might encourage more people outside of the city are to stop paying for the coverage fee making it financially impossible to cover anyone outside the city limit at all.
The way this service work from my point of view is similar to health or car insurance where it is only financially feasible to pay for a patience medical cost by using the funding of the many other subscriber who don't require those very expensive medical operation. Lastly, we don't know the exact cost of keeping the fire station operational. Did anyone even imagine that the reason why is only cost 75 dollars a year for the services was because of the hundreds of household who pay, only a few will ever require it.
|
Well the difference between this and medical insurance is that if you don't have medical insurance and suddenly get very sick and need $5000 of treatment, you still get the treatment; you just get a $5000 bill along with it.
This person's house caught fire and he probably needed around $2000-$5000 worth of fire fighting, which he offered to pay, but they refused to supply (even though they were perfectly able to assist). As a result the house (and two dogs inside of it ) died.
(EDIT: the context of this example would be some one who is able to afford health insurance and not eligible for medicare which would pay all or some of that $5000 bill.)
|
I love how people argue for this without even considering how pathetic it is on a moral level. I guess it's easier to make judgments when you completely ignore one aspect of the equation. It fails completely on an economic level as well, but that's beside the point.
|
On October 07 2010 07:13 fireb0rn wrote:
I love how people argue for this without even considering how pathetic it is on a moral level. I guess it's easier to make judgments when you completely ignore one aspect of the equation. It fails completely on an economic level as well, but that's beside the point.
I totally agree with this.
It's shocking for me to see how people are justifying the firefighters behavior.
In my country, fire fighters work volunteer. A friend of mine work at night on the FD, in the day he studies. When he works on a fire or a rescue, he would never ask if the persons involved pays their taxes or don't.. I don't even imagine a firefighter letting a house burn...
They had all the means to save the house, still they won't move because the owner of the house didn't pay a $75 check?!? They partially ruined the lives of a whole family there...
Is it really ALL about money and payments?
I've always admire firefighters for their bravery, in this case they are just a bunch of losers who didn't get any better job.
This story is so sad... Sometimes I think Americans are sick people who have lost all sense of humanity.
|
On October 07 2010 07:59 trulla wrote:
This story is so sad... Sometimes I think Americans are sick people who have lost all sense of humanity.
I totally agree...the sad part is, I live in America and I know how true it is. We started out good, but we're turning out bad. It's only a matter of time before someone pounds the U.S. into the ground.
|
The thing is if there was someone inside they would be required to try to save the person, but if you don't pay no protection on the house, they won't watch someone burn alive for a fee, but they will let your house burn down, if they didn't than what's the point of the fee? no one should pay it than right?
|
Ehh, this makes sense though. They at least could've just not shown up, I woulda felt better if my house just burned instead of the FD watching lol
|
On October 07 2010 07:02 No_Roo wrote:
Well the difference between this and medical insurance is that if you don't have medical insurance and suddenly get very sick and need $5000 of treatment, you still get the treatment; you just get a $5000 bill along with it.
This person's house caught fire and he probably needed around $2000-$5000 worth of fire fighting, which he offered to pay, but they refused to supply (even though they were perfectly able to assist). As a result the house (and two dogs inside of it ) died.
(EDIT: the context of this example would be some one who is able to afford health insurance and not eligible for medicare which would pay all or some of that $5000 bill.)
The response to this argument has been posted several times prior. If you get sick without health insurance, the outcome is that you get a huge medical bill. The "bill" for not having "fire insurance" is a burnt down house - not the cost of fighting a fire. You can't just pay the cost of the fire fighting or else there will be no fire department at all. If this was how fire departments worked, they would be out of money within weeks if there were no fires. Not to mention you still need to pay to keep the station operational 24/7 when there is no fire.
The real question is which is dumber, the county not making the $75 fee mandatory, or this idiot not paying it when it was optional? If you ask me, being an idiot does not mean you should lose your house, so the local government needs to change their system to make sure that everybody pays this fee or find some other way to ensure everyone is protected from a fire.
|
On October 07 2010 09:27 Runnin wrote:
The real question is which is dumber, the county not making the $75 fee mandatory, or this idiot not paying it when it was optional? If you ask me, being an idiot does not mean you should lose your house, so the local government needs to change their system to make sure that everybody pays this fee or find some other way to ensure everyone is protected from a fire.
Maybe you should read too then. I already pointed out the difficulties in making $75 fee mandatory for areas like that. Seriously, people commenting on this point clearly haven't lived in a rural area to understand why that 75 bucks is optional and not mandatory.
|
Absolutely pathetic, and no, it does NOT make sense.
The firefighters are already being paid and maintained by the the taxes from their own municipality. They won't shut down just because a small minority of people from rural areas outside the city decide not to pay the $75 fee. C'mon, think before you type this stuff out. For those outside of city limits, the fee should be operated like an insurance. Don't pay? If your house does catch fire, you'll be required to pay the entire cost + fees to fight it. Someone quoted $1200 per hour a couple posts up, so it'll be no small charge. For most people, paying a small amount each year is a lot easier on the finances than paying one big lump sum of cash. It's just like any other insurance.
As for the legal liabilities, I'm sure the firefighters/city could get their lawyers to draft up a document that absolves the firefighters of all responsibility in the case of water damage, etc. Think of those forms you have to sign if you want to go bungie jumping or something. I'm no legal expert, but it should be possible in these scenarios, right?
Basically this a lose-lose situation. The guy's family lost their home. The firefighters are getting a lot of flak both locally and in the media. The system failed. Just another case of incompetent bureaucrats. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this stuff out.
With that said, I don't have a lot of sympathy for this guy. This idiot had two hours to let his pets out. What the fuck was he doing?
|
On October 07 2010 09:37 Judicator wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 09:27 Runnin wrote:
The real question is which is dumber, the county not making the $75 fee mandatory, or this idiot not paying it when it was optional? If you ask me, being an idiot does not mean you should lose your house, so the local government needs to change their system to make sure that everybody pays this fee or find some other way to ensure everyone is protected from a fire. Maybe you should read too then. I already pointed out the difficulties in making $75 fee mandatory for areas like that. Seriously, people commenting on this point clearly haven't lived in a rural area to understand why that 75 bucks is optional and not mandatory.
Well this thread already pretty much goes in circles  every few pages it basically resets in comments.
|
On October 07 2010 09:37 Lancehead wrote:
The firefighters are already being paid and maintained by the the taxes from their own municipality.
No they are not. There's a reason why there's a 75 dollar fee. Firefighting is not a pay as you go service. It's not filling up your gas tank whenever you need to, they do not function like a gas station.
On October 07 2010 09:37 Lancehead wrote:
They won't shut down just because a small minority of people from rural areas outside the city decide not to pay the $75 fee. C'mon, think before you type this stuff out.
Cool, you should think it out yourself. Do I want my taxes covering someone who isn't paying them? So I should pay fire coverage for both my area and theirs? No thanks.
On October 07 2010 09:37 Lancehead wrote:
For those outside of city limits, the fee should be operated like an insurance. Don't pay? If your house does catch fire, you'll be required to pay the entire cost + fees to fight it. Someone quoted $1200 per hour a couple posts up, so it'll be no small charge. For most people, paying a small amount each year is a lot easier on the finances than paying one big lump sum of cash. It's just like any other insurance.
First of all, what is the entire cost and the fees to fight it? Secondly, what do you think this will look like on the news? Considering 80% of the people who replied to this thread couldn't even read the damn original article, what conclusion do you think people will jump to? Lastly, the homeowner can challenge the bill in court if he/she/they feel like if the firefighters at fault.
On October 07 2010 09:37 Lancehead wrote:
As for the legal liabilities, I'm sure the firefighters/city could get their lawyers to draft up a document that absolves the firefighters of all responsibility in the case of water damage, etc. Think of those forms you have to sign if you want to go bungie jumping or something. I'm no legal expert, but it should be possible in these scenarios, right?
Yeah, guess how much that costs and how much crap the city would get if firefighters were actually negligent in their duties. You really want the firefighters wondering if they have to navigate a legal quagmire when they're fighting fires? Look at the police departments around the country after a few highly publicized (and justified) cases on police brutality.
|
On October 07 2010 09:37 Lancehead wrote:
Absolutely pathetic, and no, it does NOT make sense.
The firefighters are already being paid and maintained by the the taxes from their own municipality. They won't shut down just because a small minority of people from rural areas outside the city decide not to pay the $75 fee. C'mon, think before you type this stuff out. For those outside of city limits, the fee should be operated like an insurance. Don't pay? If your house does catch fire, you'll be required to pay the entire cost + fees to fight it. Someone quoted $1200 per hour a couple posts up, so it'll be no small charge. For most people, paying a small amount each year is a lot easier on the finances than paying one big lump sum of cash. It's just like any other insurance.
As for the legal liabilities, I'm sure the firefighters/city could get their lawyers to draft up a document that absolves the firefighters of all responsibility in the case of water damage, etc. Think of those forms you have to sign if you want to go bungie jumping or something. I'm no legal expert, but it should be possible in these scenarios, right?
From http://troy.troytn.com/Obion County Fire Department Presentation Presented to the County Commission.pdf:
All fire departments in Obion County charge a $500.00 fee per call in rural areas,
but collections are, less than 50% and the fire departments have no way of legally
collecting the charge. Therefore, the service was provided at the expense of the municipal
tax payer.
But this is a whining document begging the county for a county-wide fire tax so, I think its a lie that they couldn't collect, they're just being dicks so the county is pressured to tax everyone and give them moneyz.
|
Except how it would pressure the rural areas, who are the population of relevance here?
|
In Chile firefighters are volunteers.
What happened here is morally fucked up.
Money, what have you done to us
|
On October 07 2010 10:12 Judicator wrote:
Except how it would pressure the rural areas, who are the population of relevance here?
It doesn't even have to convince the rednecks of Obion, I think making the national headlines is pressure enough for the county to go "gee we just have to raise property taxes/make a new fire tax".
But this is just a conspiracy theory, don't bother questioning.
|
On October 07 2010 10:27 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 10:12 Judicator wrote:
Except how it would pressure the rural areas, who are the population of relevance here? It doesn't even have to convince the rednecks of Obion, I think making the national headlines is pressure enough for the county to go "gee we just have to raise property taxes/make a new fire tax". But this is just a conspiracy theory, don't bother questioning.
I mean national exposure how? It's not like the final vote is up to the local citizens...oh wait it is. 
I understand where you are coming from.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
