• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

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

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
mvbighead said:
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.
Click to expand...


This scenario has been broken down already. If everyone chose to just pay per incident, the fire department wouldnt collect anything. If the choice was either $500 IF your house is on fire or $75 every year, most people (especially trailer park people) would choose the pay later option.($500 IF their house catches fire)
 
soulcougher73 said:
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.
Click to expand...

How naive. Charge them $300 to put out a fire and watch everyone in the county cancel their coverage.
 
mvbighead said:
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.
Click to expand...

LOL, epic budget fail!

You think it costs $500 to put out a fire? Do you have no concept of overhead? How many fires do you think happen every year in any given city? Divide the total cost of all firefighters salaries, plus the cost of all equipment, real estate, etc. Divide that by the number of fires and you have the real cost of putting out the fire. It's likely in the tens of thousands of dollars. People living in a trailer home in the middle of nowhere probably don't make that much money in a year.
 
mvbighead said:
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.
Click to expand...

?????? How do you expect people that are unwilling to pay $75 for fire insurance after another house burned down for unwilling to pay last year to pay even a higher cost after the fire has already been extinguished?

The FD has no legal recourse to make these people pay.
 
Liken this to auto insurance.

If you opt not to pay your insurance premium, should your insurance company still cover you if you have an accident? Should they then let you pay the premium after you've had an accident and they've paid for repairs?
 
JulesMaximus said:
I guess TN is just all rural? No tax money to spend on stuff like fire departments? Do they just let the roads go to hell in those areas too? Are all the children home schooled?

Yet another reason not to live in middle amerika I guess.
Click to expand...

Are you really that fucking stupid? WTF does the STATE of TN have to do with anything.
 
I totally agree with the city/fire department. However, I would give the owners an option to pay some ridiculous amount, like $10,000 if they want their house saved. The problem is trying to verify they are good enough for the money in the critical 5(?) minutes before the firefighting needs to start.
 
sygyzy said:
I totally agree with the city/fire department. However, I would give the owners an option to pay some ridiculous amount, like $10,000 if they want their house saved. The problem is trying to verify they are good enough for the money in the critical 5(?) minutes before the firefighting needs to start.
Click to expand...

Hah, I can just imagine fireman pulling out a card reader to charge you during fire.
 
HAL9000 said:
We are but I don't earn enough to pay tax, most of my income comes from my student loan
Click to expand...


So you leach off the system. No wonder you love the UK so much 🙄

I don't see anything wrong with what the fire department did. It's not like they let the family burn to death. Just their possessions, which, if they really cared about, they would have paid the $75 fee.
 
As long as the folks aren't habitual fire offenders, I don't see why they couldn't just put out the fire and bill them later for it. It seems cruel to let their house burn down, but I'm probably in the minority on that one.
 
BoomerD said:
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:
Click to expand...

Do they know what a dump is?

And that they might have to drive over a gravel road to get to the station?

And heaven forbid; empty out the barrels!
 
bignateyk said:
So you leach off the system. No wonder you love the UK so much 🙄

I don't see anything wrong with what the fire department did. It's not like they let the family burn to death. Just their possessions, which, if they really cared about, they would have paid the $75 fee.
Click to expand...

Fuck sake for the fifth time in this damn thread, I have paid tax before, I'm not currently eligible to pay tax, when I finish university I will do. As with every other student in the country, we aren't eligible to pay tax yet, we start out this way then when we have full time jobs we lay tax.

Children don't pay taxes does that make them leeches? No. Just because I'm not eligible to pay tax currently doesn't mean I'm a leech.
 
polarmystery said:
As long as the folks aren't habitual fire offenders, I don't see why they couldn't just put out the fire and bill them later for it. It seems cruel to let their house burn down, but I'm probably in the minority on that one.
Click to expand...
Where do you draw the line?

The owners made a choice and it burned them.😛

Does everyone need to be coddled from cradle to grave and rewarded for their bad decisions.😕
 
polarmystery said:
As long as the folks aren't habitual fire offenders, I don't see why they couldn't just put out the fire and bill them later for it. It seems cruel to let their house burn down, but I'm probably in the minority on that one.
Click to expand...

As argued for the 390485903485 time, because there would be no incentive to pay the fee until your house burns.
 
HAL9000 said:
Fuck sake for the fifth time in this damn thread, I have paid tax before, I'm not currently eligible to pay tax, when I finish university I will do. As with every other student in the country, we aren't eligible to pay tax yet, we start out this way then when we have full time jobs we lay tax.

Children don't pay taxes does that make them leeches? No. Just because I'm not eligible to pay tax currently doesn't mean I'm a leech.
Click to expand...

Not eligible?
el·i·gi·ble/ˈeləjəbəl/
Adjective:
Having the right to do or obtain something; satisfying the appropriate conditions.
Click to expand...

You may not have enough income to require you to pay taxes...that doesn't mean you're not "eligible."

Here in the US of A, children MAY have to pay taxes if their income is high enough...
 
polarmystery said:
As long as the folks aren't habitual fire offenders, I don't see why they couldn't just put out the fire and bill them later for it. It seems cruel to let their house burn down, but I'm probably in the minority on that one.
Click to expand...

Once again, the city has no authority to bill the folks who live outside the city limits. It would be FAR easier if they simply stopped providing fire protection at the city limits...but they've offered to extend the service...IF someone pays the $75 fee in advance.
I think everyone agrees that it's cruel to let the fire burn...BUT, it's a decision the homeowners made when they failed to pay the fee.
 
BoomerD said:
Not eligible?


You may not have enough income to require you to pay taxes...that doesn't mean you're not "eligible."

Here in the US of A, children MAY have to pay taxes if their income is high enough...
Click to expand...

Mmkay, my income isn't high enough. I'm not taxed on my income as my income is below the level at which point you are required to pay tax. My taxable income is below £7,750 so I don't pay income tax

I do not have the right to pay income tax as I don't meet the certain requirements. I'm not eligible
 
Last edited:
HAL9000 said:
Mmkay, my income isn't high enough. I'm not taxed on my income as my income is below the level at which point you are required to pay tax. My taxable income is below £7,750 so I don't pay income tax

I do not have the right to pay income tax as I don't meet the certain requirements. I'm not eligible
Click to expand...

Damn...you ARE a fucking leech. Who pays your rent and buys your food for you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top