• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Firefighters watch as home burns to the ground

I just told you. Look up. ;)

We must have posted at the same time, because I didn't see it earlier... but it makes sense they would value large livestock like that, because they are an investment and farmers expect some future economic benefit from them. They are assets on the farm, but they still can't be depreciated for tax purposes. Thanks for sharing
 
We must have posted at the same time, because I didn't see it earlier... but it makes sense they would value large livestock like that, because they are an investment and farmers expect some future economic benefit from them. They are assets on the farm, but they still can't be depreciated for tax purposes. Thanks for sharing

Btw, my last paragraph was specifically about domestic pets, not livestock. The livestock was just an example of animals shown as property and my summary underneath was in relation to your question of placing value on a dog/cat/bird etc.
 
This story is a travesty. Letting a house burn down because a fee wasn't paid. You deal with the emergency first, and then you bill them later.

Just when you think the modern world can't get anymore greed-driven, you're surprised yet again.





wait so, these firefighters are supposed to risk thier lives for folks who are unwilling to pay the entire department 75 a year for thier services?


If this was the first time, id say you had a clue, however this is the second time they refused to pay..... **** em, they got exactly what they deserved.
 
In the situation before us a property owner elected not to pay for firefighting services and lost his property as a result. Many suggest the only moral solution is to levy taxes to support firefighting services. My question is, what makes this solution moral? Why is the morality of the firefighters being questioned and not the morality of the homeowner?

1) Let's start with the "levy taxes to support firefighting services" case. Taxes are oft compared to "proper dues for living in a civilized society", indeed the homeowner is legally obligated to pay them. If he does not pay his property taxes the government will issue a tax lien [1] on his property which may lead to foreclosure [2]. With a tax lien the owner has the option of paying the delinquent taxes (plus extra penalties, interest, etc.) to avoid foreclosure. Does the legal obligation of taxation create a moral obligation to pay? Since the county would have it's own fire department it is legally required to respond to fires. Does the legal obligation create a moral obligation to respond?

2) Next we have the case as presented in the article. Since the owner and his fellow citizens elected not to levy taxes there is no county fire department. They have the option to purchase firefighting services from an adjacent city. In the absence of a legal obligation, is the owner under any moral obligation to purchase these fire services? Since the firefighters are not legally obligated to fight the fire, are they morally obligated to fight the fire?

3) Now consider a third case. Since the owner and his fellow citizens elected not to levy taxes there is no county fire department. The adjacent city does NOT offer to extend firefighting services. In the absence of opportunity in addition to legal obligation, is there any moral obligation to invest in firefighting services of some kind? (In other words, does living in a community create a sufficient moral obligation to invest in firefighting services in some form?) Since the firefighters are not legally obligated to fight the fire outside their charter / jurisdiction, are they morally obligated to fight the fire?

My contention is that if the owner is morally obligated to pay a tax that supports firefighting services, then he has the same moral obligation to purchase firefighting services offered via an annual fee. Conversely if the firefighters are not morally obligated to fight fires outside their charter / jurisdiction, then they are not morally obligated to fight fires of non-payers.

Lastly, supporters of a tax scheme seem to consider this the only alternative. The main issue it seems is the city fire department refused to "spot price" it's services. Establishing the payment system ahead of time as, "$75 a year, or $15,000 per response" ("spot price" may not need to be that high, I have no idea what a reasonable cost estimate of firefighting services plus free rider diminishing overhead would be) would answer the questions of "who has authority to negotiate?" and "what if the owner isn't around to negotiate?". In order to address collections we can look to the tax supporters. By creating a firefighter's lien (akin to a mechanic's lien [3]) the fire department can be secure in their knowledge that their "spot price" will be paid. The fire department is "creating" value by saving the house similar to the way a contractor adds value to the property. A firefighter's lien would ensure the fire department collects it's share of the value added (up to it's "spot price" for response). This also addresses questions of "how can the fire department be sure the person will pay?" and "what if the fire department screwed up their records?" The firefighter's lien would provide the fire department a tool so they can reasonably provide the firefighting service in advance of payment. The firefighter's lien would carry the same sort of penalties as the tax lien in the first scenario. The fact that the local governments failed to implement these solutions is not an indictment of conservative / libertarian / "free market" / "opt out" ideology.

J

[1] Tax lien - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[2] Tax deed sale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[3] Mechanic's lien - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
In the situation before us a property owner elected not to pay for firefighting services and lost his property as a result. Many suggest the only moral solution is to levy taxes to support firefighting services. My question is, what makes this solution moral? Why is the morality of the firefighters being questioned and not the morality of the homeowner?

1) Let's start with the "levy taxes to support firefighting services" case. Taxes are oft compared to "proper dues for living in a civilized society", indeed the homeowner is legally obligated to pay them. If he does not pay his property taxes the government will issue a tax lien [1] on his property which may lead to foreclosure [2]. With a tax lien the owner has the option of paying the delinquent taxes (plus extra penalties, interest, etc.) to avoid foreclosure. Does the legal obligation of taxation create a moral obligation to pay? Since the county would have it's own fire department it is legally required to respond to fires. Does the legal obligation create a moral obligation to respond?

2) Next we have the case as presented in the article. Since the owner and his fellow citizens elected not to levy taxes there is no county fire department. They have the option to purchase firefighting services from an adjacent city. In the absence of a legal obligation, is the owner under any moral obligation to purchase these fire services? Since the firefighters are not legally obligated to fight the fire, are they morally obligated to fight the fire?

3) Now consider a third case. Since the owner and his fellow citizens elected not to levy taxes there is no county fire department. The adjacent city does NOT offer to extend firefighting services. In the absence of opportunity in addition to legal obligation, is there any moral obligation to invest in firefighting services of some kind? (In other words, does living in a community create a sufficient moral obligation to invest in firefighting services in some form?) Since the firefighters are not legally obligated to fight the fire outside their charter / jurisdiction, are they morally obligated to fight the fire?

My contention is that if the owner is morally obligated to pay a tax that supports firefighting services, then he has the same moral obligation to purchase firefighting services offered via an annual fee. Conversely if the firefighters are not morally obligated to fight fires outside their charter / jurisdiction, then they are not morally obligated to fight fires of non-payers.

Lastly, supporters of a tax scheme seem to consider this the only alternative. The main issue it seems is the city fire department refused to "spot price" it's services. Establishing the payment system ahead of time as, "$75 a year, or $15,000 per response" ("spot price" may not need to be that high, I have no idea what a reasonable cost estimate of firefighting services plus free rider diminishing overhead would be) would answer the questions of "who has authority to negotiate?" and "what if the owner isn't around to negotiate?". In order to address collections we can look to the tax supporters. By creating a firefighter's lien (akin to a mechanic's lien [3]) the fire department can be secure in their knowledge that their "spot price" will be paid. The fire department is "creating" value by saving the house similar to the way a contractor adds value to the property. A firefighter's lien would ensure the fire department collects it's share of the value added (up to it's "spot price" for response). This also addresses questions of "how can the fire department be sure the person will pay?" and "what if the fire department screwed up their records?" The firefighter's lien would provide the fire department a tool so they can reasonably provide the firefighting service in advance of payment. The firefighter's lien would carry the same sort of penalties as the tax lien in the first scenario. The fact that the local governments failed to implement these solutions is not an indictment of conservative / libertarian / "free market" / "opt out" ideology.

J

[1] Tax lien - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[2] Tax deed sale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[3] Mechanic's lien - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Or every real estate tax bill in an unincorporated area has a $75 levy on it -- each residence address would have an assigned fire department servicing it -- and the levy would be forwarded by the county to the appropriate municipality. Voile! Everybody's got fire department service; the fire departments have more money for safety and response; and no firefighter ever again stands around watching somebody's freakin' house burn down.

It's not rocket science.
 
I understand liabilities, insurance, etc... but that doesn't excuse the inaction, it just demonstrates that the problems go beyond the firefighters themselves. It is a systemic issue.

It's nice and easy to put all this down on paper about clear cut responsibilities, the homeowners being to blame, and firefighters not wanting to work outside of their jurisdiction, but everyone is overlooking one basic fact: we are dealing with fire. Fires don't know jurisdictions. They burn where they can. If home A isn't covered by home B is, does that mean we should wait until home B is engulfed in the flames of home A before we decide to lift a finger?

It used to be that fires were the responsibility of the whole community because we lacked the technology. Everyone sprung into action when there was a fire. Now that fire fighting is mechanized we just look at the bottom line: whose dollars are being spent. It's a sad day when money matters more than putting out a fire that could save lives, all because insurance companies won't extend their bottom line in emergency situations. I am disgusted.
 
I understand liabilities, insurance, etc... but that doesn't excuse the inaction, it just demonstrates that the problems go beyond the firefighters themselves. It is a systemic issue.

It's nice and easy to put all this down on paper about clear cut responsibilities, the homeowners being to blame, and firefighters not wanting to work outside of their jurisdiction, but everyone is overlooking one basic fact: we are dealing with fire. Fires don't know jurisdictions. They burn where they can. If home A isn't covered by home B is, does that mean we should wait until home B is engulfed in the flames of home A before we decide to lift a finger?

It used to be that fires were the responsibility of the whole community because we lacked the technology. Everyone sprung into action when there was a fire. Now that fire fighting is mechanized we just look at the bottom line: whose dollars are being spent. It's a sad day when money matters more than putting out a fire that could save lives, all because insurance companies won't extend their bottom line in emergency situations. I am disgusted.

The county lacks the technology and the community still didn't back this guy, did they? Your problem is with policy, not with people.
 
**** I just got a $1000.00 bill for ambulance services and I ****ing pay property taxes!!!!!!!!!

A Taxi would have been cheaper. Per Mile the ambulance charges $15.00, oxygen that I did not need $36.00, base rate $800.00. What the **** am I paying property taxes for? So they won't put a lien on the house? I pay for garbage pick up and in the gated community we also pay for the sewage maintenance.
 
**** I just got a $1000.00 bill for ambulance services and I ****ing pay property taxes!!!!!!!!!

A Taxi would have been cheaper. Per Mile the ambulance charges $15.00, oxygen that I did not need $36.00, base rate $800.00. What the **** am I paying property taxes for? So they won't put a lien on the house? I pay for garbage pick up and in the gated community we also pay for the sewage maintenance.

I live in the county and pay property taxes. I get minimal services. Sherriff's dept for law enforcement, they repave the roads once every 10-12 years and that's about it. I pay extra for garbage collection. we home school, so I get no support from the local school district. definitely not getting much bang for my buck
 
You are not entitled to services provided by a government that you do not pay taxes to.
 
You are not entitled to services provided by a government that you do not pay taxes to.

tell that to all the people living off welfare that pay no taxes but think they are entitled to some mythical "decent standard of living"
 
MaggieD said:
Or every real estate tax bill in an unincorporated area has a $75 levy on it ...

Perhaps you'd care to address the moral / legal questions I raised in my post, instead of merely repeating your policy proposal which I have already addressed.

Orion said:
I understand liabilities, insurance, etc... but that doesn't excuse the inaction, it just demonstrates that the problems go beyond the firefighters themselves. It is a systemic issue.

Lilke MaggieD, perhaps you'd care to answer the moral / legal questions raised. Why is the inaction inexcusable? What precisely is the systemic issue?

Orion said:
...we are dealing with fire. Fires don't know jurisdictions. They burn where they can. If home A isn't covered by home B is, does that mean we should wait until home B is engulfed in the flames of home A before we decide to lift a finger?

I readily agree that fire does not organize itself as humans do, and am willing to concede that in an urban setting fire can easily be considered a public bad in the economic sense. In urban settings the best way to fight the fire on behalf of covered home B may be to extinguish uncovered home A. This doesn't change the morality questions, nor the alternative policy implementation I suggested.

Orion said:
It used to be that fires were the responsibility of the whole community because we lacked the technology. Everyone sprung into action when there was a fire.

This seems to answer one of the morality questions I posed. From this quote I infer that you believe that by virtue of living in a community there is a moral obligation to invest in fire fighting services; be it purchasing buckets and water towers or by volunteering your time. Is this accurate? If so, what did people do "in the old days" when a community member didn't spring into action?

Orion said:
It's a sad day when money matters more than putting out a fire that could save lives, all because insurance companies won't extend their bottom line in emergency situations. I am disgusted.

It is has been made clear that if lives were threatened then rescue efforts would be made. Also, this was because a local city government wouldn't extend their bottom line in an emergency; not an insurance company. I'd appreciate you not blame shifting to imaginary wrongdoers.

In general it is the moral underpinnings of the various points of view that most interest me about the reactions to this story.

J
 
Why is the inaction inexcusable?

The best answer I've come up with from a social policy perspective is that not putting out the fire creates a waste of resources (the house) that's taxed among the rest of us via insurance. Since fire departments exist, fires ought to be put out for this reason and everyone ought to be forced to pay to avoid free ridership.

(To be clear, this isn't a comment on the city fire fighters letting the house burn in this case--I think they were right to do so. It's a comment on the system.)
 
Pro Peabody what kind of land do u live in,is it i am trying to think of a word about human life as what u say,oh my devil,sorry my god,better with the devil u no than the other guy that
theyi mean the people u live beside,they desided that they shall die for a buck or a dollar,is that the same my good professor,let me tell u they the junk who did not save these people
should be throwing in i am trying to think of a word,not the sewers or the bin that is to good for them,maybe maggit,na still to good,let me think about that.professor sorry about that i no how u feel,so sorry.bless u bro and all the best to you.

my kindest regards to you
mikeey
 
tell that to all the people living off welfare that pay no taxes but think they are entitled to some mythical "decent standard of living"

You mean the CEOs of all the bailout banks?

Because the Welfare Mamas of the Upper WestSide cost us a lot more than the Harlem Welfare Mamas.

All I know is if the Tea Party gets their way, this is going to be the standard of local government. "Pay us for every second of service. If you don't pay us, we're not stopping the fire. We're not going to investigate your murder."

That's what "small government" will give you.
 
You mean the CEOs of all the bailout banks?

Because the Welfare Mamas of the Upper WestSide cost us a lot more than the Harlem Welfare Mamas.

All I know is if the Tea Party gets their way, this is going to be the standard of local government. "Pay us for every second of service. If you don't pay us, we're not stopping the fire. We're not going to investigate your murder."

That's what "small government" will give you.

Im not going to investigate a murder outside of my jurisdiction.
 
No, but you'd try to stop one if you could.

Or, at least, I'd hope you would...

I'd hope A-N-Y human being would.

Outside my jurisdiction I am any other ordinary human being.

Why don't we hold ALL human beings to this standard?
 
I'd hope A-N-Y human being would.

Outside my jurisdiction I am any other ordinary human being.

Why don't we hold ALL human beings to this standard?

I think we do. I think that's what we're seeing on this post. "How could they just stand there?" Actually, I think your post makes my point.
 
I think we do. I think that's what we're seeing on this post. "How could they just stand there?" Actually, I think your post makes my point.

And Ive already explained that part somewhere within the two threads on this incident, BOTH of which you subscribe to. And strangely enough, I haven't seen much in the way of responses to it.

So I'll say it again.

These guys would probably have been more than happy to put that fire out, but they were ordered not to.......

If one is told not to do something by their employer, and they want to keep their job, THEN THEY DON'T ****ING DO IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How hard is this honestly? Do you expect everyone of those guys to go against orders not to put out the fire, and then be fired? Yes, you've helped a man who was too cheap to buy into the system, and you feel good about it, but you feel worse that your BROKE and can't afford to support your family.

And, having the attitude that "oh they won't fire us" is the same attitude the homeowner had, "Oh, they won't just let my house burn."

Its time for people to realize that there are consequences for their actions.
 
And Ive already explained that part somewhere within the two threads on this incident, BOTH of which you subscribe to. And strangely enough, I haven't seen much in the way of responses to it.

So I'll say it again.

These guys would probably have been more than happy to put that fire out, but they were ordered not to.......

If one is told not to do something by their employer, and they want to keep their job, THEN THEY DON'T ****ING DO IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How hard is this honestly? Do you expect everyone of those guys to go against orders not to put out the fire, and then be fired? Yes, you've helped a man who was too cheap to buy into the system, and you feel good about it, but you feel worse that your BROKE and can't afford to support your family.

And, having the attitude that "oh they won't fire us" is the same attitude the homeowner had, "Oh, they won't just let my house burn."

Its time for people to realize that there are consequences for their actions.

Then the Chief who ordered them not to should be fired, IMO. I cannot imagine a copper defending this ridiculous lapse of judgement. And that's what it was. I'm betting policy changes because of this incident. And other firefighters in Tennessee agree:

Fire-fighting personnel across East Tennessee seem almost universally outraged by the actions of a small-town fire company on the other end of the state that responded to a house afire but was ordered to let the structure burn because the owner had not paid a $75 subscription fee.

"We don't particularly care who's paid his dues," said Steve Wheeler, chief of the Vonore, Tenn., Fire Department. "If somebody needs help, we help and worry about everything else later."

"Truly, a firefighter cannot stand by and watch something burn," said Doug McClanahan, chief of the Blount County Fire Department. "He can't stand by and not try to react to a fire or rescue. They are trained to take care of people."

--SNIP--

--SNIP--

He said his unit would not "let policies and stuff get in the way," and he related a story he heard from a different location in West Tennessee in which firefighters from one jurisdiction responded to a fire that was on the other side of a street that was the dividing line between their area and another agency's.

They let the fire burn until the second agency could respond but ultimately had to pay for the house following litigation.

Fire chiefs: We won't watch a home burn » Knoxville News Sentinel
 
Back
Top Bottom