Here We Go Again...Another House Allowed To Burn

[JS80]

And I pay $1000 extra annually for the PPO dental plan. Two crowns... $900 out of pocket. Cleanings are covered 100% though.

Welcome to amerika. Sometimes I fucking hate this country.

lol you're kind of retarded

 

[HAL9000]

lol you're kind of retarded

That made sense to me.

 

[BoberFett]

Blah, blah, blah

Continued fail!

Just because the fire department takes 10 minutes to come out and spray a grease fire on a stove with a fire extinguisher doesn't mean it cost them a few dollars in salary. There's still a major cost, to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year, to keep that fire department running. You need to allocate that overhead to all of the fires put out.

Do you also think that everyone who pays for insurance should get their money back if they don't make any claims?

If you ever become anything other than a burger flipper, please tell us where you work. I want to watch the company crash and burn.

 

[HAL9000]

his taxable income level is below the minimum.
Similar to here in the US.
Until you actually earn $8K or such); your Federal and state income tax levels o not apply.
Student loans are not considered income and you can also lower your taxable income by counting your tuition.

Pay attention to the tax thread coming soon:biggrin:

Exactly, the limit is £7,750 I actually have a lot higher income than that but none of the rest is taxable.

 

[BoberFett]

It was just an example not to be taken literally. Oh wait..its you..figured youd botch it up.

It's a example from a stupid person. You could charge people $100,000 and nobody would pay because they know you'll still put out the fire no matter what, and you can just ignore the bill later.

These stories about watching homes burn sure brings a lot of you imbeciles out.

 

[DougK62]

1. The residents elected to not pay for fire support with their taxes.
2. Fire department gives residents the option to pay for it yearly if they want to.
3. Someone doesn't pay for it and their house burns down.

I just don't see where the problem is.

 

[HAL9000]

1. The residents elected to not pay for fire support with their taxes.
2. Fire department gives residents the option to pay for it yearly if they want to.
3. Someone doesn't pay for it and their house burns down.

I just don't see where the problem is.

These bits are the problem for me.

1. The residents should be able to elect not to pay for fire support.
2. See 1
1. See above.

 

[BoberFett]

They shouldn't have had that choice, it should be a legal, national requirement that local government provide fire service paid for by taxes.

So out in the middle of vast farmland, it should be a requirement that the local government provide fire service? Damn, it's gonna suck to be a farmer. Their property taxes are going to be hundreds of thousands of dollars per year.

 

[HAL9000]

So out in the middle of vast farmland, it should be a requirement that the local government provide fire service? Damn, it's gonna suck to be a farmer. Their property taxes are going to be hundreds of thousands of dollars per year.

Why? You think it should be a higher value depending where you live? I don't.... The fire service should cost the same wherever: national tax.

 

[DougK62]

These bits are the problem for me.

1. The residents should be able to elect not to pay for fire support.
2. See 1
1. See above.

Uhhh...they did.

 

[HAL9000]

Uhhh...they did.

Damn, that was a typoo. It should have been "The residents should not be able to elect not to pay for fire support."

 

[Vic Vega]

wtf?, since when does someone need to pay a special fee for the firefighters that is above and beyond the long list of taxes and fees?

Probably when it becomes cost prohibitive to maintain a fire department out in the middle of BFE where the very few residents are spread across 30 square miles or so. There is literally not enough tax revenue to support them, so they have to pay the fee. This is not unreasonable.

 

[BoberFett]

Why? You think it should be a higher value depending where you live? I don't.... The fire service should cost the same wherever: national tax.

Ah, so you're going to charge people who maintain a fire department that covers 5,000 homes the same amount as the fire department that covers 50 homes. Yeah, that sounds fair.

Also being a firefighter at that country location sounds like a pretty sweet gig, since I imagine the pay would have to be identical from one station to another, right? What are the odds that one of those 50 homes will catch on fire? Hell, you'd get paid to sit around and do nothing for years!

 

[Capt Caveman]

Put a lien on the property. Problem solved.

How? These properties are outside of their legal jurisdiction.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

Probably when it becomes cost prohibitive to maintain a fire department out in the middle of BFE where the very few residents are spread across 30 square miles or so. There is literally not enough tax revenue to support them, so they have to pay the fee. This is not unreasonable.

That doesn't really make sense. If they can support a fire a department with 90% of the population paying the $75 fee they should just increase taxes by that amount. This is a basic public service and just don't see the benefit in making it optional especially considering the fire department has to show up anyway to make sure it doesn't spread. These people will now end up on public assistance and will ending up costing the tax payers much more.

Optional fire protection is just a bad public policy.

 

[HAL9000]

Ah, so you're going to charge people who maintain a fire department that covers 5,000 homes the same amount as the fire department that covers 50 homes. Yeah, that sounds fair.

Also being a firefighter at that country location sounds like a pretty sweet gig, since I imagine the pay would have to be identical from one station to another, right? What are the odds that one of those 50 homes will catch on fire? Hell, you'd get paid to sit around and do nothing for years!

I'm not going to do anything, why not google how places like New Zealand or Canada do things and do that,

It's up to local governments how they fund it, but they should have to fund it.

 

[Lifted]

Then you made a bad choice, it's a failure on the part of the country.

I'm curious what your grades are as you come off as a total fool on this forum.

Size:
USA 9,826,675 km2
England 130,395 km2

Density:
USA 33.7/km2
England 395/km2

 

[HAL9000]

I'm curious what your grades are as you come off as a total fool on this forum.

I'm on for a 2:1

 

[BoberFett]

Why? You think it should be a higher value depending where you live? I don't.... The fire service should cost the same wherever: national tax.

It's up to local governments how they fund it, but they should have to fund it.

Are you a complete imbecile?

 

[theeedude]

Firefighters were nice enough to show up and make sure no one was physically hurt. That is more than the home owners paid for.

 

[HAL9000]

Are you a complete imbecile?

No are you?

 

[Vic Vega]

That doesn't really make sense. If they can support a fire a department with 90% of the population paying the $75 fee they should just increase taxes by that amount. This is a basic public service and just don't see the benefit in making it optional especially considering the fire department has to show up anyway to make sure it doesn't spread. These people will now end up on public assistance and will ending up costing the tax payers much more.

Optional fire protection is just a bad public policy.

Well, my guess is they were already on public assistance - I mean, they live in a double wide (cheap) out in BFE (cheap)... it sounds like they didn't own the property and had the trailer on the mother's land.

As far as raising taxes go, good luck getting the people who vote to raise taxes - these people voted to create the current system. There is no THEY that you speak off. Most local governments can't unilaterally raise taxes as they see fit.

I agree fire protection is a basic service, in this case the people in that area have determined the cost to be $75 per house per year. I'm not saying to let the house burn down but the mayor has a point after all. These fire fighters have to be paid, the trucks have to be maintained, the water network has to be maintained. The cost was determined and applied. Pay up!

 

[BoberFett]

No are you?

Read your posts that I quoted again. The correct answer is yes, and you can't even get that right.

 

[HAL9000]

Read your posts that I quoted again. The correct answer is yes, and you can't even get that right.

I read them.

 

[BoberFett]

Now you're just trolling.

Go back to being a amnesiac or whatever the fuck you claim to be and forget you ever found this forum.