Wow... that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic in this thread. Congrats on missing the ENTIRE point.
I just saw my neighbour got hacked by an axe last night. I didn't call 911 since they haven't paid the fees yet. Poor old couple. They "forgot" to pay the fees and now they're gone.
Ofcourse that's not true.. I'm not a saint but I'm still a citizen of this neighborhood. I'll never do that.
I just saw my neighbour got hacked by an axe last night. I didn't call 911 since they haven't paid the fees yet. Poor old couple. They "forgot" to pay the fees and now they're gone.
Ofcourse that's not true.. I'm not a saint but I'm still a citizen of this neighborhood. I'll never do that.
Those firefighters say they are not the bad guys
Story = http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39535911/ns/us_news-life/?GT1=43001
Can't tell if this is sarcasm or not.
I can't believe this thread is still alive... lol...
I also can't believe that his insurance company is going pay... who would issue fire insurance to a house that doesn't have some type of public fire coverage? You'd think the insurance company would have some kind of language in its contract requiring this guy to pay his CITY FD fees to keep the coverage active.
Hardly, people are pushing more and more for socialism to make up for their own short comings in life.
Welcome to the Tea Party's America.
What kind of country are we living in where someone thought that standing by watching someone lose their lively hood was a good idea. Not to mention public servants. Yes, not for that particular plot of land that the home was on, but still.
Besides, don't the morons realize they probably could have gotten more than the past 20 years @ $75 if they would have done the service and billed the guy after the fact? So now they have bad PR and they lose out on any money. Yeah, you showed the Cranicks didn't you. Idiots.
Sigh, please read the thread.
This particular fire dept USED TO respond to every call and bill after the fact. The problem is more than half of the bills werent getting paid. The FD was getting screwed. It was either stick to people that paid, or stop offering the service outside of thier jurisdiction altogether.
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.
Wait, wasn't something similar in an episode of Seinfeld?
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.
Wait, wasn't something similar in an episode of Seinfeld?
Yes they should have put out the fire, then everyone would "forget" to pay the fee. Then the city FD would no longer respond to county calls, then someones house burns down and they lose children instead of pets. Completely logical.
They weren't standing around, they were helpoing the neighbor.
You can't keep screwing over the compassionate forever and expect them to always be there for you.
Yes they should have put out the fire, then everyone would "forget" to pay the fee. Then the city FD would no longer respond to county calls, then someones house burns down and they lose children instead of pets. Completely logical.
How do you reconcile your belief with the near 50% of folks who don't pay federal taxes? Should they be barred from receiving any federal services?
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.
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.
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.
You should probably read halik's post before making another post. I'm surprised that some people, especially on this forum, don't understand the basic concepts of economics and statistics sometimes.
Firefighters need to eat and provide for their families too.
I don't even know where to begin. Treat everyone equally, really? IMO best buy should be put out of business because they don't treat everyone equally. My neighbor bought a $2k TV from them, but they wouldn't give me one because I didn't pay their silly "fee".
Going back on what I said, I think my economics and math is pretty accurate:
Lets say 20 houses caught on fire, 10 of which paid the fee, over the period of 10 years. Let's also say the average cost of fighting the fire was $5000. It's probalby more than that, but we'll use that for arguements sake.
If all 20 paid the fee over 10 years, the fire department would have gotten: $15000.
If only 10 paid the fee and the other 10 were charged actual cost of putting the fire out, they would have made $7500 plus $5000 per house charged, or $50,000.
Even if half paid, they made $25000 on those houses, rather than $7500.
Read above reply. Not saying they won't get money.
Best Buy is for profit retailer, Firefighting is a public safety service meant to save lives/property. It should not be considered a for profit business.