Firefighters let house burn

Wolfwood · **Posted:** October 19th, 2010, 6:44 pm

Discrimin8 wrote:

No. You'd be angry at the firefighters for not doing their job over a small 75$ fee.

The fee has been in effect for 20 years. That adds up over time. They agreed as a community to NOT pay taxes for a fire department close to their neighborhood. They opted for paying a monthly fee.

Discrimin8 wrote:

"So... Say your house burned down, and you paid taxes. The firefighters came after a 911 call, and they said "Nah, you're not on our list, we're just gonna roast marshmellows"."

They didn't pay taxes AT ALL. They didn't pay ANYTHING. Therefore, they weren't on the list.
If this happened to me, I'd be biting myself in the ass forever about it. The fact remains, it didn't happen to me and it happened to them. I'll learn from their mistakes.

Alpr · **Posted:** October 20th, 2010, 1:41 am

Wolfwood wrote:

Also, the entire family was outside and safe from the fire. No lives were in danger due to the fire.

so dogs & cats aren't lives in danger?

It's appalling. The firefighters could easily bill him the $75 afterwards or some form of that, instead of fighting over it. It's just something you don't fathom happening. It's like a cop doing nothing about someone stealing a car because the car...doesn't have a license plate or...up-to-date tags or some crap.

Zizi · Since Jan 17, 2008

Monk Basher wrote:

Think of it another way. Say you wreck your car - pick a reason why; crash into a ditch, back into a lamppost, whatever. Say you don't have/didn't pay your car insurance. Would you be flipping your excrement at the auto insurance company then? I would hope not.

But your insurance company aren't in the job of preventing, poor analogy, police force would be a better one. Should police only policing area that paid taxes?

Wolfwood wrote:

They agreed as a community to NOT pay taxes for a fire department close to their neighborhood. They opted for paying a monthly fee.

Wolfwood wrote:

They didn't pay taxes AT ALL.

Thanks Eadwulf for reminding us an important point, where are you getting these facts from, I can't found it in the original post, sharing your source would help understand the situation better.

Alpr wrote:

It's appalling. The firefighters could easily bill him the $75 afterwards or some form of that, instead of fighting over it. It's just something you don't fathom happening. It's like a cop doing nothing about someone stealing a car because the car...doesn't have a license plate or...up-to-date tags or some crap.

$75 isn't enough to prevent this type of things from happening everyday, the Fire Department needs more funding, and the bill should discourage people from not paying the fee in the first place, $3000 on the spot fine would cover it. (Double of 20 years of $75 per annum).

Wolfwood · **Posted:** October 20th, 2010, 7:40 pm

Zizi wrote:

Wolfwood wrote:

They agreed as a community to NOT pay taxes for a fire department close to their neighborhood. They opted for paying a monthly fee.

Wolfwood wrote:

They didn't pay taxes AT ALL.

Thanks Eadwulf for reminding us an important point, where are you getting these facts from, I can't found it in the original post, sharing your source would help understand the situation better.

That was a counter to discrimin8's example. You're taking it out of context.

Zizi wrote:

$75 isn't enough to prevent this type of things from happening everyday, the Fire Department needs more funding, and the bill should discourage people from not paying the fee in the first place, $3000 on the spot fine would cover it. (Double of 20 years of $75 per annum).

Agreed.

I got my information about this story form here and the Rob, Arnie and Dawn show.
And did you call me Eadwulf, or were you actually talking to Ead?

Zizi · Since Jan 17, 2008

Wolfwood wrote:

I got my information about this story form here and the Rob, Arnie and Dawn show.
And did you call me Eadwulf, or were you actually talking to Ead?

I was referring to Eadwulf's post about the fact that some points were raised without backing evidence. But since you do, I guess all is good.

Eadwulf · **Posted:** October 22nd, 2010, 6:52 pm

Actually I was just talking about the fundamental attribution error and how this is a good example of it...

Jackstick · **Posted:** October 22nd, 2010, 7:10 pm

Eadwulf wrote:

Actually I was just talking about the fundamental attribution error and how this is a good example of it...

It really is.

Ericteg · **Posted:** October 24th, 2010, 4:48 pm

I do sense some other issues in the arguements presented here originating from other recent bail-outs in the USA (i.e. banks and medicare). I also know that Americans want the government to be as small as possible, but I still stand by my point that a government should provide basic security and public order, and I view firefighters to be essential to that.
And we haven't even touched the point of the individual firefighters, I just don't get how you can let a house burn down being a firefighter. And anybody who comes up with 'rules are rules' deserves to... well, catch a severe cold.

Landerpurex wrote:

For the record, if that were my house, I'd be kicking myself in the ass for not paying the fee, I wouldn't be pissing and moaning to anyone who'll listen. I've had crap stolen out of my car because I left the doors unlocked. Who's fault is that? Mine or the thief's? I could have easily prevented it, so it's my fault. I learned to lock the doors on my car, these people will learn to pay their fees or better insure themselves. Plain and simple.

That it has come to such an opinion is both realistic and sad at the same time. It shouldn't matter if you locked your car or not, your property should just not be touched by anyone else.

Zizi · Since Jan 17, 2008

Ericteg wrote:

I do sense some other issues in the arguements presented here originating from other recent bail-outs in the USA (i.e. banks and medicare). I also know that Americans want the government to be as small as possible, but I still stand by my point that a government should provide basic security and public order, and I view firefighters to be essential to that.
And we haven't even touched the point of the individual firefighters, I just don't get how you can let a house burn down being a firefighter. And anybody who comes up with 'rules are rules' deserves to... well, catch a severe cold.

While not putting out fire is somewhat of a crude and unusual punishment for not paying the yearly fee, but you should also recognize the need for fundings to the Firefighters. what is odd here, is why they make tax optional.

Sighence · **Posted:** October 26th, 2010, 11:01 am

I think everyone is agreeing more than they think.

In any case, this topic has made itself better suited for the debate forum ,so it's going there.

X F 3 A R X · **Posted:** October 2nd, 2011, 11:54 am

Ridiculous, full stop.

Tahu 1000 · **Posted:** October 4th, 2011, 6:35 am

This is a good example of what happens when you privatize businesses that work solely for the public interest; I don't think people would complain about having to pay a small yearly tax in return for having a fire department. This whole thing could have been avoided had the fire department been a mandatory, county-wide system.

Firefighters let house burn

Who is online