Twiddle Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 Did you read the article? If they helped other people would say well why should we pay the fee either if they will come and help regardless? Then the fire department has no money, cant service the trucks cant pay for firemen and then there is no fire fighters for anyone at all. At-least this way people who choose to pay can get service if they just help everyone including those who don't pay there would be no service for anybody. Did you read it? They made the effort to come out there to watch. This has little to do with what "others" will do, and having human decency, once you have already made the trip to the house, to do the decent humane thing, and help... What is so wrong with bending the rules to help people? I'm sure they would have gladly paid the 75$ afterwards anyway. Ugh, I'm leaving this article, it is ****ing me off, and so are the posters in it. ahhell 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 Did you watch the video and note the surrounding structures? Mobile homes! Those go up like newspaper. Odds are it was a total loss before the FD even got there. As to bending the rule - do it for them then their neighbors expect the same treatment, then there's not enough money to do the extra maintenance etc. and the city just gives up and cancels the subscription service entirely. ahhell 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lexcyn Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 Always amazes me just how little, Americans ACTUALLY care about each other. Yet you'll fly that ****ing flag all day long. United my arse. Obviously, I don't want to tar you all with the same brush, but ffs people, make it right. ^ this. Patriotism is about protecting and respecting each other, not watching your fellow American's house burn down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vice Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 Did you read it? They made the effort to come out there to watch. This has little to do with what "others" will do, and having human decency, once you have already made the trip to the house, to do the decent humane thing, and help... What is so wrong with bending the rules to help people? I'm sure they would have gladly paid the 75$ afterwards anyway. Ugh, I'm leaving this article, it is ****ing me off, and so are the posters in it. They come out to save people if they are trapped inside regardless of if they paid or not. But if everyone is outside the home and safe they will not help with saving the property because the people did not pay for the fire service. If people don't pay there will not be any fire service. If they made an exception for these people they would by your own criteria have to make an exception for every single time they are called to a fire. If they did this other people who pay would say why should we pay the $75 when they will help us regardless? And soon there is no fire service at all because not enough people pay for it to make it sustainable. Use your brain, come on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nerd Rage Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 They chose not to partake, and this is the result. Their choice. Yup, as with most things in the world, it's not free. If the Fire Dept gets their funds from these fees, they need to be enforced and stood behind to keep the Fire Dept functional. As you said, of people choose not to pay for the service, it's their choice.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biohead Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 I remember reading the similar case last last year. The fee is there for a reason. I'm sure it's been debated whether it should be added to tax or not previously, and that there is a logical explanation as to why you have the pay a yearly fee instead. Don't pay the fee then you're not going to get "paid out" in the case of an accident. Making it part of a tax would be the best thing, but theres obviously some reason as to why it's a fee. I'm pretty sure these firefighters didn't come out JUST to watch the house burn down. I'd be surprised if someone was in danger and they didn't do a thing, but from the looks of this everyone was clear and no other properties were in danger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astra.Xtreme Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 Did you read it? They made the effort to come out there to watch. This has little to do with what "others" will do, and having human decency, once you have already made the trip to the house, to do the decent humane thing, and help... What is so wrong with bending the rules to help people? I'm sure they would have gladly paid the 75$ afterwards anyway. Ugh, I'm leaving this article, it is ****ing me off, and so are the posters in it. You clearly have no financial sense... But go ahead and run away since there's clearly no getting through to you... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILikeTobacco Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 Making it part of a tax would be the best thing, but theres obviously some reason as to why it's a fee. It was a city fire department, likely just the closest fire department to the incident. The home in question wasn't within city limits which means city taxes can't be pushed on it to extend its services. A fee would be the only means of extending city services to a rural area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charisma Veteran Posted December 7, 2011 Veteran Share Posted December 7, 2011 Did you read it? They made the effort to come out there to watch. This has little to do with what "others" will do, and having human decency, once you have already made the trip to the house, to do the decent humane thing, and help... What is so wrong with bending the rules to help people? I'm sure they would have gladly paid the 75$ afterwards anyway. Ugh, I'm leaving this article, it is ****ing me off, and so are the posters in it. They came to make sure it didn't spread to the surrounding area or the houses that had paid. Look, I understand that it's hard to read about this kind of thing, but they did make sure the people weren't in danger, and... what else? People are selfish. I'm not talking about the firefighters, either, I'm talking about the people who refused to pay and thought they were above it. The area wouldn't be able to afford to have a fire service at all without everyone paying to maintain the service. And for those of you suggesting they retroactively pay the fee: again, if that's how it worked that's how everybody would use it, and then they still wouldn't be collecting enough to afford to keep up the manpower and equipment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twiddle Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 You clearly have no financial sense... But go ahead and run away since there's clearly no getting through to you... I've ran a business for close to 5 years now. We are doing extremely well, and I have taken many losses to give people a helping hand, because I know I have the means and money too. I have a good financial sense. On this, I would agree with you, there is no getting through to me. As one who has taken financial losses, just to help people. Sorry if I flew off the handle, today isn't going as planned, as the weird unexpected snow here in the south has put a damper on my daily workplans and my mood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan~ Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 This is the one good thing about the UK, all safety things and health stuff is free. Yet in loads of other places you could be rushed to hospital for something and have to page big bills to keep you alive, it's crazy. I think the UK is only like that because they want as many people to live aslong as possible for maximum taxation :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Japlabot Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 Calm down... How are we to know that a city isn't collecting property taxes? Because the property was in an unincorporated area that is not in any city at all, therefore there is no city to pay it to. The Fire Department in attendance was from the city which is closest, and they travelled outside of the city boundary to get there. Everyone in the city is automatically covered for Fire Protection because they are taxed for it with the City's property taxes, but for those outside the city limits, they are given the option, because the city can't make them pay tax when they are not part of their city. If anything, it shows that essential services should be moved to the State level rather than the local level, or for the State governments to establish "Fire Districts" where tax revenue is directed to the Fire Brigade in the nearby area rather than follow city maps, otherwise this leaves a lot of blank spots in the coverage as the US has lots of unincorporated areas (Land that does not fall within any City or Local Government area). ...Or the property owners could just pay the damn $75 a year considering that it is already much cheaper for them because they don't pay other taxes. "You can bring a horse to water but you can't make it drink it". Making it a tax is protecting people from their own stupidity, and unfortunately, it looks like they need it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soham Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 this is old news Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 How many times must we try to get through to people that there are large unincorporated areas of the US, that as a result they have no municipal services and that people in them have to pay willing incorporated areas to get them? And that no pay = no service - just like electric, gas, phone or cable? Jeezzzz.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xenomorph Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 This needs to be illegal. If they didn't pay the fee, then CHARGE them *afterwards*. Charge them double. Charge them triple. Place a lien on the home. Have them serve time behind bars for a week. ANYTHING other than letting their home and possible hundreds of thousands of dollars go up in flames. These "firefighters" are scum. Muhammad Farrukh 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 They're supposed to risk their lives and the security of their families by fighting a fire in an area where their workers compensation & such may not be in effect because it's out of their jurisdiction? Good luck with that :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILikeTobacco Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 I think the UK is only like that because they want as many people to live aslong as possible for maximum taxation :laugh: You also pay taxes for all those services. None of them are free. You are entitled to them because you pay for those services nationally through taxation. We don't tax on a national level in the USA for things liken law enforcement and firefighters. The closest we come is state taxes that pay for county sheriffs. If you don't live in an area that is part of a city council, you don't pay taxes for thing local law enforcement or firefighters. That means you are not entitled to those services. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozgeek Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 This is disgusting and irresponsible. I am very glad I don't like in the US. Too many people worrying about money than life. Here in Queensland, our emerency services are paid for by the government. They will respond to ANYONE no matter who. For years we had to pay a fee as part of our electricity bill called the "Ambulance Subsidy". but they stopped the past 2 months when the government are paying for the services. That fire service in the news is not an emerency service if they do not put out fires that threaten lives no matter where. They should just put out the fire and ask for the fee later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phouchg Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 Perhaps media has blown things out of proportion, as they do so often. It's indeed possible that fire had rapidly consumed everything of value before firefighters arrived and there wasn't really anything left to save but for the purposes of drama it was withheld and threads like this on the whole Internets went up in flames. However, when people come up with "in reality", "use brain" and "financial sense" arguments to extensively try and justify this system, it leaves no chance for humanity. All hope is gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILikeTobacco Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 This needs to be illegal. If they didn't pay the fee, then CHARGE them *afterwards*. Charge them double. Charge them triple. Place a lien on the home. Have them serve time behind bars for a week. Why should it be illegal to not get services you are willingly not paying for? Charging them afterward is just as bad as letting them not pay at all. That would make nobody pay at all since the chance of your house burning down is very low. It would be cheaper to not pay until afterwards than to pay up front statistically and would completely sidestep the purpose the fee is there in the first place. These people choose to live outside of the city limits and then choose not to pay for services that would have prevented this. The choice was made by the owners. Not the firefighters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charisma Veteran Posted December 7, 2011 Veteran Share Posted December 7, 2011 This is the one good thing about the UK, all safety things and health stuff is free. Yet in loads of other places you could be rushed to hospital for something and have to page big bills to keep you alive, it's crazy. I think the UK is only like that because they want as many people to live aslong as possible for maximum taxation :laugh: It's not "free".... as you pointed out.... you all pay quite a price for it via taxes. So them refusing to pay this is equivalent to someone in the UK refusing to pay a portion of their taxes. Would you feel sorry for them then? And, DocM, they won't get it unless they've spent some time here and seen why we have to do things the way we do. I didn't understand their way of living until I went to these places, with the buildings so close together and the cities so tightly packed, you really can walk or take a bus to anywhere you need to go, and it's easy to keep people together in one place like that. Made me realise how different it really is in the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 I've been in European cities and would go stir crazy if I had to exist like that. Slight correction on taxes v. jurisdictions. County Sheriffs are mainly paid for mainly by County taxes, and sometimes partially by the State via revenue sharing arrangements. They typically patroll all municipalities in the County and do the job of municipal police in unincorporated areas. State Police (Rangers, Highway Patrol etc.) are paid for by State taxes and patrol statewide on State highways, but usually only get involved in local matters when called in by Sheriffs or local police, if any, unless they're already on the scene. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phouchg Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 Does that imply that outside US there are no extremely low population areas at all? Because you've seen some cities, took some buses and trains? And that States run their rural territories in a "devil may care" fashion is completely ok? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c.grz Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 People seem to forget that it was just a home...yep you read it right...JUST A HOME. Now if the fire fighters stood back and watched as an innocent human was trapped inside then I would agree with everyone here. People are so hung up on material items; to me as long as my family is safe let the house burn! And yes, I have lost material items in a fire! This is the one good thing about the UK, all safety things and health stuff is free. And actually those things aren't free; they're paid by taxes.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Southern Patriot Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 Because they don't pay any city property taxes!111111 Even when you live outside the city, you still pay property taxes. I'm not sure where people get this idea that you don't. I live in the city now, but when I did live out in the county, our volunteer fire department was funded by the county property taxes. The volunteers were always quick to respond to a callout because if one house burned, the chances of it spreading to nearby houses was very high. My Dad was a member of the fire department for a while, and I remember them getting called out in the middle of the night on Christmas Eve one year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts