Firefighters = Mercenaries only - Pay to spray?

[CidBahamut]

Fuck politics. What's right is right.

Except when money is involved in any capacity according to Kotsu.

 

[Lucki]

Assuming the math is right, at $2582 every time they rush out, that means they break even at 34,42 families paying the annual cost.

In the US, there's a total of 114,825,428 households in the US in 2010. Every year, 1,9 million fires start in a household. That means that the risk of your house catching fire (purely statistical) is about 0,017%. That means that in every 100 households in that area, roughly 1 catch fire. Assuming 85% of those households pay, the fire station make $6375 dollar. Removing the cost of $2582, that still means they made a $3793 profit. Even if two houses catch fire, they still go with a profit.

Bottom line is, there's no reason for them to sit idly by and watch the guy's house burn down, as they still make a profit. If you're gonna go retard-style and say "BUT IT COSTS THEM 2000 TO PUT THE FIRE OUT, 75 DOLLAR IS A STEAL!" you can't ignore that they still go with a profit.

And before you say "But why should others pay his fire cost?!" that's the way it works in society. Not everyone needs the police, and yet your tax goes towards paying for them.

That cost goes up when larger structures catch fire and equipment/firefighters get broken/destroyed/injured/killed. That one example also doesn't factor in wildfires.

So they should suffer because the government is too stupid (or cheap) to choose not to build a fire station in their vicinity?

"Well, they're all foreginers. We'll let them fight it out. Its cheaper for us."

OR they couldn't afford to have one of their own (you know, current economic situation and all), so they make deals with neighboring counties. I heard a short story on NPR recently that even fire companies in much larger and affluent areas are struggling to make ends meet, and are having to cut back (station closures and whatnot).

 

[alanon]

That's not what I said, I said the government get taxes to pay for things like police and firefighters. When everyone else get it for free, why should these guys have to pay EXTRA for a service that should be basic and exist everywhere? These guys pay tax too, no?

I don't know for sure, but knowing what I know about rural areas like the one this guy lives in, I'd be willing to bet that he pays no local taxes the way most people do, including the town people that live in the town the firestation is actually located in.

 

[CidBahamut]

Dude, seriously? Where is it that you think government get funds for things? If taxes were suddenly made voluntary, and no one paid, do you think that the government would just say, "well we don't want to look 'cheap' or 'stupid', so we'll just use this non existance money to pay for stuff!"

Deficit spending says "hi".

So does the National Debt.

 

[Morcheeba]

I'm not going to pretend for one second I know any taxation laws in the states, especially not state to state. Here, calling 911 to report a fire and having the fire department come to save the day is a service that we are not 'billed' for. We pay taxes, if we make an income we pay taxes and it's from those taxes and municipal budgeting that we get our service.

If this family was so low income that their entire source of income was provided through government benefits, than I would assume they paid their taxes. Here, you get EI (employment insurance), they tax you and give you the leftovers, welfare same thing. Maternity leave pay, ask me I know, they take their taxes first. That's pretty much standard I would think...

If this family was working a minimum wage job, would he not have been taxed? Sure he may not have submitted his taxes during tax season, maybe he owed more?! But the initial cut would have been made from his pay. So where's the $75 bill coming from? If his county doesn't provide the service and need to secure the help from a neighbouring county, than a portion of the taxes he's paid (and anyone else living in that county) should have been provided to cover it.

This is disgusting. And job or no job, their act was inhumane.

If I have the ability to help save a families home (regardless of how shady they may appear), my core would be screaming to do something. I'd fork over the $75 or tell my boss he/she could can me and see me in court. I would have to do something.

 

[Raesvelg]

Even if the public chooses not to fund it?

Slightly out of context, but still vaguely appropriate:

Though ironically, it's the individual that failed to make the prudent decision in this case.

Still.

To be honest, if the public decided to vote out fire protection from the budget, I'd have to wonder who put the fucking LSD into the water supply? Still, there would well be a situation where the haves decided to enact their own version of a fire fighting service, and fuck the have-nots.

Which is why I classify it as what ought to be a public good. Because the haves can afford an awful lot of things that the have-nots cannot, and if the haves outnumber the have-nots, while you might be doing well economically speaking, you're setting your most disadvantaged citizens as second-class citizens if you allow the haves to start pulling shit like that.

This is the United States of America, damnit. We may not believe in the mandatory distribution of wealth like some of our more socialist counterparts, but at the very least we can afford our citizens an equality of opportunity. Like the opportunity to not burn to death in their sleep because they have trouble making ends meet.

 

[Kotsu]

Since we seem to be ignoring classifying the area that charges a meager $75 for fire protective services. This is from Wikipedia:

As of the census[3] of 2000, there were 32,450 people, 13,182 households, and 9,398 families residing in the county. The population density was 60 people per square mile (23/km²). There were 14,489 housing units at an average density of 27 per square mile (10/km²). The racial makeup of the county was 88.16% White, 9.85% Black or African American, 0.14% Native American, 0.19% Asian, 0.05% Pacific Islander, 0.91% from other races, and 0.71% from two or more races. 1.90% of the population were Hispanic or Latino of any race.

There were 13,182 households out of which 31.00% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 56.40% were married couples living together, 11.10% had a female householder with no husband present, and 28.70% were non-families. 25.70% of all households were made up of individuals and 12.10% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.42 and the average family size was 2.89.

In the county, the population was spread out with 23.40% under the age of 18, 8.40% from 18 to 24, 27.70% from 25 to 44, 25.40% from 45 to 64, and 15.20% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 39 years. For every 100 females there were 93.40 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 89.90 males.

The median income for a household in the county was $32,764, and the median income for a family was $40,533. Males had a median income of $32,963 versus $20,032 for females. The per capita income for the county was $17,409. About 10.10% of families and 13.30% of the population were below the poverty line, including 18.60% of those under age 18 and 15.10% of those age 65 or over.

Good news, on the median household income you could survive here in Maryland, where it's 40% more expensive to live (as proven earlier in the thread)! There's only 13,000 homes in the entire county. We have over 13,000 homes here in an entire city, let alone county. All tax rates are below 3% in the state of tennessee as per the Comptroller of Tennessee's website. It's 6% sales tax here. All I'm saying is, the state of TN isn't exactly pulling in big money. They offset that by letting private firefighting companies operate. I see nothing wrong with that at all sir.

I stand with if you want more from the government, pay more in taxes. Otherwise, don't expect something for nothing because the government doesn't owe you dick.

 

[alanon]

Slightly out of context, but still vaguely appropriate:

Though ironically, it's the individual that failed to make the prudent decision in this case.

Still.

To be honest, if the public decided to vote out fire protection from the budget, I'd have to wonder who put the fucking LSD into the water supply? Still, there would well be a situation where the haves decided to enact their own version of a fire fighting service, and fuck the have-nots.

Which is why I classify it as what ought to be a public good. Because the haves can afford an awful lot of things that the have-nots cannot, and if the haves outnumber the have-nots, while you might be doing well economically speaking, you're setting your most disadvantaged citizens as second-class citizens if you allow the haves to start pulling shit like that.

This is the United States of America, damnit. We may not believe in the mandatory distribution of wealth like some of our more socialist counterparts, but at the very least we can afford our citizens an equality of opportunity. Like the opportunity to not burn to death in their sleep because they have trouble making ends meet.

Raes, you may laugh at this, but you and I are not that far apart in our way of thinking.

However, once again you are falling into the trap of making assumptions. You assume this guy didn't pay because he is broke.

 

[Uzor]

That cost goes up when larger structures catch fire and equipment/firefighters get broken/destroyed/injured/killed. That one example also doesn't factor in wildfires.

I'm going to go ahead and make an assumption that said guy did NOT live in an extremely large oversized house if he didn't pay the $75. But hey, what do I know? Perhaps everyone in poor areas live in castles in the US.

So I'm not entirely sure why you drag in "LARGE buildings" when you talk about fire costs, as I assume if people live in a skyscraper, the owner of the skyscraper would gladly pay the fire exhaustion cost in order to NOT lose several million while the firemen watch it all burn down.

OR they couldn't afford to have one of their own (you know, current economic situation and all), so they make deals with neighboring counties. I heard a short story on NPR recently that even fire companies in much larger and affluent areas are struggling to make ends meet, and are having to cut back (station closures and whatnot).

In which case it all goes back to "fucking stupid cheap government". How about the government cut back on things that's not needed (like sending military to middle east) while they expand on things definitely needed, like fire protection?

Like I said, Night Watchmen State etc.

 

[Kotsu]

I'm going to go ahead and make an assumption that said guy did NOT live in an extremely large oversized house if he didn't pay the $75. But hey, what do I know? Perhaps everyone in poor areas live in castles in the US.

So I'm not entirely sure why you drag in "LARGE buildings" when you talk about fire costs, as I assume if people live in a skyscraper, the owner of the skyscraper would gladly pay the fire exhaustion cost in order to NOT lose several million while the firemen watch it all burn down.


In which case it all goes back to "fucking stupid cheap government". How about the government cut back on things that's not needed (like sending military to middle east) while they expand on things definitely needed, like fire protection?

Like I said, Night Watchmen State etc.

He dragged it in because your money calculations did not take into account the large buildings and wildfire's into the equation. Essentially, your numbers were skewed in favor of your argument.

Also, you just compared local government to national government. Tennessee has an average tax rate of 2.75%. Let's cut things the local government pays for though! Like jobs, roads, and education!

 

[Morcheeba]

He dragged it in because your money calculations did not take into account the large buildings and wildfire's into the equation. Essentially, your numbers were skewed in favor of your argument.

Also, you just compared local government to national government. Tennessee has an average tax rate of 2.75%. Let's cut things the local government pays for though! Like jobs, roads, and education!

Again I know nothing of your taxation, however with this argument. Here, and I have to stress I do mean HERE, our government budgets, provinces budget, each municipality budgets, and based on the average household income they would come to a tax that is appropriate. That being said, if this area in Tenn was incredibly low income if any, then I would suspect the average 'size' and 'value' of majority of its residents property would be along the same lines. So again, the percentile of taxation should have been figured out to factor in the average residents property value. You know, in case of fire.

 

[Uzor]

He dragged it in because your money calculations did not take into account the large buildings and wildfire's into the equation. Essentially, your numbers were skewed in favor of your argument.

Also, you just compared local government to national government. Tennessee has an average tax rate of 2.75%. Let's cut things the local government pays for though! Like jobs, roads, and education!

The other guy also made assumptions. However, I don't see why it would matter how large or small buildings are in my argument. Why? Because if its an area that does not have its own fire station, its not an area with a lot of money in the first place, in which case there is not a lot of LARGE buildings. If anything, they make an even GREATER profit than I estimated.

And if Tennessee has such a low tax rate (like I said, Night Watchmen State. I suggest you look it up if you don't understand what I'm talking about), why not raise the tax so they can provide for the most basic needs? Sweden has an average national tax of between 25-32%, I'm sure your countrymen can afford a SLIGHTLY raised tax rate, unless your entire country is already fucked.

 

[Raesvelg]

Raes, you may laugh at this, but you and I are not that far apart in our way of thinking.

However, once again you are falling into the trap of making assumptions. You assume this guy didn't pay because he is broke.

Public goods must be paid for by taxation, as a general rule, which means that he would have been forced to pay for it, ideally to the extent that he could afford.

Hopefully we can avoid discussing the Laffer Curve and all that crap in this thread though.

And note the line:

Though ironically, it's the individual that failed to make the prudent decision in this case.

He was dumb. He took a calculated risk, and this time it did not pay off. You are making assumptions about my assumptions on the grounds of my generalizations. So there!

 

[alanon]

I'm not going to pretend for one second I know any taxation laws in the states, especially not state to state. Here, calling 911 to report a fire and having the fire department come to save the day is a service that we are not 'billed' for. We pay taxes, if we make an income we pay taxes and it's from those taxes and municipal budgeting that we get our service.

If this family was so low income that their entire source of income was provided through government benefits, than I would assume they paid their taxes. Here, you get EI (employment insurance), they tax you and give you the leftovers, welfare same thing. Maternity leave pay, ask me I know, they take their taxes first. That's pretty much standard I would think...

If this family was working a minimum wage job, would he not have been taxed? Sure he may not have submitted his taxes during tax season, maybe he owed more?! But the initial cut would have been made from his pay. So where's the $75 bill coming from? If his county doesn't provide the service and need to secure the help from a neighbouring county, than a portion of the taxes he's paid (and anyone else living in that county) should have been provided to cover it.

This is disgusting. And job or no job, their act was inhumane.

If I have the ability to help save a families home (regardless of how shady they may appear), my core would be screaming to do something. I'd fork over the $75 or tell my boss he/she could can me and see me in court. I would have to do something.

Morch, if this was some urban area and the local EMS chose not to respond to a poor family in their district, I would be right there screaming with you. However, I don't believe that this guy nor his neighbors pay any sort of a local tax at all. Which means there are zero funds to support a local fire department. A neighboring municipality offered their services to this community on a house by house basis, basically a voluntary tax - this guy turned it down. It's akin to voting down a school tax levy then complaining about the conditions of the school. YOU and I would give the $75 dollars to save his house after the fact, but remember he was given that same option before the fact and he said no. He gambled and lost.

Would you guys feel differently if this was a small business owner who chose not to pay for insurance?

 

[Uzor]

No, I would not feel any different. Yes, I would feel different if he then tried to earn money out of it, but that's not the case. Whether or not the house is insured doesn't matter in fire response. Those are two entirely different areas. I'd feel exactly the same if Bill Gate's house was burning and it wasn't insured. If firemen refused to approach it because he didn't pay an extra fee for fire response, I would say "That's fucking retarded".

 

[Lucki]

Would you guys feel differently if this was a small business owner who chose not to pay for insurance?

No

 

[Morcheeba]

Morch, if this was some urban area and the local EMS chose not to respond to a poor family in their district, I would be right there screaming with you. However, I don't believe that this guy nor his neighbors pay any sort of a local tax at all. Which means there are zero funds to support a local fire department. A neighboring municipality offered their services to this community on a house by house basis, basically a voluntary tax - this guy turned it down. It's akin to voting down a school tax levy then complaining about the conditions of the school. YOU and I would give the $75 dollars to save his house after the fact, but remember he was given that same option before the fact and he said no. He gambled and lost.

Would you guys feel differently if this was a small business owner who chose not to pay for insurance?

I can't fully understand all of you, and it's because a lot of these examples are just not the norm here. Insurance you purchase for services that do not fall under local public services.

I know the money has to come from somewhere, obviously, no one can work for free. However, I can't understand how anyone could not pay taxes. The only way I can fathom it is if someone works strictly a cash job and paid under the table. But then it's usually the employer you need to have agree to that. If it's some bum fuck idaho garage off the interstate that hired billy from up the road okay, I get it. But a whole county? Our countries need to invest in our citizens, at least to a degree.

 

[Kotsu]

It's not our countries that need to invest in us. It's us that needs to invest in our countries. Our countries then take care of us in repayment for our investment.


Also, Uzor: This wasn't an extra fee for fire protection. This was just a fee. $75 annually and you receive the fire departments services. $6.25 per month and you receive the fire department services.

 

[alanon]

Uzor, I think where you are making the mistake is assuming that the Federal government is responsible for it, which is not the case. Here, you have Federal and State taxes, as well as local taxes in some cases. The Feds pay for the military, not local EMS services, so your argument of not sending troops to the middle east is irrelevent. In this guys case, local taxes pay for police and fire. This guys area has none, and probably doesn't pay any local tax (which isn't all that uncommon).

To use your Bill reference, say Gates builds a house in the middle of nowhere because he wants to live rurally. There are no fire services locally, but a neighboring city offers to cover him, but since he is not a resident and hence pays no taxes, they ask for a fee for the service. Bill says, "Thanks but no thanks. I'll take my chances." Bill's house then burns down a few years later.

 

[Morcheeba]

It's not our countries that need to invest in us. It's us that needs to invest in our countries. Our countries then take care of us in repayment for our investment.


Also, Uzor: This wasn't an extra fee for fire protection. This was just a fee. $75 annually and you receive the fire departments services. $6.25 per month and you receive the fire department services.

You're right.

But I could not stand by and watch any mans home burn if I had the power to do something about it. I get that firefighters need to put food on their tables, but the position does USUALLY demand some passion.

I could not just stand by.