EPTFirefighters let house burn due no fee payment - Page 9
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
TreK
Sweden2089 Posts
| ||
|
jtype
England2167 Posts
On October 05 2010 18:02 smileyyy wrote: Not to jump on some hatetrain but I guess you have to be american to understand the idea of Fireservice being a paid service and not a right for everyone which is paid by the society through taxes. So, just so I'm clear - if you've paid your service charge and then move to another property, do you have to pay a new service charge? If so - then what if you never called the fire brigade in all your years of living at that first property? Could you request a refund for not using the service? It seems like people are very quick to say, "no pay, no service", but what about the other way around? | ||
|
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
On October 05 2010 17:58 jtype wrote: Wow.... Ok, I'll just drop this as you're clearly happy with the way things went and can't see any way in which an actual service can be provided to those who need it. let me summarize what you've said so far and tell me if i've got it wrong: 1. it's a fact that the firefighters should help the guy 2. here's a way firefighters can help the guy and still get money my response to you: 1. it's not a fact 2. the solution you proposed is unfit and would not work your response: you did not read my post me: yes i did you did not read mine you: i will take the moral high ground and ignore you even though i have not fully explained myself whatsoever. i will end with an opened ended argument implying that the argument i presented before was sufficient and you are incorrect in your assumption despite me not having provided a viable argument. | ||
|
Trang
Australia324 Posts
Maybe it's just that in Australia we are used to fires starting huge bushfires capable of burning square kilometres of land and whole towns. Because the idea that firefighters won't put out fires when still small is completely ridiculous to me. | ||
|
ZERG_RUSSIAN
10417 Posts
| ||
|
jtype
England2167 Posts
On October 05 2010 18:08 mahnini wrote: you: 1. it's a fact that the firefighters should help the guy my response to you: 1. it's not a fact What I actually said was, it's ridiculous to not help someone out, when you are in a position to do so AND well within your rights to demand payment of the service fee at a later date You can describe it as me 'taking the moral high ground' if you want, but the fact that you believe we shouldn't try to help other people, when we have the means to, is why you and I wont resolve this debate. edit - On October 05 2010 18:12 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote: Okay so if nobody pays the firefighters beforehand how do they stay alive, buy a firetruck, train and stay on call all day to fight this fire that they make tons of money off of? Who's saying that nobody should pay the firefighters in advance? I'm not. I'm saying that there should be measures in place to help those in need, even if they can't/didn't pay for it upfront. However, I'm also saying, 1) people who receive the service can be expected to provide payment after it has been performed, and 2) there should be incentives in place to ensure that most people will pay upfront. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
Let's say in the city there are 1,000 people that don't pay the fee. At $75 each that is $75,000 they are missing out on each year. Now let's say of those 1,000 people they have 3 people whose houses catch fire and need to be put out. Those 3 people have to pick up the slack for all the other people that also didn't buy the insurance so each of them would have to pay $25,000 to have their house saved. Of course nobody in that area probably has that kind of money so they should just get the money from taxes which is what most counties do I assume and we wouldn't have stupid problems like this. | ||
|
MacDo
Canada69 Posts
United-States third world world country. | ||
|
HeavOnEarth
United States7087 Posts
On October 05 2010 18:07 jtype wrote: So, just so I'm clear - if you've paid your service charge and then move to another property, do you have to pay a new service charge? If so - then what if you never called the fire brigade in all your years of living at that first property? Could you request a refund for not using the service? It seems like people are very quick to say, "no pay, no service", but what about the other way around? theres no " no service, so you get a refund" think of it as insurance rather than a service. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On October 05 2010 18:15 jtype wrote: What I actually said was, You can describe it as me 'taking the moral high ground' if you want, but the fact that you believe we shouldn't try to help other people, when we have the means to, is why you and I wont resolve this debate. But it's not about payment of the service fee!!! Do you think they let his house burn down over $75? If the fire department was funded by them going around and saving people's houses and then suing them for a $75 service fee do you know much money they would make per year? Like $600. That's not even enough to pay for the gas to drive to people's houses to save them. | ||
|
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
On October 05 2010 18:15 jtype wrote: What I actually said was, You can describe it as me 'taking the moral high ground' if you want, but the fact that you believe we shouldn't try to help other people, when we have the means to, is why you and I wont resolve this debate. i have no problem if that's your opinion. you, however, responded to a post that i made trying to explain why logically it would make sense for the fire dept to let the guys house burn down. you then proceeded to try and appealed to emotion and morality when dealing with logic which is like mixing water and electricity. THEN you proceeded to call me out by implying i didnt read you post and THEN tried to end the dialogue with a snide remark and implying i am ignorant. come on kid. | ||
|
besiger
Croatia2452 Posts
| ||
|
willeesmalls
United States477 Posts
Treat it like what it is-a private company. Charge the homeowner whatever it cost to put out the fire. Include fixed costs and variable costs, including costs of capital. So long as the price is acceptable to the homeowner, everybody wins. If not, then unfortunately his house will burn. Just because I have something you need, does not mean I am obligated to give it to you. Putting out fires costs resources. People who are saying the firefighters should have put out the fire regardless aren't thinking very clearly. If that were the case, this type of fire insurance would not exist - meaning there will be no firefighters. The only condition that need be met is that the firefighters as a group will continue to exist. | ||
|
HeavOnEarth
United States7087 Posts
On October 05 2010 18:22 besiger wrote: Im wondering if the man usually pays the fee every month and just forgot this month, that would be shitty luck and a even shittier reason to let a house burn down over 75, more likely is that he never payed it, but it does make a big difference I think. it would definitely suck more for that man in particular, but it doesn't change their stance on it, because everyone would just start "forgetting" their fees | ||
|
Hinanawi
United States2250 Posts
Even sadder are the people defending this system. Let me guess, it would be unfair and socialist because rich people's taxes might end up going to put out a fire in a poor person's house? This country is done for. I'm getting out of here as soon as I finish college. | ||
|
besiger
Croatia2452 Posts
| ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10929 Posts
Just pay the "fire-insurance" with your taxes and everything is fine instead of some retarded insurance system for something like this. Btw: Isn't not helping a person in need a crime? | ||
|
jtype
England2167 Posts
mahnini wrote:come on kid. I take it all back. THAT's why we wont resolve our debate. | ||
|
besiger
Croatia2452 Posts
only if their life was in danger I would assume | ||
|
iFU.pauline
France1730 Posts
| ||
| ||
