What services should you have to pay for?

[tlbwriter]

Because I feel that taxes are collected to provide basic safety services. This almost sounds like "protection money" that one must pay organized crime.

You apparently missed the fact that he didn't pay any taxes that go toward fire service. It is provided by a nearby town. People who do not live in that town are given the *option* to pay into the fire department service. He chose not to.

 

[mster425]

Because I feel that taxes are collected to provide basic safety services. This almost sounds like "protection money" that one must pay organized crime.

His township isn't willing or able to collect taxes for certain services, so they are charged a la carte. I kind of like that better; you at least know where your money is going.

 

[tlbwriter]

NOt even close to being the same thing.

Insurance companies are not in the business of saving lives, fire fighters are. Check out the Fire fighters pledge. NO where in there does it say they help only those that pay. I can't fathom comparing fire fighters to and Insurance company, that is just beyond all understanding to me.

Was his life at stake? It was my understanding that he was not inside the home and didn't need anyone to save his life.

 

[mhsjax]

You apparently missed the fact that he didn't pay any taxes that go toward fire service. It is provided by a nearby town. People who do not live in that town are given the *option* to pay into the fire department service. He chose not to.

Exactly, so it is protection money, just as DawnCt1 stated. They aren't paying the salary, but if you don't pay up, we won't do anything for you. It is sad.

 

[Hannathy]

Exactly, so it is protection money, just as DawnCt1 stated. They aren't paying the salary, but if you don't pay up, we won't do anything for you. It is sad.

no it's not it is paying for a service. do you think it is free to the other town? what is going to happen now is the other town will just stop responding at all to anyone in this mans town. Everyone there should personally thank him for ruining a good thing.

I think it is good that for once that someones greed came back and bit him in the behind.

 

[mhsjax]

Was his life at stake? It was my understanding that he was not inside the home and didn't need anyone to save his life.

But, what if someone was inside, he still didn't pay his $75.00. I wonder what would happen then. Would the fire dept still not respond, would you be ok with that?

This fire dept is getting paid by another county from what I understand, send the man a bill, put a lien on his property.

 

[luvsJack]

We have a volunteer fire department. Our fee is added to our monthly water bill, so we don't exactly get a choice in the matter (unless we don't pay our water bill. Its really a small amount --like $5 but when my dad was on the water board he had to fight to get it added. A lot of people did not want to pay that little amount.

I have had the misfortune of having 5 true emergencies in which the volunteer fire department and/or the first responders were called out. Two family deaths--one being an accident, my home buring and both of my sons' wrecks. I would pay much more that $75 a month to know they are there, ready and able to protect me and my family. To not pay it was just stupid on the man's part.

If you don't pay your light bill they turn off your lights, if you don't pay your water bill they turn off your water. Why would they continue to give you the service of the fire department if you don't pay for it?

 

[tlbwriter]

Exactly, so it is protection money, just as DawnCt1 stated. They aren't paying the salary, but if you don't pay up, we won't do anything for you. It is sad.

I don't quite understand what you mean by "they aren't paying the salary." The man did not live in the township that offers fire service. So no, he wasn't paying the firefighters' salary. Someone else was. The people who live in that township pay it through their taxes. And people who live outside that township are given the option to join as well. I was simply responding to someone who said he deserved service because he paid for it with his taxes. He didn't. Not a penny. Now, you can argue that they should have provided it anyway, and I see both sides of that argument. But to claim that he deserved it because he had paid for it is simply wrong.

My parents used to live in a rural fire district that had a similar agreement with the nearest city. However, the way theirs worked was that you could pay a small annual fee, or you could pay a much, much larger fee if the fire department actually responded to a call at your house. Like, 10 or 20 years worth of the annual fee. I think that would be a good way to operate, except in this case, I don't know if the nearby township was large enough to absorb the cost of deadbeats who would not pay the larger fee. And as someone upthread pointed out, putting a lien on a fire-damaged home is pretty useless.

 

[tlbwriter]

But, what if someone was inside, he still didn't pay his $75.00. I wonder what would happen then. Would the fire dept still not respond, would you be ok with that?

We don't know what would have happened, and I don't see any reason to contribute to a straw man argument at this point.

 

[luvsJack]

But, what if someone was inside, he still didn't pay his $75.00. I wonder what would happen then. Would the fire dept still not respond, would you be ok with that?

This fire dept is getting paid by another county from what I understand, send the man a bill, put a lien on his property.

They must have been called out and told to only take action if a life was in danger. Its not like every fireman is going to know who has or hasn't paid the $75. More than likely they were working on someone's orders (or not working).

 

[mhsjax]

Ok, you guys can have your opinion. I think morally it was wrong, and I stand by that. Sorry. I will leave you to debate this, because on a "you get what you pay for" yes you would be correct. I just put it into a different category.

I just hate to think that maybe he did just forget to pay this one time, maybe he didn't. But if he did really forget, I think it is a sad thing.

 

[Hannathy]

They must have been called out and told to only take action if a life was in danger. Its not like every fireman is going to know who has or hasn't paid the $75. More than likely they were working on someone's orders (or not working).

exactly and would have gone in and tried to save the people and then not fought the fire after.

If it is as rural as I can imagine it is there probably wasn't much they could do anyway.

 

[mhsjax]

They must have been called out and told to only take action if a life was in danger. Its not like every fireman is going to know who has or hasn't paid the $75. More than likely they were working on someone's orders (or not working).

Well on that thought, did dispatch tell them to "hold on let me check and see if this guy paid." Sounds kind of crazy to me.

 

[Hannathy]

Ok, you guys can have your opinion. I think morally it was wrong, and I stand by that. Sorry. I will leave you to debate this, because on a "you get what you pay for" yes you would be correct. I just put it into a different category.

I just hate to think that maybe he did just forget to pay this one time, maybe he didn't. But if he did really forget, I think it is a sad thing.

So do you also think it is morally wrong to expect others to pay for what you use?

Same question because that is what he was doing. If that is the path you want to take let's look at his morals also.

 

[mhsjax]

So do you also think it is morally wrong to expect others to pay for what you use?

Same question because that is what he was doing. If that is the path you want to take let's look at his morals also.

I don't expect others to pay for what I use, but hey let's face it, It happens every day.

Here is where my non pc attitude will get me in trouble, so I won't say more.

I also don't want to question his morals, I don't know the man. Maybe he really did forget to pay, does that make his morals wrong?

 

[tlbwriter]

I just hate to think that maybe he did just forget to pay this one time, maybe he didn't. But if he did really forget, I think it is a sad thing.

If he had forgotten, I have a feeling the story would have played that up. You know, "man pays his dues for 19 years, but forgets on year 20 and his house burns down." Instead, his actual quote was "I thought they'd come out and put it out, even if you hadn't paid your $75, but I was wrong." To me, that suggests that he deliberately didn't pay, assuming they'd take care of him either way. As Hannathy said, it doesn't exactly put him on the moral high ground.

 

[ReneeA]

Why would any of the residents of the town pay the $75 if they were going to get service without payment?

Seriously, there would be no funding at all for the fire service. If you don't like the way your taxes are structured or services are funded, fine...change it. But don't just NOT PAY and expect services.

 

[ksjayhawks]

I think there is more to this story.

I heard this morning on the radio that his son was burning trash--had an aerosol can in one barrel that exploded and caught the grass on fire. The fire spread to a shed and then to the house. I heard last night that there was a time period between the start of the fire and when it reached the house where something possibly could have been done to put out the fire/get the pets and stuff out of the house/etc.

Why didn't the son use the garden hose to put out the fire on the grass? Was the son even monitoring the trash burning in the barrels?

The man made a choice--not pay the $75 fee--and now has to live with the consequences.

 

[luvsJack]

Well on that thought, did dispatch tell them to "hold on let me check and see if this guy paid." Sounds kind of crazy to me.

Well, it does sound crazy; but not as crazy as thinking the fireman just knew that this guy had not paid. Maybe when the call comes in and shows on the system there is some kind of red flag that lets the dispatcher know?

 

[Carly_Roach]

What services should you have to pay for? All of them. One way or another, we pay for all the services we receive.

I'm on the side that says this was a nominal yearly fee to cover fire services in an area that didn't have a fire department. He didn't pay it, he doesn't get the service. There's really no shame to the firemen for not "saving" his double-wide, but you're welcome to think so if it makes you feel better.

The city didn't have to offer the services to the county residents for cryin' out loud! If the city HADN'T offered the fire services to the country residents, then this person would be in the exact same boat today only worse: his house would have burned down and likely taken every neighbor's house around until the fire burned itself out or it reached the city and the fire departments started protecting the city.

As for the point about deciding which lives to save based on a person's ability to pay or their desire to pay -

That decision is made each and every day, multiple times a day, and the answer is typically a cold, callous "no pay, no save" with most of the board posters here cheerfully and vehemently supporting the decision to allow thousands of American people to die a month because they can't or won't pay for the service. The only difference is the type of service being offered:

Health care.

And we're talking a hell of a lot more than $75.00 a year for that service.