Pay for service firefighters?

WildCat said:
Ideally, yes. But if it's not, what's the best policy for the fire dept.? If they decide to put out all fires whether or not people pay most likely fewer and fewer people will pay, putting the very survival of the FD at risk.
Click to expand...

Do you know about the history of firefighting in the US?

In the early days of the fire service, fire departments were, more or less, social organizations in the community. And, being an accepted member meant a certain social status in the community. Remnants of that social status can still be found today in the traditional style firefighter's helmets that resemble top hats worn by the early firefighters. Monies that were used to help fund the organization were obtained by insurance company payouts from fighting fires. Firefighters could easily tell just who had fire insurance and who didn't by fire insurance marks located on the front of the home. Oftentimes it was a problem for homeowners who did not have insurance to have the fire department respond to a fire in their home and effectively remove belongings and such because the firefighters knew that there wouldn't be any money in it for them.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefighting_in_the_United_States#History



WildCat said:
The fire department will stop it from spreading, assuming the adjacent property is paid up. If not, sucks to be a cheap-ass libertard. Now they have the freedom to live in a tent next to their burned-out house.
Click to expand...

Okay. And as far as the rural poor, they better not even live in a house, since they can't afford to protect it with additional fire insurance. :rolleyes:
 
WildCat said:
The fire department will stop it from spreading, assuming the adjacent property is paid up. If not, sucks to be a cheap-ass libertard. Now they have the freedom to live in a tent next to their burned-out house.
Click to expand...

I guess the point that went over your head was that if you leave a housefire to burn and take over the entire of a property, it's going to be a hell of alot harder to stop it spreading to the next house than if you went in and put it out straight away.

In the end, the primary reason this is attractive to the right-wing is that it takes an element that used to be covered by a scaling income tax, and turns it into a flat rate tax. As a result, rich people pay less, and poor people pay more.
 
Emet said:
Okay. And as far as the rural poor, they better not even live in a house, since they can't afford to protect it with additional fire insurance. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
It's not fire insurance, it's a subscription to the fire department for their services. And if they're so poor they can't afford to pay it, then they also could not pay the fee if it was added to their property taxes. And while there is a small chance you will lose your home to fire if you don't pay the fire dept. subscription there is a 100% chance you'll lose your home if you don't pay the property taxes.

stokes234 said:
I guess the point that went over your head was that if you leave a housefire to burn and take over the entire of a property, it's going to be a hell of alot harder to stop it spreading to the next house than if you went in and put it out straight away.
Click to expand...
Doubtful. This is something that is common in rural areas, where houses are far apart. It's not like in a city where the flames on one house will be licking the one next door.

stokes234 said:
In the end, the primary reason this is attractive to the right-wing is that it takes an element that used to be covered by a scaling income tax, and turns it into a flat rate tax. As a result, rich people pay less, and poor people pay more.
Click to expand...
This is 100% false. Fire departments are funded by local property taxes, not by income taxes.
 
WildCat said:
Doubtful. This is something that is common in rural areas, where houses are far apart. It's not like in a city where the flames on one house will be licking the one next door.
Click to expand...

I hope you're right about that one. I thought people were mentioning "towns" earlier in the thread. For example,

WildCat said:
No Travis, this works by people purchasing fire protection yearly. No department could survive, especially in a small town, by billing people after the fact.
Click to expand...

I guess you've got alot more space in america, but in the UK houses in what we call "towns" are pretty close to eachother.

WildCat said:
This is 100% false. Fire departments are funded by local property taxes, not by income taxes.
Click to expand...

Are property taxes the same for every house in america? In the UK you pay more for having more expensive houses.
 
WildCat said:
The fire department will stop it from spreading, assuming the adjacent property is paid up. If not, sucks to be a cheap-ass libertard. Now they have the freedom to live in a tent next to their burned-out house.
Click to expand...

I don't want to trust fire departments not to let it spread if a fire is near my house and I've paid up. I want them to put the flipping fire out whether my neighbor paid or not.
 
So, how about any kids that might be in the burning houses? Do the firefighters drag them out, or does it depend on whether their parents were subscribers? Personal responsibility, like all principles, doesn't really count as a principle until you allow people to die for it. If Li'l Jimmy and Mittens the Kitten wanted to not be engulfed in fiery death, they should have donated their piggy banks.
 
Travis said:
And yet when my friend called for an ambulance a few months ago for his girlfriend they told him to take a hike because she still owed money for a previous use (girlfriend kept trying to kill herself necessitating several hospital trips).
Click to expand...

Did he call the company dirrectly or 911? Calling the company they can refuse, if they have a contract to provide 911 service then they can not.
 
The silliest part of this is that the reason you have to pay for a fire subscription service or fire insurance company is because you're no longer paying for fire service as regulated by the local government. I can't imagine you're saving much, though the "everything the government does is bad and inefficient" crowd would surely say different.

I wonder if there are any studies done that are accurate and show the difference in cost...
 
PGH said:
The silliest part of this is that the reason you have to pay for a fire subscription service or fire insurance company is because you're no longer paying for fire service as regulated by the local government.
Click to expand...
Yes, you are. In most cases it is the local government, but you live outside their taxing boundaries.
 
WildCat said:
Yes, you are. In most cases it is the local government, but you live outside their taxing boundaries.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure about that. My understanding was that this happened mostly in unicporporated areas where they county contracts with a city to provide the service.

The reason I don't fully agree, is that the county could very well tax the unincorporated residents to pay for the contract with the city, but choose not to, and instead set up a scheme where each individual homeowner has to opt in to get covered by the city.
 
cwalner said:
I'm not so sure about that. My understanding was that this happened mostly in unicporporated areas where they county contracts with a city to provide the service.

The reason I don't fully agree, is that the county could very well tax the unincorporated residents to pay for the contract with the city, but choose not to, and instead set up a scheme where each individual homeowner has to opt in to get covered by the city.
Click to expand...

And IIRC, that's exactly what happened in this case.
 
cwalner said:
I'm not so sure about that. My understanding was that this happened mostly in unicporporated areas where they county contracts with a city to provide the service.

The reason I don't fully agree, is that the county could very well tax the unincorporated residents to pay for the contract with the city, but choose not to, and instead set up a scheme where each individual homeowner has to opt in to get covered by the city.
Click to expand...
Because the voters choose not to. As I said before, if they want to exempt themselves from the services of the fire dept. why feel sorry for them when their house goes up in flames? Anyone who wants fire service can still get it.
 
Emet said:
And IIRC, that's exactly what happened in this case.
Click to expand...
Which is exactly as I described. The homeowner lived outside the town's boundaries and taxing abilities, the town made their services available for a small yearly fee.

You chose not to pay the fee and lost your house? Boo freaking hoo, sucks to be you.
 
WildCat said:
Then don't move to an area with subscription fire service.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm not arguing what my recourse would be, but whether it's a wise fire protection plan. For the reason that I think it increases risk even to those that pay, I consider it a bad plan.
 
Last edited:
WildCat said:
Which is exactly as I described. The homeowner lived outside the town's boundaries and taxing abilities, the town made their services available for a small yearly fee.

You chose not to pay the fee and lost your house? Boo freaking hoo, sucks to be you.
Click to expand...
A very good answer . It's Like people who complain about the Govt. yet if you ask them if they vote they say no . So I say they have no right to complain. Thats the way it is with the Fire Dept. if they ask you to pay up front and you say no ,don't expect them to come and save you when you need them .
 
Keep me Happy and I will come and risk my life to save you and your home . P*#s me off and I will still respond but maybe not as fast as you would like and you lose everything and I just put water on a pile of burning ruble, of course it's still your choice
 
I'm not saying firefighters should work without pay... I'm trying to comprehend why paying for fire protection should be in any way voluntary to the individual, because it affects more than just their home. Hence the use of tax money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom