I am sick and tired of the moochers who do not contribute, but then want the rest of us to pay for them.
That goes for welfare,food stamps, housing assistance, medicaid.
If people knew that they could avoid paying a $75 fee, and take the chance that their house does not burn down- then statistics are on their side.How many house fires in that area? Maybe one or two a year? You propose charging the deadbeats $500 if they do not pay the fee. That means the fire department would recieve maybe $1000 a year, because everyone would take their chances and not pay the fee.
People have to contribute to basic services, and not rely on other taxpayers to carry the load for them.
Let the house burn down.
I see few, if any, people advocating for free fire protection. Most of the people beating their chests saying “let it burn” are apparently incapable of logical thought. If you are uninsured, you are *not* denied the opportunity to purchase the product at market rates (except, apparently, in this case). Those without health insurance can still get medical care - you simply pay for the cost at the point of service rather than through a third-party insurance provider. This works the same way on any type of insurance.
The sane and proper response is to ask the homeowner whether they want the fire department to respond and fight the fire and be billed afterwards or let the home burn. Will people make rational decisions at that time? Maybe. I do not know what an appropriate fee would be, but I do not think the cost of fighting the fire, were one to actually occur, would be that substantial.