Fire Fighters Refuse to Fight Fire, Homeowners Forgot to Pay Fee

Discussion in 'Politics' started by spidergoat, Oct 6, 2010.

  1. spidergoat Venued Serial Memberlist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,811
    I wonder if the fee also includes arson investigation? Or is that free? Doesn't letting it burn down entirely tend to hide the evidence?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    Because it's a form of fraud.

    And not because you received services without paying for them - otherwise it would also be a crime to be a poor person who only owed in taxes whatever the evader ended up paying (supposing they both received the same services).
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. spidergoat Venued Serial Memberlist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,811
    Should police protect homeless people from murder?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Cowboy My Aim Is True Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,707
    So it's fraud to refuse to pay the taxes that fund the services, but not fraud to demand the services you haven't paid for?
     
  8. Cowboy My Aim Is True Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,707
    Not the same thing. Murder is a violation of one's rights. This incident with the fire wasn't (as far as we know).

    To me, this is no different than someone who refuses to buy an extended warranty on their car and then demands free repairs after the time/mileage has been exceeded on the regular warranty.

    The government has an obligation to protect people from crime, but not from their own stinginess or from being short-sighted.
     
  9. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    It's fraud to misrepresent your income to the IRS and other relevant tax agencies.
     
  10. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    If I was the sort of person who took Atlas Shrugged seriously, I'd respond that police should murder homeless people to protect the producers from taxation.
     
  11. Cowboy My Aim Is True Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,707
    It wouldn't be fraud to tell the government exactly what you earned, but then refuse to pay taxes.
     
  12. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    There's a difference between Fireman, people who put out fires, and the Fire Chief, who is their boss.

    You asked why didn't the Fireman turn on the hose?

    The reason is their boss, the Fire Chief. said not to.

    You could disobey the Chief, and possibly lose your job, but knowing how sought after the job of Fireman is, I don't think many fireman would disobey their Chief just to save some property.

    Arthur
     
  13. countezero Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,590
    A good point.

    This, as I believe you are beginning to understand, is a rather foolish question. It also is strikingly ignorant of the fact that the government provides plenty of services people do not pay for, either directly or otherwise. That is, a healthy portion of our population doesn't pay income taxes at all. Nor do they pay fees for "national defense" and such like minded things (IE public goods). And I've yet to see a tax bill that is itemized in such a way that I understand what services I can expect for my income forfeiture.

    In other words, the notion that the government is selling a service to people is both dangerous and stupid. It is providing a service, which is something wholly different, and something entirely wound up in the idea of social contracts and the rights the governed forfeit to actually be governed in the first place. I'd rank safety and protection of property high on the list. And I'd also point out that the government doesn't stop providing services to people in bankruptcy or who are behind on taxes, so all this talk about the fee as some kind of quid pro quo misses the mark (in addition to ignoring the moral questions I've already raised).

    To put it more bluntly, as a colleague of mine said today at work: These are firemen. By the very definition of their title, of their job, they "fight" fires. These firemen chose to not fight a fire and to watch a building burn. Shame on them.
     
  14. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    Actually insurance companies do exactly that, the farther you live from the fire house the higher your premium, if you live in the county it is higher still, and if there is no fire department, BOHIC

    If you really want to compare apples to apples, just look at the California Fire season and the number of homes that are allowed to burn to the ground with no response from local fire departments.....



    2007
    Oct. 21–25, southern Calif.: 16 wildfires from Simi Valley to the Mexican border were fanned by 50 to 60 mph winds and burned nearly 500,000 acres. Three people died, 25 firefighters and civilians were injured, and nearly 1,300 homes were destroyed. Over 500,000 people evacuated their homes while nearly 1,000 firefighters fought the flames.


    Read more: Worst U.S. Forest Fires — Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0778688.html#ixzz11d30JquW
     
  15. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,055
    there are philosophies that deny that there are public goods
     
  16. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    No countzero, everything the government provides is paid for by the tax payer, or put on the tax payers tab with deficit spending.
     
  17. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,908
    You missed the point completely buffalo roam and your comparison is not apples to apples. If homes are allowed to burn in California is is because of resources and the risk to firefighters. And that is not the issue at hand here.
     
    Last edited: Oct 7, 2010
  18. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    Its a ridiculous way they go about things in that town because all they needed to do was raise taxes $75 anf the "fee" would have been contained in the taxes because there is NO difference between a fee and a tax.
     
  19. spidergoat Venued Serial Memberlist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,811
    After the blaze, South Fulton police arrested one of Cranick's sons, Timothy Allen Cranick, on an aggravated assault charge, according to WPSD-TV, an NBC station in Paducah, Ky.

    Police told WPSD that the younger Cranick attacked Fire Chief David Wilds at the firehouse because he was upset his father's house was allowed to burn.​


    I wonder how much it cost to arrest this guy and all the related court costs. All because they didn't want to do their jobs. They already freaking drove there to stare at it! I can't say I could have controlled myself if my pets were dying in there. Not that they have to risk their lives to save my pets, just point the hose at the building!

    United we stand, divided we fall motherfuckers.
     
  20. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    Yes and although the kid was in the wrong- I agree with temporary insanity. His better reasoning was emotionally compromised.

    Watching the video, the fire chief acts like a total ass. He called the cops on the reporters who were simply flabbergasted that they sat there and watched it burn.
    The cops didn't even bother to show up to that call...

    He was trying to abuse his authority.
     
  21. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    Nor would it be tax evasion. That would be tax resistance.
     
  22. countezero Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,590
    It's a basic tenet of economics, so far as I am aware.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_goods

    Sure, but my main point is that there are plenty of people not paying income taxes or property taxes who nonetheless benefit from the services these taxes provide -- IE, schooling, police and fire, etc. My second -- and very much related -- point is that public goods, like national defense and public safety are used by all, despite not being paid for by all.

    There are also cases where the government manages public goods, such as resources, like water access, but provides no services and thus requires no spending. Sure, something like Park Rangers are paid for by tax money, but the lake or whatever it is they oversee is a public good, and it simply exists.

    However, I reiterate again that I think all these theory of government and taxation issues -- and the subsequent barking about freeloading from the site's hard core right -- conveniently sidesteps the moral questions available here. Not that this is surprising. American life, and most especially, American business, seems designed these days to help people avoid facing the very real moral decisions they make (to say nothing of the consequences). People like to just be able to point to something and say it's in the contract or it's a rule, as if this frees their actions or inactions from any sort of moral calculus. It does not.
     
    Last edited: Oct 7, 2010
  23. Cowboy My Aim Is True Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,707
    Which I'm assuming is also illegal. How do you feel about that?
     

Share This Page