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

[Macamus Prime]

It was a home, not a house. They lived in a mobile home.

Next up; you have to pay for police coverage as well. Welcome to the United States of Corporate Capitalism. Where you have to pay for everything AND still get taxed up the ass.

 

[JTsyo]

Why rehash all this? Just read the other thread.

 

[sonambulo]

It's the internet. We're all bored and have nothing better to do, that's why

 

[slag]

So put a lien on the (now NOT burned down) property.

What's so hard about that?

Lien on a trailer.. hmm, yeah, who would want to buy a trailer that had been in a fire?

 

[soulcougher73]

Ha Personal Responsibility strikes again. Sometimes your gambles in life dont plan out. I do think its silly to show up on a scene only to sit and watch the bonfire. Maybe they should just have them sign a quick legal contract agreement for like 4x the total. So $300 to put it out. Fire dept still come out ahead since $300 is better than the $75 they would have gotten plus you dont have it on you conscience that you could have saved someones burning house but instead you roasted marshmellows.

I for one think its silly they didnt pay the $75 and voted against fire dept in their area, but at the same time if i were a fireman no way i could just sit there any not do anything either. For me it would be a personal responsibility vs. ethical conflict.

 

[EagleKeeper]

My face literally just dropped when you said that.

The grand total for all of that stuff for me would be: £35.

And who is covering the cost differential.

Not you - you are freeloading off of others.

You chose to not pay your fair share..

I haven't chosen not to, I'm not eligible to pay my fair share, when I'm older I will be, when I'm not a student I will be. It will happen.

Students are not allowed to work and pay taxes?

 

[thecrecarc]

It was a home, not a house. They lived in a mobile home.

Next up; you have to pay for police coverage as well. Welcome to the United States of Corporate Capitalism. Where you have to pay for everything AND still get taxed up the ass.

Once again, they AREN'T paying for it. Their rural government does not have a fire department, and they obviously do not have to pay for one either.

It is a completely different city government that offers to provide a fire departments service, but since it isn't free to extend coverage to another completely different area, charges a modest fee. The city government DOES NOT get tax revenue from these people.

 

[TwiceOver]

Hal, I'm just curious, what is the tax rate over there. From what I have read countries with sponsored healthcare like Canada and the UK also enjoy ~15-20% more in taxes. Just wondering if this is true.

As for the OP... I think it's BS that the fire department had to roll all the way out there and then do nothing. They should know from the call immediately if they can help or not. Once there, they should have been obligated to help. But... $75 depending on your area is worth it or not. In a real fire if you are 20 minutes out of town, there's no point.

 

[jlee]

Hal, I'm just curious, what is the tax rate over there. From what I have read countries with sponsored healthcare like Canada and the UK also enjoy ~15-20% more in taxes. Just wondering if this is true.

As for the OP... I think it's BS that the fire department had to roll all the way out there and then do nothing. They should know from the call immediately if they can help or not. Once there, they should have been obligated to help. But... $75 depending on your area is worth it or not. In a real fire if you are 20 minutes out of town, there's no point.

I posted a list of TN tax rates, as well as exact property tax amounts for all individuals with the same last name as those in the OP.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=32674584&postcount=60
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=32674757&postcount=104

 

[TwiceOver]

I posted a list of TN tax rates, as well as exact property tax amounts for all individuals with the same last name as those in the OP.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=32674584&postcount=60
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=32674757&postcount=104

No, Hal was going on and on about healthcare so I wanted to know what the tax rates were like in the UK.

 

[jlee]

ahh, ok. I doubt he'll know since he doesn't pay them.

 

[actuarial]

Hal, I'm just curious, what is the tax rate over there. From what I have read countries with sponsored healthcare like Canada and the UK also enjoy ~15-20% more in taxes. Just wondering if this is true.

As for the OP... I think it's BS that the fire department had to roll all the way out there and then do nothing. They should know from the call immediately if they can help or not. Once there, they should have been obligated to help. But... $75 depending on your area is worth it or not. In a real fire if you are 20 minutes out of town, there's no point.

I've gone over this in other threads, but taxes are higher in Canada, but not nearly 15-20% of income (unless you mean 15-20% higher than the US, so for example taxed at 36% as opposed to 30%, which would be closer).

That's just provincial + federal income tax vs state + federal income tax though. It's really hard to include property and sales taxes into the equation.

It also doesn't include the fact that the deficit in the US as a % of what is collected is far higher than it is in Canada. The US government is spending more of your money that ours is, it's just collecting less up front.

 

[OutHouse]

My small town has no police. So the town pays the county sheriffs dept to have a dedicated officer to patrol the town 30 hours a week

 

[LookBehindYou]

Oh my! Am I talking to one of the "I'm so glad to have a job I'll bend over and take it up the ass" brigade? Worthless people receive pay according their worthlessness. Since that appears to be the mentality you have...

Well said.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Once again, they AREN'T paying for it. Their rural government does not have a fire department, and they obviously do not have to pay for one either.

It is a completely different city government that offers to provide a fire departments service, but since it isn't free to extend coverage to another completely different area, charges a modest fee. The city government DOES NOT get tax revenue from these people.

Some people do not understand the government structure.

They are used to a cradle to grave system by the city for themselves and the state/federal for everyone needs beyond that.

County government and rural addresses are a foreign concept.

 

[BoomerD]

Some people do not understand the government structure.

They are used to a cradle to grave system by the city for themselves and the state/federal for everyone else.

County and rural addresses are a foreign concept.

Can you imagine the amount of crying that would happen if they ever moved somewhere that required them to haul their own trash to the dump? :whiste:

 

[Hugo Drax]

Ha Personal Responsibility strikes again. Sometimes your gambles in life dont plan out. I do think its silly to show up on a scene only to sit and watch the bonfire. Maybe they should just have them sign a quick legal contract agreement for like 4x the total. So $300 to put it out. Fire dept still come out ahead since $300 is better than the $75 they would have gotten plus you dont have it on you conscience that you could have saved someones burning house but instead you roasted marshmellows.

I for one think its silly they didnt pay the $75 and voted against fire dept in their area, but at the same time if i were a fireman no way i could just sit there any not do anything either. For me it would be a personal responsibility vs. ethical conflict.

It wont work. Then no one will pay the 75 dollars a year and only call when there is a fire and pay the 300 dollars.

The reason its 75 a year is because over 10 years you might have one or two fires but the cost of putting it out etc.. has been funded by all the years of everyone in aggregate paying for the insurance.

If you let them off the hook you then no one is gonna pay since they would figure out, pay 750 for 10 years or risk it and only pay 300 when there is a fire.

 

[LookBehindYou]

It wont work. Then no one will pay the 75 dollars a year and only call when there is a fire and pay the 300 dollars.

The reason its 75 a year is because over 10 years you might have one or two fires but the cost of putting it out etc.. has been funded by all the years of everyone in aggregate paying for the insurance.

If you let them off the hook you then no one is gonna pay since they would figure out, pay 750 for 10 years or risk it and only pay 300 when there is a fire.

Be careful running around spewing that kind of logic in here. You will confuse many posters in this thread...

 

[TheSlamma]

Republican famous last words "It won't happen to me"

 

[ViviTheMage]

Their home owners insurance should pay this, it seems like it would be in THEIR best interest

 

[LookBehindYou]

Their home owners insurance should pay this, it seems like it would be in THEIR best interest

I think I read in a different article they didn't have insurance.

 

[hdfxst]

Their home owners insurance should pay this, it seems like it would be in THEIR best interest

the first thing i thought about when i read this is how does the ins.company handle this.

 

[ViviTheMage]

I think I read in a different article they didn't have insurance.

Okay, then that's pretty stupid of them to pay neither home insurance, or fire 'insurance'.

I figure it'd be a donation of $75 to donate to firemen, which I probably do all year long anyway (firemen fundraisers and stuff).

 

[actuarial]

Okay, then that's pretty stupid of them to pay neither home insurance, or fire 'insurance'.

I figure it'd be a donation of $75 to donate to firemen, which I probably do all year long anyway (firemen fundraisers and stuff).

I imagine there could be some kind of exclusion in the insurance policy for failing to obtain fire protection even if they did have it.

 

[mvbighead]

Can't say I disagree with the firefighters, but I think there has to be a better option.

If the $75 is paid, the fire is dealt with as expected.

If the $75 is not paid, the fire is dealt with as expected, and a bill for services rendered is then issued. This bill should be in great excess of the costs associated with fighting fires. So if there are 5 paid FFs (at $20 bucks and hour), 3 hours of firefighting, and equipment etc., the bill should be in excess of $500.

So then, your choice winds up being... pay $75 yearly, or pay per incident. Your choice.

It's a win for the fire dept so long as they bill appropriately for services rendered to unsubscribed customers. It's simply a matter of collecting, which I would assume could be problematic.

On the other hand, then that makes the FD look bad as they'll be going after money from a family that just experienced some loss.

I dunno, they're sending a clear message. It's probably the most straight forward clear message to send for this case. Pay the annual $75, or risk watching it all burn.