Glen Beck made a very valid point.
The LOCAL gov’t decided that the only way they could pay for a Fire Department was to charge each Family $75 for Fire Department services. Think of this like an insurance policy.
Someone refused to pay the $75, and their house caught fire.
If the Fire Department had shown up and put the fire out - providing this service to someone who did not pay for the service; who would pay the $75 next year?
Life is hard, it’s harder if you are stupid.
If this turns out like the other threads on this, yer not gonna believe what some FReepers are gonna say.
If people don’t pay and their house is on fire, the firefighters should put the fire out and bill the owner for the actual cost of dousing the fire—which would be much more than $75. So, people would have the benefit of protection and the choice of paying a huge amount for the coverage or not.
1. Homeowner doesn't pay his $75 fee.
2. House catches fire.
3. Fire company puts out fire.
4. Fire company bills homeowner for actual cost of putting out the fire, including labor and pro-rated share of equipment and operations cost (likely several thousand dollars).
5. If homeowner doesn't pay, fire company refers the case to the county.
6. County adds total due the fire company to the homeowner's tax assessment the next time it's due.
You see, there's a way to see that the fire company covers its losses and keeps its donation base WITHOUT letting someone's house burn down.
Funny...I just posted to you on the thread about the lab puppies and how you so beautifully expressed your feelings for your dog. Two dogs and a cat died in this fire.
I understand what many are saying about the guy not paying the $75, but it doesn't take away the fact that this is a horrible system to pay for the services of a fire department. It forces people to hold back their decent impulses to save lives. Do you suppose the firefighters are proud of themselves?