God bless the South Fulton Fire Department

[Camikaze]

I'm curious to know what these sorts of fire departments would be if there was, say, a car crash? Do they just not deal with car crashes or anything other than house fires, or is there a separate payment scheme built into car registration that pays for that service as well?

 

[Abegweit]

I'm curious to know what these sorts of fire departments would be if there was, say, a car crash? Do they just not deal with car crashes or anything other than house fires, or is there a separate payment scheme built into car registration that pays for that service as well?

This is all about bureaucrats playing control games over their minions. If you won't pay the extortionate rates we demand for "protection", then we will ensure that you have no protection at all. It's no different from the Mafia.

 

[SerriaFox]

It's no different from the Mafia.

Wrong, I don't believe the the fire department set the blaze, like a good Mafia would.

As other have said before, It a free loader problem. $75 is not a lot to pay for protection. The only reason the fire department responses at all is to make sure no one is in danger and that fire does not spread. Should fire response be paid for by taxes yes, but until the country bumpkins outside of the city agree to pay city taxes it is not going to be.

 

[Silurian]

look, your a cracker at hamburger economics, but fire services are different if south fulton only has ONE fire in a year .... mr Smiths garbage bin catches fire the cost of putting that fire out is the full budget... say $2,000,000.00 but if their is a bad year and there is 1000 fires... really bad two storey infernos... by your method in the bad year ...it only costs $2000 a fire... like i said before

your not taking into account the fact that the citzens of South Fullton want a fire service even if there were no fires one year... so their are fixed costs that bear no relation to the fire itself or cost per fire... the peace of mind cost

the actuall cost of attending callouts is the same as a practice real fire Drill
the cost of getting there is a fixed cost anyhow, THEY ARE BEING SENT THERE, and returning, I am not saying they should get that for free , I am saying at present its a cost that no one pays for

if you charge them $10, 000 and they have a traller that needs reparing after the fire, a lot of poor people would drive off into the sunset and it would not be recovered, you know like rich CEO's do when the company is in trouble, they go into liquidation , but if you charge a more resonable fee say $1k-2k it will be rcoverable and most likely affordale and gives an incentive to pay a voulantary levy of $75 a year to other's... or is it a given that trailer trash are ALL bad selfish freeloaders

an added bonus is that with say 10 fires like this a year it actually raises the avalible budget

the real farce of it is that another city sent a truck as well, to stop 2 blocks away where they could see the fire was in the trailer park and was not covered


it appears no one is happy with the subscriptions, but the poor who probally don't vote or even understand the political infighting suffer again...

So if they were sent a bill say "a more resonable fee say $1k" how many people would pay it.

 

[Old Hippy]

So if they were sent a bill say "a more resonable fee say $1k" how many people would pay it.

most resonable people ... as is paid by reasonable people with the subcripton at present, note its a subcription at present... not a tax or levy... NOT all people within the city limits would pay a vouluntary subcription, but the fire dept would put out fires of these people, without second thought

it boils down to the fact that both south fulton and Union city (who sent the other fire truck) are of the view that people who live in Trailers are different, a view I think would be shared by some posters too ... remember that 2 fire trucks from different cities were sent, getting to within site of the fire, when a police patrol car already on site radioed in that it was a trailer in the Trailer Park and the trucks were recalled thats 3 different units from 2 cities in attendance.. and nothing was done, to me resonable is one thing , to others firemen watching a house burn down is another more reasonable thing

all I have done is offer several alternatives which work well in other parts of the world as solutions to what their own fire chief calls an "ongoing problem" and actually agree with what he would like ... a county tax which would lower the cost to the subcribers

Have you contrbuted anything except to point out how bad these now homeless people are and that its only right that they are punnished this way, or did i miss a positive alternative in your posts, if i did sorry

 

[aelf]

I can hardly understand the point the above poster is making. If the possibility of seeing your home burn down without getting any help is not enough disincentive not to pay the fee, why would levying a $1000 charge work?

 

[Abegweit]

Wrong, I don't believe the the fire department set the blaze, like a good Mafia would.

The first victim of these extortionists offered to pay anything they wanted in order have them stop the flames. No Mafioso would turn that down. Only the state is so criminally wasteful of resources.

As other have said before, It a free loader problem.

Indeed it is. They are overpaid, underworked and fundamentally useless. State-run fire departments should be abolished. All of them.

 

[Old Hippy]

I can hardly understand the point the above poster is making. If the possibility of seeing your home burn down without getting any help is not enough disincentive not to pay the fee, why would levying a $1000 charge work?

it works the same as my ambulance subcription... i pay $75 a year my familiy gets free ambulance cover... people who don't pay get billed... now if you were interstate and needed to be flown out of an outback area to a capital city then transfered to your own state city... they bill you say $5000- $7000... me no cost

because state goverments subsidise the service, people(poor) on health cards get free coverage too

THEY have a subcription service... THEY are watching houses burn down, THEY are sending units to respond anyhow... whats so hard about charging a resonable FEE...
and putting the DARN fire out, while they are there anyhow... some posters say charge them $10,000 others ... $30,000 to $36,000 when in US money, on a inexpensive transportable home I'm just saying charge them out of pocket expenses say $1k to $2K (not a levy) but charge them if they have no coverage

I said several times that a county tax would be about $55-$65 dollars and that would be the best solution ... as do all the fire chiefs involved agree too

the charge for attending the fire would work because ... they would put the DARN fire out, is not firemen putting fires out the whole point of the exercise...

your still worried about disinsentives, I'm offering souloutions to putting out fires, whats your souloution to the " on going problem " to quote the fire chief

 

[aelf]

Your posts are hard to read.

The solution to the "ongoing problem" is obviously to disincentivise free riding, which is the point of not actually doing anything to save free riders' property. It's cruel, yes, but if such cruel measures don't work, why would charging reasonable rates make people pay up?

Unless you're saying that having free riders who don't pay wouldn't really stop most of those who pay into the system from paying. That might be the case, and anyone who supports a social safety net must put some stock in such a belief.

But, you know what, the yearly fee is small so unless they can plead poverty I don't see the problem with paying it. And the fact there is no mass centrally-organised system for fire coverage suggests to me that there is an inherent problem with an ideological brand of anti-centralisation that precludes such a sensible set up. So, yeah, I really have no sympathy for those who fail to pay and get no fire coverage. Screwed up things happen in screwed up societies.

 

[Old Hippy]

Your posts are hard to read.

The solution to the "ongoing problem" is obviously to disincentivise free riding, which is the point of not actually doing anything to save free riders' property. It's cruel, yes, but if such cruel measures don't work, why would charging reasonable rates make people pay up?

just had a friend read my post, he understands it OK... it could be that you too are seeing it as an ecconomic problem ... i see it as fire burning homes down problem

but note again South Fulton has a subscription program of $75 per year, ITS NOT A TAX OR CITY LEVEY so its vouluntary now, I JUST know not every resident pays this, but ALL people within the city limits get fire coverage so the system itself allows for free loaders, also note that the fire chiefs in all the cities of the county see it not as a gaol to have a subscription system but as a stop gap to a county wide tax which would give a saving to the subscription payers

and as posted by others they are working towards this end, you too think people are not going to pay...perhaps this is more of a reflection on your attitudes to paying your own way, you imply these people are the type who would jump out of taxis without paying

as for the disincentive to pay a subcription... well even the fire chiefs see subscriptions as a short term solution, are you simply not giving it more wieght than it deserves, and a better stop gap is to charge people that don't pay it.

you system of letting houses burn down has been tried... in New York and London brass plaques can still be found on walls saying which fire brigade and insurance company will put the fire out .... and that system was found to be STUPID and abandon a long time ago

 

[Silurian]

most resonable people ... as is paid by reasonable people with the subcripton at present, note its a subcription at present... not a tax or levy... NOT all people within the city limits would pay a vouluntary subcription, but the fire dept would put out fires of these people, without second thought

So you think the rural people of Obion County are unresonable people since most do not even pay the existing call out fee which is less than the $1k to $2k you proposed.

Originally Posted by Obion County
According to survey information, over 75% of all municipal fire department’s structure calls are rural. All fire departments in Obion County charge a $500.00 fee per call in rural areas, but collections are, less than 50% and the fire departments have no way of legally collecting the charge. Therefore, the service was provided at the expense of the municipal tax payer.

http://troy.troytn.com/Obion County...tation Presented to the County Commission.pdf

 

[Old Hippy]

So you think the rural people of Obion County are unresonable people since most do not even pay the existing call out fee which is less than the $1k to $2k you proposed.



http://troy.troytn.com/Obion County...tation Presented to the County Commission.pdf

No, I think the people of the county are as reasonable as anyone, I know that some politicians are being unreasonable for their own ideological bent and purposes, else why can't they have a stop gap solution that stops firemen watching houses burn down, it use to happen 100 years ago ... other people solved it, can't be to difficult

don't you get it(you probably do) ... they don't have a call out fee, even when they get called out, they watch the place burn, they have a subscription, which from the link to the county fire committee that you provided , thank you list several options that the county can not agree on at present, the fire chiefs have stated, on subscriptions, that this is NOT their long term gaol, so if its short term and a county wide tax is GOING to come into effect eventually most people actually have the INCENTIVE (thats the positive of disincentive) to not pay any money and take the chance that they won't have a fire in the short term and to really on their insurance

your link also states that on jan 19th 1989 that Oberion county set up acommitee to.... blah blah blah

letting people homes burn is not about them being made to pay .... its about forcing polliticians/ being held responsible

 

[woody60707]

So what happens when no one pays the fee, and the Fire Department doesn't have money to put out anyones fire?

This is an "economic" problem, and not just an "put out fires" problem. Also why do you believe tax payers in the city should have to pay to put fires out in another town? This may as well be to different nations for all it matters. The city may very well not be able to impose any after the act fee legally. And even if the city can after the fact, it will have to go through the courts, which would just be cost ineffective.

These small towns voted not to have a fire tax. It's dumb, but you have to respect that. I think it's dumb America doesn't have National health care, it doesn't mean I think Canada morally has to take care all the Americans who get sick without health care.

 

[Camikaze]

letting people homes burn is not about them being made to pay .... its about forcing polliticians/ being held responsible

To me, letting houses burn down seems like an awfully callous way of making a political point.

 

[Traitorfish]

To me, letting houses burn down seems like an awfully callous way of making a political point.

That's why you need to learn a good poker face.

 

[Crezth]

To me, letting houses burn down seems like an awfully callous way of making a political point.

People are willing to do incredibly insane things just to make a political point.

 

[aelf]

just had a friend read my post, he understands it OK... it could be that you too are seeing it as an ecconomic problem ... i see it as fire burning homes down problem

but note again South Fulton has a subscription program of $75 per year, ITS NOT A TAX OR CITY LEVEY so its vouluntary now, I JUST know not every resident pays this, but ALL people within the city limits get fire coverage so the system itself allows for free loaders, also note that the fire chiefs in all the cities of the county see it not as a gaol to have a subscription system but as a stop gap to a county wide tax which would give a saving to the subscription payers

and as posted by others they are working towards this end, you too think people are not going to pay...perhaps this is more of a reflection on your attitudes to paying your own way, you imply these people are the type who would jump out of taxis without paying

as for the disincentive to pay a subcription... well even the fire chiefs see subscriptions as a short term solution, are you simply not giving it more wieght than it deserves, and a better stop gap is to charge people that don't pay it.

you system of letting houses burn down has been tried... in New York and London brass plaques can still be found on walls saying which fire brigade and insurance company will put the fire out .... and that system was found to be STUPID and abandon a long time ago

Maybe your friend really understands you - so you can be happy that you have a real friend - but I don't. What the hell are you saying? Nobody is arguing that the system is a good one, but it is what it is. Since people who don't live within the city limits don't apparently pay for fire coverage except through the subscription fee (otherwise, why are they charged this fee to begin with?), they should pay it to get fire coverage. If they don't pay it simply because they don't want to, then they shouldn't expect fire coverage.

Let me put it this way. Assuming that bus operators are not profit-seeking, do you think it's okay for bus drivers to let people who don't want to pay get on the buses? The buses are on their way to their destinations already anyway, right? Can you tell me what is wrong with this reasoning?

 

[Old Hippy]

Nobody is arguing that the system is a good one, but it is what it is. Since people who don't live within the city limits don't apparently pay for fire coverage except through the subscription fee (otherwise, why are they charged this fee to begin with?), they should pay it to get fire coverage. If they don't pay it simply because they don't want to, then they shouldn't expect fire coverage.

Let me put it this way. Assuming that bus operators are not profit-seeking, do you think it's okay for bus drivers to let people who don't want to pay get on the buses? The buses are on their way to their destinations already anyway, right? Can you tell me what is wrong with this reasoning?

but you are arguing that its the right way and best way there...
even the fire chiefs in the county say this way is not there long term Goal and is a stop gap, they say that a county wide tax is the answer. It is not the people in trailers that have delocked the county, its the polliticians, the tax would have overwhelming suport... as the fire chiefs say "more than 70% of people, pay $75 ...a fire tax on every one in the county would cost $55-65... who would not vote for lower payments

they set up a commisssion in 1989 to solve this problem, nothing was done till last year when it reached stalemate at the political level and they decided to let homes burn.... it has nothing to do with poor people refusing to pay

I given three different options , of how its done elsewhere with small volunteer fire brigades and said the way you support was tried 100 years ago and found to be blinking STUPID...

I pay my bus fare, yes it annoys me when people get on and tell the driver they have no money, and he waves them through, and yes it annoys me that people hop on trains and trams and don't pay.... hope the inspectors catch and issue them a fine

But the tram/train/bus system works, just... a system that lets firemen watch house's burn down ...
lets pay the guy who organised this a bonus
if they have a wild fire, they would watch as it spread to 2 adjoing properties then 3 more properties... as the 4 mile fire front approaches south fulton i can just hear some firefighter say "just another 100 yards and that barn ... the guys paid a subscription"

then one can only hope that thier Cabs are burn over protected (which i saw, are not at present)

 

[aelf]

I still have no idea what point you're trying to make. Is English your first language?

I've never said that anything is "right" or "best" other than a central fire coverage system paid for by taxes - you know, the normal arrangement by the standards of most developed countries. I'm just saying that allowing free riders to ride free will perpetuate the free rider problem, particularly when the cost that each individual is supposed to bear is pretty trivial such that it's not going to be a difference between life and death and there's no compelling reason to free ride that warrants addressing.

As it is, you don't even seem to be addressing that point at all. Instead, you seem enamoured with the idea of charging those who don't pay the fee a "reasonable rate" should they need the services of the fire department. And that's just ignoring the problem. What if those people don't pay up? And how are the local authorities supposed to maintain fire coverage on a pay-as-you-go basis? Have you thought of that?

 

[Old Hippy]

I still have no idea what point you're trying to make. Is English your first language?

I've never said that anything is "right" or "best" other than a central fire coverage system paid for by taxes - you know, the normal arrangement by the standards of most developed countries. I'm just saying that allowing free riders to ride free will perpetuate the free rider problem, particularly when the cost that each individual is supposed to bear is pretty trivial such that it's not going to be a difference between life and death and there's no compelling reason to free ride that warrants addressing.

As it is, you don't even seem to be addressing that point at all. Instead, you seem enamored with the idea of charging those who don't pay the fee a "reasonable rate" should they need the services of the fire department. And that's just ignoring the problem. What if those people don't pay up? And how are the local authorities supposed to maintain fire coverage on a pay-as-you-go basis? Have you thought of that?

don't get your nickers in a knot,
I HAVE address that point, several times, i keep saying the fire chiefs themselves see the present system of subscriptions NOT as a long term GOAL

and that a central tax is the long term goal ... according to interviews given by several fire chiefs over the preceding days

I have also offered several alternatives which are used in other places and work, as a solution to the problem of firemen watching houses burn down, THAT CAN BE USED AS A STOPGAP, till the political argy bargy is sorted through

when reading, people should really approach the text without any preconceived ideas,
I'm saying their current system is stupid and rather than go and watch a house burn down, put the fire out and charge them a reasonable/affordable FEE now if they go to a house with a subcription... well obviously the don't charge them a fee

No more firemen watching houses burn down... it solves the short term problem of firemen watching houses burn down

the political problem, well thats been going on since 1989, so i think imposing a charge on unsubcribed homes is a reasonable proposition till they sort themselves out

Your enamoured with the idea that its not agood idea ... that letting firemen watch houses burn down is somehow better