$75 or we'll let your house burn down

[cassanova]

Here's something I'm going to say that's been bugging me for a while now. This fire started out as a trash fire in the back yard. There was enough time for the man to get himself and all his family out of the house, but he can't get 2 dogs and a cat out? Something about this seems fishy to me.

It was a mobile home. Those things go up in flames extremely fast. I can easily see how he could only get him and the family out.

 

[sloasdaylight]

It was a mobile home. Those things go up in flames extremely fast. I can easily see how he could only get him and the family out.

Right no I understand that, but I still can't see how when there is a fire starting to get out of control in your back yard, you don't tell your wife to start getting ready to get out if it starts licking the house.

 

[Munjibunga]

If he refused or forgot to pay, it's a cut and dry "he got what he deserved" from my point of view. I don't waiver on that thought and if someone had died, well, that's just tragically sad but I don't give a flying crap. Tough lesson, sorry. Things like that I WOULDN'T forget.

A little darwinism goes a long way in my book.

The world isn't free and everyone isn't entitled to what I CAN pay for and other's CAN'T. I work hard, I pay for things and some of what my taxes pay for tick me off but that's where I have the power in my vote. There are things I can't afford but I'm not entitled to them. We all sit somewhere on the spectrum.

In San Diego the taxes are probably going up to help pay for services like the Fire/Police Dept. If I can be sure that it will indeed go towards that funding, I'm 100% all for it. If they want to increase my parcel tax on my land to help pay for it, I'm ok. If they send me a bill to cover my house, I'll pay. I didn't say I was happy about it, but if that's what it takes.

If I COULDN'T afford it, oh well, sounds like it's up to me to work harder to make that happen if I want it.

Harsh, man. But no disagreement here. Well, maybe a little. So you think Prop D is going to pass?

 

[bassrique]

If one doesn't pay [compulsory] taxes, one not only will lose one's home, but one may go to prison.

 

[Floyd Eye]

Where are these stories coming from? My understanding is that it was a farm house, not a mobile home. They have a history of fires at this residence including a chimney fire which was put out even though they hadn't paid then either. These people have a history of not paying, they didn't "forget" to pay. "Forget" to pay your homeowners insurance and then see if the insurance companies pays out when your house burns down. And when they refuse, whine about it to Keith Olberman.

 

[Eric Perry]

He gambled and he lost. No sympathy from me. And offering to pay the fee when the fire trucks come out? That's like not buying insurance until after your car is totaled. "Oh, I'll pay the $100 premium now that my $30,000 car is totalled".

IF (Big IF there) what Mark posted is true and the guy blatantly refused to pay, then I can't offer up much (okay any) sympathy either.

I have car insurance. I have homeowner's insurance. If I blow off paying my bills simply because I don't want to and tragedy strikes, who's fault is it? I wouldn't WANT any sympathy for my colossally stupid decisions! I reap what I sow. Plain and simple.


I do feel for the animals that died, however.

 

[Rocker949]

Where are these stories coming from? My understanding is that it was a farm house, not a mobile home. They have a history of fires at this residence including a chimney fire which was put out even though they hadn't paid then either. These people have a history of not paying, they didn't "forget" to pay. "Forget" to pay your homeowners insurance and then see if the insurance companies pays out when your house burns down. And when they refuse, whine about it to Keith Olberman.

I honestly don't know if he lived in a house or a mobile home. I've seen conflicting stories. I also don't know what his history has been in paying the fee. He said in the interview that he had paid for the past few years. Of course he could be lying about that. I also don't know what Olberman has said about this because I never watch him. I'm not interested in people such as Olberman and Beck who are using this to push a political agenda. As an independent, I'm not interested in anyone's political ideology.

 

[capnsandwich]

As an independent, I'm not interested in anyone's political ideology.

And neither is talkbass. Please, let's try to keep politics out of this. I'd hate to see this thread closed. BTW, this is not said to you Rocker949. This is just a default statement. I just used your quote as a BIG +1.

 

[Skitch it!]

This instance need's more definite fact regarding the history leading up to, or that may have precursed this sad situation, not enough definite information for considered opinion imo.

 

[capnsandwich]

This instance need's more definite fact regarding the history leading up to, or that may have precursed this sad situation, not enough definite information for considered opinion imo.

After reading through this thread the last 2 days, I totally agree. When I started it I had only read the initial story posted in the first post. Now that I see and read all these other stories, I'm up in the air about what happened. Until I know the truth, I'll refrain from posting any more of my opinions.

 

[Bob Lee (QSC)]

Even tho they were likely under threat of being fired or whatnot if they did go in?

Better them than the people actually responsible for the policy, I guess.

 

[Bob Lee (QSC)]

I think a lot of people are missing the point.

With the current drive to reduce taxes and convert every possible service to user fees, many services like this will be reduced to individual user fees. You will either pay the fee or get no service. With modern computer technology, it's not that hard to tell whether Bob paid for his neighborhood park and Fred didn't. Therefore Fred can't use the park next door to his house.

Don't pay the fire bill? No coverage.

Don't pay the power bill? No power.

Homeowner's association doesn't pay the police bill? No police coverage in that neighborhood.

Homeowner's association doesn't pay road fees? Then repairing the potholes and re-surfacing those streets is up to you, not the city. (I happen to live in a development that's entirely private roads, so I know how this works...my dues go partly to a road maintenance fund.)

Don't pay a fee? Can't walk in the park.

Some of these seem ridiculous - but the point is that many services which can be reduced to user fees don't work well that way. Those services are more practical to provide based on taxes, not individual user fees.

In the case of the original post, if you don't pay for fire coverage, the firefighters will keep your fire from scorching your neighbors' houses, but they won't save yours. But if that's the way your town sets it up, you better pay. The guy didn't pay - he lost. The user fee advocates will have no problem with this approach.

IMO there are things worth paying for as groups...and many people who don't want to pay their share. I think this is something that each of us should reflect upon, because we're going to run into this issue more than once in the near future.

Well said.

 

[Pilgrim]

Well said.

Thanks, Bob. I think that this particular TB thread can have some positive impact on TB members if it prompts them to think about just how far they want this trend to go. There are plenty of people in the world who don't give a damn about anyone else, and who don't want to pay for even life-preserving services that they are personally unlikely to use.

This is good material for thought and reflection by each of us. If you look beyond the incident and consider the principles, it gets very interesting.

 

[6jase5]

Harsh, man. But no disagreement here. Well, maybe a little. So you think Prop D is going to pass?

Being careful as this is about as political as it gets, but Prop D scares me. I have to agree with the phrase: "No one will ever be 100% satisfied with the use of their taxes."

....and now back to a thread about some guy who hasn't mastered the whole "fire tends to burn things" common understanding and the consequence of ignorance.

 

[Jerry Ziarko]

If he really went 18 years without paying then he made a choice to gamble his belongings and continued to make that choice over a long period of time.

I don't know whose butt this came out of, but he paid the $75 in 2009 and 2008. He and his neighbor both offered open checkbooks to the FD on the scene. So instead of the years $75, which is the reason the FD needs to operate, they could have gotten 100 years worth of fees on the spot, but still refused to put water on the fire.
If I was one of those firefighters, that would have been my last day on the job. Either I would have been fired for trying to do something that felt morally right, (fighting the fire) or if I stood there and watched it burn, when I got home and looked in the mirror, I would have felt I was in the wrong profession to begin with.

 

[Pilgrim]

While I see the "he refused the service" argument, there should be the fire fighters equivalent of a hippocratic oath.

WHY?

If the arrangement is that you get NO service unless you pay for it, then the bottom line is: YOU GET NO SERVICE!

There are many people who would really like this to be the case. I think I agree with you - this is a service that should be a basic part of what society provides. But that was NOT the arrangement here.

When people come around pushing agendas like this, think carefully about the unanticipated outcomes before supporting them.

 

[DaveKirkpatrick]

Seems like one would have a hard time getting the insurance company to pay up on a fire damage claim if they found out you didn't pay for fire protection.
It would also seem that unless you own your home free and clear- both the bank holding the note and the insurance company would require proof of payment of this fee- or it would be paid from an escrow account....

 

[Let It Fall]

Why education? Surely you could just pay for what school you go to and that would cover it?

Because poor uneducated families will then have poor uneducated kids.

IMO More taxes = More public services = better.

HAHAHAHAHA

 

[Simo98]

Because poor uneducated families will then have poor uneducated kids.

I can not possibly comprehend how you can see this, but not the other perspective that is highlighted by this thread:

Without public services provided free or subsidised, the situation would also be:

"poor uneducated families would have their houses burned down"

"poor uneducated families will die sick in bed due to no medical treatment"

"poor uneducated families will remain this way due to no ability to get to work"

"poor uneducated families will starve to death due to no unemployment benifits"


So you think education should be free, but you should die if you can't afford the ambulance call out fee?

HAHAHAHAHA

You disagree that you believe your taxes should go into helping society? Or simply don't want to pay them because you don't think you should have to?

Ideally, more tax is a good thing, if its used in a productive manner.

 

[UncleFluffy]

Ideally, more tax is a good thing, if its used in a productive manner.

Up to a point, then it causes problems both pragmatic (people have less incentive to create wealth when they can't keep it) and ethical (taking someone's property involuntarily is at best a lesser evil).

Where exactly that point is is a topic for debate, and would almost certainly be a debate that crosses the TB no-politics line.