Firefighters = Mercenaries only - Pay to spray?

[alanon]

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.

Morch, I SUCK at explaining things, I know this. I think some people are taking for granted that members of this discussion are from other countries and fully understand our tax structure about as well as we understand theirs.

 

[Uzor]

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.

But it IS an extra fee, How is it not an extra fee when its a fee no one else has to pay for?

And if its an area that pays no local taxes, I still don't see how it's his fault that the country or state don't have them paying tax and as such ignore their needs. If its such a poor area that they don't pay tax (and I'm assuming it is a poor area, as they would otherwise live closer to the city. Do tell me if I'm wrong in this assumption, because it is rather logical to me), its not their fault for being poor. To me it is quite obvious the state's doing something wrong if a whole area lacks fire protection and have no people paying tax.

 

[Lucki]

But it IS an extra fee, How is it not an extra fee when its a fee no one else has to pay for?

And if its an area that pays no local taxes, I still don't see how it's his fault that the country or state don't have them paying tax and as such ignore their needs. If its such a poor area that they don't pay tax (and I'm assuming it is a poor area, as they would otherwise live closer to the city. Do tell me if I'm wrong in this assumption, because it is rather logical to me), its not their fault for being poor. To me it is quite obvious the state's doing something wrong if a whole area lacks fire protection and have no people paying tax.

People living in and around South Folton have to pay the $75 if they want fire protection.

 

[Uzor]

Again, please explain how that is not an extra fee.

 

[Lucki]

Because they do not get fire protection if they don't pay. If they got the protection free, and then had to pay on top of that, then it would be extra. As it stands, it is simply a fee, nothing extra about it.

 

[alanon]

Again, please explain how that is not an extra fee.

Because they pay nothing into that fire service to begin with. That fire service is funded by the taxpayers of that town.

 

[Uzor]

"Because they don't get fire protection if they don't pay".

See, it IS an extra fee. Why? Because its a basic need that should be offered throughout any Western country for free. The states is not some backwater country where the majority of the population work in a sweatshop in Indonesia and only survive by eating trash. Its a rich democratic country that value humanity and basic human rights. Fire protection is something basic that should be a given if you live in the country. As such, paying extra for fire protection is an extra fee.

 

[Kotsu]

Because they are currently not paying for fire protection services in that county. If they wanted it, they'd need to pay more taxes to afford it as a community. To do that, paying more taxes would come to a vote in either state legislature (if state taxes are up) or county legislature or a community meeting. Since that clearly isn't happening, they're just paying another county to use their systems. If you don't pay, they don't help.

Also, it's not "if you have the power to help, you would". If you take the fire engines and go save that persons house, you have then stolen from the county and state to provide those services. You're now fined and in jail. Politics, yes. However, it is still stealing because that guy didn't pay the $75 and was living with the risk of fire... then set a fire in his yard... then dealt with this loss... and is clearly an idiot.


it's just a fee. It is not "in addition to" because there is no other charge for fire protection. Hence, the word extra does not apply. I'm afraid I can not think of a simpler way to explain this to you.

 

[Raesvelg]

Like I said, this represents, more than anything else, a failure of government.

I can lay out the scenario, and to be honest, I'd wager that it's accurate, without having to do any research on the topic whatsoever. The local government, such as it is, decided that, in order to keep taxes low (primarily for the sake of getting re-elected), they would forgo the necessity for some sort of fire-fighting department, and instead their constituency would be required to opt-in to the fire services of a neighboring local government in order to not burn to death. This kind of shit flies because people rarely burn to death, and of those that are at risk to do so, most of them will probably fork out the cash instead of running the risk of burning to death.

 

[Kotsu]

Also, the fact that this county is in the NW mountainous and relatively uninhabited area of TN where there's likely few jobs and few stores for the county itself to collect revenue from.

 

[Zyndara]

Also, it's not "if you have the power to help, you would". If you take the fire engines and go save that persons house, you have then stolen from the county and state to provide those services. You're now fined and in jail. Politics, yes. However, it is still stealing because that guy didn't pay the $75 and was living with the risk of fire... then set a fire in his yard... then dealt with this loss... and is clearly an idiot.

Clearly an idiot... who has to burn his trash and pay for fire rescue service because aparently he's so rural his community doesn't provide these things through taxes. Not sure how he's an idiot for something that happened beyond his control. He didn't go back there with a match and set fire to the bush right next to his house. A lot of really rural people burn trash, and since the guy looks to be like 60 or so, I'm going to guess he's done so for a great many years. So an unfortunate accident happens and that makes him an idiot? Isn't that why there are things like insurance... because no matter how good or careful you are or how well you plan, sometimes accidents happen? He had insurance. And I'm sure he never in a million years thought that if a fire emergency struck, no one would help him.

No one's going to change your mind, clearly, but you may want to think about, just once in a while, cutting people some slack. We can't all be perfect and have completely fool-proof lives.

 

[Lucki]

Clearly an idiot... who has to burn his trash and pay for fire rescue service because aparently he's so rural his community doesn't provide these things through taxes. Not sure how he's an idiot for something that happened beyond his control. He didn't go back there with a match and set fire to the bush right next to his house. A lot of really rural people burn trash, and since the guy looks to be like 60 or so, I'm going to guess he's done so for a great many years. So an unfortunate accident happens and that makes him an idiot? Isn't that why there are things like insurance... because no matter how good or careful you are or how well you plan, sometimes accidents happen? He had insurance. And I'm sure he never in a million years thought that if a fire emergency struck, no one would help him.

No one's going to change your mind, clearly, but you may want to think about, just once in a while, cutting people some slack. We can't all be perfect and have completely fool-proof lives.

How far away was the cans from his house? Did he properly clear away any debris that might spread fire to his house? I believe the video news clip showed the cans used, and from the angle provided, it looked to be in a wooded area (but I'm no video analyst). I've driving through areas where people burn their trash, and in every case it's been in a field (or area) clear of any over hanging trees/brush

I want to see Raes illustrate his points from here on in with usage of the italicized term burn to death.

And Men in Black video clips.

 

[Kotsu]

Clearly an idiot... who has to burn his trash and pay for fire rescue service because aparently he's so rural his community doesn't provide these things through taxes. Not sure how he's an idiot for something that happened beyond his control. He didn't go back there with a match and set fire to the bush right next to his house. A lot of really rural people burn trash, and since the guy looks to be like 60 or so, I'm going to guess he's done so for a great many years. So an unfortunate accident happens and that makes him an idiot? Isn't that why there are things like insurance... because no matter how good or careful you are or how well you plan, sometimes accidents happen? He had insurance. And I'm sure he never in a million years thought that if a fire emergency struck, no one would help him.

No one's going to change your mind, clearly, but you may want to think about, just once in a while, cutting people some slack. We can't all be perfect and have completely fool-proof lives.

I'd give him slack if he burned the trash in a proper, secure way. Tubuku and I do bonfires once a month. We make big ass fires while drunk and still have never had an issue. We do so on his property far away from the house so if it did get out of control, we'd be ok. We also keep a hose and fire extinguisher nearby as well as a fire blanket to further secure and quell any fire uprising. By the age of 60, I expect that I'll still be capable of starting a fire with proper safety measures. However, just in case, I'll continue paying whatever I need to pay to protect whatever I've worked for. You're assuming this man is poverty stricken. I'm assuming that he hasn't made 60 years worth of bad decisions to leave him poverty stricken.

 

[Zyndara]

I'd give him slack if he burned the trash in a proper, secure way. Tubuku and I do bonfires once a month. We make big ass fires while drunk and still have never had an issue. We do so on his property far away from the house so if it did get out of control, we'd be ok. We also keep a hose and fire extinguisher nearby as well as a fire blanket to further secure and quell any fire uprising. By the age of 60, I expect that I'll still be capable of starting a fire with proper safety measures. However, just in case, I'll continue paying whatever I need to pay to protect whatever I've worked for. You're assuming this man is poverty stricken. I'm assuming that he hasn't made 60 years worth of bad decisions to leave him poverty stricken.

I'm not assuming he's poverty stricken. I'm allowing for the possibility that, living in the middle of bum-fuck nowhere TN, the guy may or may not be dealing with some hard times. And it's a safe assumption, is it not, that if he's lived there for years, burning his trash with no fire events, that this is a departure from the norm? Or am I on some plane of existence where the normal laws of probability don't function?

 

[Kotsu]

How far away was the cans from his house? Did he properly clear away any debris that might spread fire to his house? I believe the video news clip showed the cans used, and from the angle provided, it looked to be in a wooded area (but I'm no video analyst). I've driving through areas where people burn their trash, and in every case it's been in a field (or area) clear of any over hanging trees/brush

I'm not assuming he's poverty stricken. I'm allowing for the possibility that, living in the middle of bum-fuck nowhere TN, the guy may or may not be dealing with some hard times. And it's a safe assumption, is it not, that if he's lived there for years, burning his trash with no fire events, that this is a departure from the norm? Or am I on some plane of existence where the normal laws of probability don't function?

Normal laws of probability always function. He was too close to his house and setting a fire in a highly flammable area. Seeing as how his shit burned to the ground, I'd say the laws of probability functioned perfectly.

 

[Raesvelg]

I want to see Raes illustrate his points from here on in with usage of the italicized term burn to death.

And Men in Black video clips.

I'd give him slack if he burned the trash in a proper, secure way.

How about if an electrical short caused his house to catch fire? How about if a rabid squirrel bounded through his trash fire, ignited, and ran squeaking into his house to immolate itself in the shag rug?

The fact remains that there are any number of ways in which the fire could have started, and the conditions are largely irrelevant to the meat of the issue, specifically whether it is the responsibility of the government to provide the service (which, in my opinion, it is) or whether or not we can allow an opt-in system and have fire fighters stand around and let a man's house burn, only taking action when it appears the fire might spread.

Because, let's be honest, in most settings, that is what will happen. You can't just let the fire burn itself out; you need to have personnel on site to control it whether the homeowner in question has opted in to the fire service or not.

 

[Kotsu]

Yea. So it took about 2 hours for the fire to reach the house according to what the victims told the news. That means in two hours they couldn't get their stuff out of the house, save their three pets, or go to the store and buy fire stopping methods? If you don't plan on Murphy's Law, you're kinda asking for it.

Furthermore, the law of the $75 for fire services started in 1990. That's 20 years that they knew about it. On top of that, there was a similar incident in 2008 that they could have learned from. Furthermore, the Mayor even called a meeting over this and they just flat out didn't have the money for this county to pay for their own fire services. Hence, they decided not to increase taxes so that they could afford this! This is all said at the end of the very article Zyn posted. And yet still you set fires on your own property when it's a 20 year old issue that you are fully aware of (hence, offering to make the payment after the fact) and you arbitrarily chose when you would pay? Seriously... I just can't comprehend everyone else saying it's anyone's fault but Mr. and Mrs. Gene Cranick. As for the sympathy, we each reserve the right to give it to those who deserve it. In this case, it's simple. You don't pay, you don't have protection. It's not like if I died tomorrow, then I try to set up life insurance. Or I set up an insurance policy to fix a car that's already damaged. Or I buy a maintenance plan for something after it's already broken because the maintenance plan is cheaper. He knew what he should have done and he didn't do it. That is what it comes down to.

 

[Morcheeba]

Another thought on the moral obligation aspect. Had 1 man or woman spoke up and stated they were going to do something whether instructed to or not, you'd likely have heard that a few if not several firefighters had stepped in to help the man.

Then they'd have had nearly a whole dept to fine/fire. That would be a concern, then you'd have even more of an outcry and perhaps this matter would be more focused on. But that's a 'what if'.

 

[alanon]

And I'm sure he never in a million years thought that if a fire emergency struck, no one would help him.

Ah, he can't plead ignorance on this one. This is not without presidence! If you watch the news story, this exact same scenario has happened to his community before as recently as 2008.

 

[CidBahamut]

So Raes is correct then: this is a failure of government.