|
On October 05 2010 23:49 Silvanel wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 23:24 Impervious wrote:On October 05 2010 22:52 Silvanel wrote:
If this would happen in my country those "firefighters" would rot in prison for a very long time, and i am glad its that way. A person who can watch a house burning down and do nothing about it, does not deserve to be called firefighter. I would not want someone who cares so much about some random fee (which in most countries is payed via taxes anyway) to protect my home. And luckly i dont have to.
EDIT:
Honestly, what i find most disgusting, is the fact that so many of You find this acceptable or even support this barbaric behevior. You get taxed for that. The guy that had his house burned down doesn't. It is a separate fee, and he did not pay it. Therefore, they didn't provide the service..... Personally, I find this entire situation disgusting. The protection should be mandatory. But, because it isn't, the firefighters did the right thing. I'm a believer that true capitalism screws the individual, and that true socialism ends up being stagnant, so a mix of the two is necessary for society to thrive. This type of situation simply reaffirms that belief, and lets me know that the USA is too capitalist still..... So they do not have taxes in US? I bet they do. And this is exactly that kind of service You would expect is covered in taxes. For me its double paymen, once to governamnt in taxes and once in special fee to private contractor. Someone is getting screwed here (not that its something strange, its in the nature of government to screw people). Still i feel like its better to support the ones screwed by government rather than bashing someone for not paying even when we do not know anything about his situation and reasons behind it. I think anyone supporting this kind of behavior (not helping while You could) should feel ashamed.
They have taxes. This specific service was not part of those taxes..... Really, really fucking dumb, but it is the reality of the situation.....
|
I can understand both sides of the issue, and not sending out the firefighters (though I think it's bad policy). However, when the fire department actually showed up because of the neighbors house (and thus were already there with their trucks and men), why didn't they just put out the other guy's fire for a huge fee? If they're that strapped for cash I don't think charging $10,000 or whatever to hose the guy's house with water would be bad for the department finances.
Also, those saying that charging a huge sum rather than a yearly fee would cause people to stop paying the fee are ridiculous, especially if you make the fee disproportionately high. It's like any kind of insurance: yeah, I'm probably going to pay more over my lifetime in insurance than my medical costs (obviously, otherwise the insurance company wouldn't make any money). That doesn't mean I'm going to live without it and just hope for the best. One big bill can spell bankruptcy. I know this - I broke my leg two years ago in a really bad manner and it cost $40,000. For years and years I paid insurance without anything happening, but thank god I had insurance when that happened. I think most people think like that.
Sure, some people don't think that that, but they're in the minority. I lived in Switzerland for years and had a friend who went out by himself to a remote, dangerous area to snowboard. He ended up getting in trouble and they had to send out a helicopter to get him. Normally the service is included in ski-parks as part of the fee, but since he wasn't in one they just charged him a ton of money. I'd have been pissed if they let him die.
|
On October 06 2010 00:06 NukeTheBunnys wrote:
What many people do no realize is there is a LONG history of fire departments like this, hundreds of years. This is how fire departments originally operated. If your house was on fire, and didn't have the right fire department plaque, they would sit out side your house and watch it burn. If the fire started to spread to someone who was covered they would take care of them, but still let the original house burn to the ground. Cities would frequently have multiple fire departments and being covered with one, did not mean it was covered by another.
Please don't use logic like that. "This is the way we used to do things, therefore it's acceptable". Do I really need to make a list of different deplorable things, and explain how they "used to be normal"? We all know how that's going to end.
It's 2010 in America. If we're really the "greatest nation on earth" as we're so fond of saying, can't we *not* intentionally allow a citizen's house to burn down just to make a point?
|
This is why incorporated areas have mandatory taxes that go to pay for fire department services. The biggest irony is that firefighters get alot of money from private donations. This is very surprising behavior for most Americans because we have this expectation that firefighters have a moral obligation to be altruistic, which is a contributing factor to why people are willing to denote money to help support them.
The community has a right to be very angry because of what a fire does. It pollutes the air that the community breathes. This really isn't acceptable in the US. Never thought this was possible but apparently it is.
|
On October 06 2010 00:13 Haemonculus wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 00:06 NukeTheBunnys wrote:
What many people do no realize is there is a LONG history of fire departments like this, hundreds of years. This is how fire departments originally operated. If your house was on fire, and didn't have the right fire department plaque, they would sit out side your house and watch it burn. If the fire started to spread to someone who was covered they would take care of them, but still let the original house burn to the ground. Cities would frequently have multiple fire departments and being covered with one, did not mean it was covered by another.
Please don't use logic like that. "This is the way we used to do things, therefore it's acceptable". Do I really need to make a list of different deplorable things, and explain how they "used to be normal"? We all know how that's going to end. It's 2010 in America. If we're really the "greatest nation on earth" as we're so fond of saying, can't we *not* intentionally allow a citizen's house to burn down just to make a point?
According to yourself
|
On October 06 2010 00:10 Cloud wrote:
Yeah... don't pay $75 and we'll just go and watch your $100000+ possessions turn to ash. Sounds very logical to me. Bureaucratic bullshit.
Sounds logical to me. I don't understand in all honesty. Would it be better if we just forced him to pay $75 annually for this protection instead of giving him the option? I was always under the impression that giving people choices was better instead of forcing them to do what we deem is best for society, but I could be wrong.
He was outside the city limit, which (I believe) is why the tax argument doesn't hold up. If he wasn't paying tax to the city to support the fire department he can choose to be covered anyways via this fee, right?
|
What??? You have to directly pay the fire department? That's ridiculous, it should be a free service.
|
Well this story is a bundle of sadface. I can understand the firefighters trying to make a statement that if you're not paying you don't get their service. But they didn't have to let his house burn down. That's just cold hearted, much more merciless than you would hope people to be nowadays. It's unfortunate for that man, I guess this should be a warning to everyone else to pay their fees on time.
+ Show Spoiler +Hehe, firefighters, cold hearted.
|
this is complete horse shit, im glad some 1 went down their and beat the crap outta 1 of them if they would have the nerve to come to your private property and just watch your home and everything in just vanish i would be smashing some ones face in.How can people be so heartless?its not like they couldnt have just put it out like WTF i doubt they all would have lost their jobs.Its just sickening.
|
Wow that is soooooooo rude.
+ Show Spoiler +Hehe, firefighters, cold hearted.
^ hahaha that made me lold irl for some reason.
seriously wtf if they are there they could atleast save the house and maybe the guy would give them the fee but OH NO you didn't pay the Fee your house shall incinerate.
no offence - America pay thy tax or taste the wrath of the ash.
|
United States5162 Posts
I don't really get all the outrage. He was out of the city limits and didn't pay the city taxes, that's why he needed to pay a fee to get firefighting service. Yea, in a perfect world this wouldn't be required, but then you remember there's no such thing as a free lunch and that without those fees no firefighting service would be available at all where they live.
It's pretty heartless to do? Sure. Would it have been ok to put out the fire and charge them a higher fee? Maybe. But if you start doing that then everyone outside the city limits gets the idea that you only need to pay per fire, rather then pay every month so the fire dept has enough funding to keep going to that area.
|
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.
|
United States62 Posts
Dude should have paid his fee. I don't feel that bad that he lost his house; but it does suck that his pets died. People out in the country have enjoyed low property taxes forever. Now that property tax revenue is declining in the cities/burbs they can no longer subsidize the small town departments.
|
Well those people are just trash.
|
Wow, really? It actually works like this in some places?
...I'm flabbergasted.
|
It's like the kids who buy iPods instead of health insurance and end up getting cancer...it really really sucks, but it's their fault in the end for not thinking ahead.
|
I would definitely be in favor of being able to pay an exorbitant fee to get a fire department to put out a fire even if you haven't paid your dues. I hope this sad development leads to discussion on a decision along those lines.
|
We get what we pay for, and that's how it works. It sounds like a travesty, but the firefighting job in the United States is a tough and dangerous job that is disappearing due to budget cuts. We want lower taxes, but the first things to go are social services. (Whether or not we pay them regardless, those local politicians do what they want with our tax money, that is, pocket it and fire our vital services.)
Any blaze is a risk for the firemen, so if they are not payed (in a LEGAL way), then it will not work. And plus asking for them to save your house by offering a huge fee is like a bribe, and should be deemed as such. Smart people would sue afterwords claiming they were forced to bribe the firemen.
|
Good to see America is still a nation where money means more than other human beings.
You want to know why the country is going downhill? This bullshit right here. When firefighters run protection rackets and let thousands of dollars worth of stuff burn to ashes over a fucking $75 fee. Unbelievable.
Sometimes I wish the country would just collapse and die.
|
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.
Your scenario is not the same as the scenario in the OP, and thus is irrelevant to the argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
