BF2S Forums Let it burn? Firefigters in Tennessee refuse to extinguish fire.

FloppY_ wrote:

lol I thought this was one of the first things (along with other emergency services) to be paid via tax

Turquoise wrote:

FloppY_ wrote:

lol I thought this was one of the first things (along with other emergency services) to be paid via tax

Municipalities run these systems.  This particular town opted for a subscription service instead.

mikkel wrote:

FloppY_ wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Municipalities run these systems.  This particular town opted for a subscription service instead.

That's probably the dumbest thing I've ever heard

Why is it dumb?

Ticia wrote:

I'm surprised this is not here yet,is all over Facebook.

Firefighters watch as home burns to the ground

A local neighborhood is furious after firefighters watched as an Obion County, Tennessee, home burned to the ground.

The homeowner, Gene Cranick, said he offered to pay whatever it would take for firefighters to put out the flames, but was told it was too late. They wouldn't do anything to stop his house from burning.

Each year, Obion County residents must pay $75 if they want fire protection from the city of South Fulton. But the Cranicks did not pay.

The mayor said if homeowners don't pay, they're out of luck.

This fire went on for hours because garden hoses just wouldn't put it out. It wasn't until that fire spread to a neighbor's property, that anyone would respond.

Turns out, the neighbor had paid the fee.

My question is firefighting as a subscription model service the dumbest idea ever?

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Some towns are too small to financially support a full blown fire department.  Some of those towns have 'volunteer' firefighters, either paid directly by the citizens of the town or funded my small fees charged by the town government.  It's not as cut and dry as you seem to think.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Vilham wrote:

does sound pretty stupid, this is one of the things taxation should definitely be funding.

Why? He could've very easily paid the $75 on top of his property taxes every year but chose not to. Treat the subscription like taxes, send out a check, voila, you're covered. He chose to be a cheapskate and his house burned to the ground. No sympathy.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Why? He could've very easily paid the $75 on top of his property taxes every year but chose not to. Treat the subscription like taxes, send out a check, voila, you're covered. He chose to be a cheapskate and his house burned to the ground. No sympathy.

Well, I mean, you could have a police subscription fee too.  Some areas have that...   although it's normally referred to as bribing.

At the core of it, what's the difference between paying a subscription or paying into a general tax fund? Nothing except a layer of bureaucracy.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

At the core of it, what's the difference between paying a subscription or paying into a general tax fund? Nothing except a layer of bureaucracy.

Cash flow.

A steady cash flow allows for better structuring than a pay as you go system.

Ahh, but the cash flow the department receives is based on a real need as opposed to a theoretical one with a subscription service. Fire a threat? Subscription payers go up. Fire not so much a threat? Subscriptions go down. The size of the department would reflect this reality rather than the fire chief getting whatever he wants regardless of reality because all he has to do is go to the city council and make threats.