Firefighters let a home burn down because $75 fee wasn't paid!

[Narmer]

But they weren't charging $5k, they were chargin $500, and LESS than half of the bills sent were getting paid.

Now go redo your numbers.

Do you think that if they charged $5k they would still collect the same amount? lol get real

So if half the people in the town paid for fire service and half of the people who did not pay paid after the fact then you have:

Let's say there are 100 people in the town and 50% of the town's homes were burned down. If half of those who paid after the act then we have
75*100 = 7500 is what the city would get if everyone paid
75*50+25*500 = 16250

If the threshold for service to the county was 4000 or 5000 it would change nothing because 16250 > 7500.

So, it looks to me that these people did not do the simple math of paying out of pocket after the facts. If they did, they'd realize that they would make a whole lot more than just trying to frighten everyone to paying, mob-style.

If we looked to equate everything then only 15% of those who did not pay would've had to pay after their house caught on fire in order to reach 7500.

 

[Train]

Now your assuming HALF the houses would burn down?

lol GTFOH

 

[halik]

Wow, the facepalm here is strong.

The $75 is the expected value of the cost, that is over say 20 years, the revenue received by the FD is same whether they charged everyone $75 or made the people with houses on fire pay the full cost.

In other words, the department set the fee at $75/yr because the cost putting your house out times the probability of your house burning down is $75.

It's not some profiteering conspiracy, it's stupid stats. It's set so a risk neutral person would be indifferent between paying the fee or just waiting for the fire and then paying the full cost.

 

[Narmer]

Now your assuming HALF the houses would burn down?

lol GTFOH

Well, the numbers are there for you to analyze. 1 paid after-the-act is equivalent to 20/3 of people who did not pay. If the model is subscription then no one has to pay theoretically. However, in order to get an equivalent amount roughly 15% of the people would have to pay if they are charging 500. I'm sure the FD could easily raise that to 1000 and most people would not notice compared to what they'd lose.

 

[Narmer]

Wow, the facepalm here is strong.

The $75 is the expected value of the cost, that is over say 20 years, the revenue received by the FD is same whether they charged everyone $75 or made the people with houses on fire pay the full cost.

In other words, the department set the fee at $75/yr because the cost putting your house out times the probability of your house burning down is $75.

It's not some profiteering conspiracy, it's stupid stats. It's set so a risk neutral person would be indifferent between paying the fee or just waiting for the fire and then paying the full cost.

How do you even know this? Were you there when they came up with the number 75?

 

[halik]

How do you even know this? Were you there when they came up with the number 75?

Because that's what you do when you budget for these things? You don't even have to be an actuary, it's basic treasury math.

How many house fire calls did we have in the city, how many houses are in the city and what was our budget this year. Divide it through and you get a household cost of FD coverage per year.

Never took a single stats or finance course in college, huh?

 

[Lotheron]

Wow, the facepalm here is strong.

The $75 is the expected value of the cost, that is over say 20 years, the revenue received by the FD is same whether they charged everyone $75 or made the people with houses on fire pay the full cost.

In other words, the department set the fee at $75/yr because the cost putting your house out times the probability of your house burning down is $75.

It's not some profiteering conspiracy, it's stupid stats. It's set so a risk neutral person would be indifferent between paying the fee or just waiting for the fire and then paying the full cost.

This would be true only if they gave a full cost/after the fact option which they do not currently.

 

[halik]

This would be true only if they gave a full cost/after the fact option which they do not currently.

They have their annual bodget, so you can back out the expected average cost of coverage per household.

 

[Narmer]

Because that's what you do when you budget for these things? You don't even have to be an actuary, it's basic treasury math.

How many house fire calls did we have in the city, how many houses are in the city and what was our budget this year. Divide it through and you get a household cost of FD coverage per year.

Never took a single stats or finance course in college, huh?

In other word you don't know if that is what they did.

And don't start with the insults because I'm guessing I took more stats courses than you ever did considering my major was Applied Mathematics in undergrad and I will be starting my grad program in the same field next year.

 

[halik]

In other word you don't know if that is what they did.

And don't start with the insults because I'm guessing I took more stats courses than you ever did considering my major was Applied Mathematics in undergrad and I will be starting my grad program in the same field next year.

Well no, I am for more inclined to believe that they wrote dollar figures on cards and drew them from a hat.

Stuff like that is literally what you do in corporate finance/ muni treasury.

I do stats for living, finished grad school 2 years ago... (yay epeen fight! )

 

[Narmer]

Well no, I am for more inclined to believe that they wrote dollar figures on cards and drew them from a hat.

Stuff like that is literally what you do in corporate finance/ muni treasury.

I do stats for living, finished grad school 2 years ago... (yay epeen fight! )

Business school or real science? Nevermind. This is hick country so the number could come from how the stars align or how many raccoons Jethro or Cletus caught. I don't know. It'd be interesting to compare it to other rural areas with the similar income.

 

[BoberFett]

I'm sorry, I was Fireman in New York for 8 years.

I could not stand by and watch someone lose their house and beloved pets like that.

Those people in Tennessee have no right wearing Fireman gear or calling themselves Firemen.

Was that before or after your stint as Queen of England?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally Posted by dmcowen674
I'm sorry, I was Fireman in New York for 8 years.

I could not stand by and watch someone lose their house and beloved pets like that.

Those people in Tennessee have no right wearing Fireman gear or calling themselves Firemen.

Was that before or after your stint as Queen of England?

I've never been to England but I bet it's a hell of a lot better than whatever hellhole you live.

 

[BoberFett]

Not necessarily. Even as stated 50% actually paid the bill afterwards, I bet they still made more money than the standard $75 fee they would have other wise gotten from those houses.

If they stopped providing the service, which IMO they should if they won't treat everyone equally, maybe it would force the county/area that the homeowner lives in to get off their asses and form their own Firefighters and then the gray area would be gone.

Besides, Firefighters should fight fires. Selflessly, every time, anytime, regardless of payworthyness. It's the right thing to do. If you don't want to help those in need, don't go into the business.

Wow, so they successfully billed 50% of people for $500 each. Yeah, they were rolling in cash. Well maybe not considering $500 probably doesn't even cover the cost of rolling out of the fire house.

You are the problem with this country. Everyone thinks everything should be provided for them and that it shouldn't cost them a dime. Welcome to the real world, you lazy bitch.

 

[dmcowen674]

What kind of country are we living in where someone thought that standing by watching someone lose their lively hood was a good idea.

A Republican one

The best of compassionate conservatism in action

You heard all the talking heads, Glenn Beck, Rush, Hannity, Levin, all thrilled and proud the so called Firemen stood there and watched the house burn and animals burn to death.

 

[Siddhartha]

This situation is the conservative's ideal of individual responsibility. If you do not pay the fee, you do not get the services. There is no common good.

 

[Train]

This situation is the liberals ideal of fucking the system, abuse it enough, it goes away. See the USSR as a perfect example.

ftfy

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

How about this... Maybe the city should just cut off all services outside their borders and let the county people figure it out for themselves. No more. Not even if you pay them.

Then the NEXT time this happens some of you can be outraged that the county didn't have a fire department instead of crying about how this guy didn't pay his fee.

 

[halik]

Business school or real science? Nevermind. This is hick country so the number could come from how the stars align or how many raccoons Jethro or Cletus caught. I don't know. It'd be interesting to compare it to other rural areas with the similar income.

Classical English literature and minor in far asia studies?


Master's in Applied Economics @ Michigan. I think me being employed currently is a testament to the degree


Figuring out cost per household isn't exactly complicated, anything that deals with money will get that idea? ("Gee cletus how much we should charge this durr outsiders?" "How 'bout what we charge dem insiderS?")

 

[jiggahertz]

This situation is the conservative's ideal of individual responsibility. If you do not pay the fee, you do not get the services. There is no common good.

What a horrible, horrible concept. You only receive what you pay for. Where's my free gas+mortgage? Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

 

[BoberFett]

This situation is the conservative's ideal of individual responsibility. If you do not pay the fee, you do not get the services. There is no common good.

Does that mean that a liberal's ideal is where everybody gets the common good and nobody has to pay for it?

 

[jiggahertz]

How about this... Maybe the city should just cut off all services outside their borders and let the county people figure it out for themselves. No more. Not even if you pay them.

Then the NEXT time this happens some of you can be outraged that the county didn't have a fire department instead of crying about how this guy didn't pay his fee.

That's what was going on in this county before the city FD expanded their services and a fee-based service. They gave residents outside of the city an option to pay for fire service. Now they are the anti-christ.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

That's what was going on in this county before the city FD expanded their services and a fee-based service. They gave residents outside of the city an option to pay for fire service. Now they are the anti-christ.

I know... Somewhere in the middle of this monkey-poo fight I posted extensively on the subject. (I think in the 30-50 post range) Now I'm just laughing at anyone who thinks the city FD is the bad guy in all of this. And I really can't believe this thread is still going.

People trying to compare lives to property... Ax murders and fee-sponsored police (?)... Massive misunderstandings of why the city can't just tax the folks or bill them later... Liberals calling this a perfect example of the kind of societal fail that happens when conservatives expect people to take care of their own business instead of relying on the government...

All kinds of dumb crap and fail in this thread.

 

[MrX8503]

Half the people in this thread didn't even read the article.

If I got into a car crash can I get insurance afterwards and have the insurance company pay for the damages?

 

[Zargon]

You're missing my point completely. What they did was wrong: standing by while another human beings belongings are destroyed by a fire that they are equipped to deal with.
Beyond the money and the law and the past occurrences, the above is wrong in an of itself.

not paying your bill then expecting fire service is wrong too. how are you supposed to collect bills if you go around providing the service for free.

again. if they wanted guarenteed service, they would move into the city limits or pay the fucking bill.

why should everyone in the city pay higher taxes so the county can freeload?

I'm sure if someone was IN the house, they would have acted. but they werent.

its also the guys own fault he doesnt have enough insurance to cover his belongings.

the dude is plain fail. hes too cheap to fully insure his stuff, and too cheap to pay his bill.