Agreed. But the fire department would have had no trouble getting a judgment against Cranick from the appropriate court, maybe even slapping a lien on the house which would have still been intact.
Well, that would fix everything. For Cranick, anyway.
Oh wait, I forgot… fuck him.
I’m also not traveling to New Zealand to give a sheep an IPod, which would make about as much sense.
When was the last time that I argued with someone drawing analogies that were this far off the mark?
All too recently, I’m sure, but I’m going to have to try to break the habit.
I don’t believe a firefighter EVER has an obligation to risk his or her life in a fire, once it’s been determined that no lives are at risk in the first place.
Not that that has anything to do with this discussion, of course.
So the FD would have to jump through legal hoops to collect? This is not all that dissimilar from a homeowners association. HOAs have to jump through legal hoops to collect from members who don’t pay and I can assure you, my HOA spends a lot more money on their lawyer and collection agencies than they get from the fee/fine collections. But, they’ve got to do it or else nobody would pay. I guarantee you this FD would eventually run into people who will just never, ever pay up.
I think the solution is pretty easy. The fire department should adopt this policy:
If you call us, we will come. If you paid your $75, you’re all set. If not, we’ll have you sign a paper authorizing us to bill you $2000.
The homeowner is a cheapskate, but the firemen should have put the fire out and found a way to bill him for actual costs.
In the time of crisis, perform your calling.
Taking into mind limited resources, right?
You’re actually surprised by this in any way? Also, let’s be clear that paying $75 isn’t the same as paying for the actual cost to put it out, which should be paid by anyone sans insurance. It’s also safe to say that a guy who doesn’t buy fire insurance can’t be counted on to foot the many thousand dollar bill to actually put his home out.
This is the most useless point yet. How are they to ensure they’ll get the money? For all you know he’s up to his ears in debt. History has shown people don’t make good on paying back the FD sans insurance, why would this guy - with a HISTORY of his own! - pay up?
I love all the people who are saying it’s trivial to collect on a $2k debt. A few hours of a lawyer’s time will cost you that, so now you have to try to collect 4K. From a guy who wouldn’t pay $75 and probably doesn’t have much in the way of valuable property to attach.
Seriously, collection agencies can ruin your credit, but they buy the debts for pennies on the dollar typically because they know they have a very low chance of covering their expenses. They’re lucky if they get 50 cents on the dollar, and just doubling the bill isn’t exactly legal or any more likely to get you back in the black.
Do you think that someone else has an obligation to travel to New Zealand to give a sheep an iPod? If so, why would you even make that terrible analogy? The point is that you think that the firefighters had an obligation to try to save the house. (And if you don’t think that, why are you responding to questions intended for those who do?)
It’s not an analogy. It’s exactly what happened. Cranick refused to pay the fee that would entitle him to the services of the fire department. There was a fire at his house. The firefighters put it out anyway, that time. He kept not paying the fee. There was another fire. This time, they didn’t put it out.
It’s exactly the same scenario; I’m just suggesting you apply it to yourself. Since you think it’s so easy to tell others what they should have done in the same situation.
Except that Cranick and his family were all safe. The only thing that was in danger was the house. A piece of property. So you just contradicted yourself again there.
You slap a lien on his house if he doesn’t pay up.
Which will be a pain in his ass on the off chance he wants to sell. Otherwise, it’s life as usual for him.
Does this mean that anyone who cheated on their taxes, like, say, buying something over the Internet in a state that requires a disclosure yet fails to do so should be disqualified for receiving any state services?
So if any of you who saved a few dollars in sales tax (not hard to come up to $75 over the course of a year) get a call from your alarm company that the burglar alarm was tripped (note, you’re safe), it’s okay for the police to arrive, see the burglar carrying out your stuff, letting your pets out, etc., and only wave hi to him? Only do something if he gets too close to your neighbor’s property?
There’s a whole juicy range of services you’ll be unable to avail yourself of, isn’t there. And hey, fail to file some gambling income or overreported a deduction on your Fed return? Wow, look out!
The poor fire department was so screwed in this situation. No way was that guy going to pay after the fact. They had no obligation to help him, and an obligation to those who do pay them to conserve resources.
Eventually the house will be sold, by him or his heirs. At that point, someone would have to make good on the $2000. In addition, they can garnish his wages and/or tax refunds to get it.
Sure, they could, but why bother when the existence of the house is of no value to anyone other than Cranick?
As I tried to convey in my anology with the HOA, just slapping a lien on his house is easier than it sounds. There are legal fees. You need a court order. If they did this with every house whose fire they put out despite the owner not paying a fee, they’d lose money on this practice. You put a lien on his house…now what? Odds are, old Mr. Cranick doesn’t really care and you’ll never see that $2000 or $3000 or whatever. It’s much easier (and cheaper) for the FD to refuse service to someone who did not pay for it.
I think you’ve read and understand my own position. Do you really want me to answer your second set of questions? Even knowing that I think they’re non-substantive (and that my answers would reflect that)?
It doesn’t equate. Taxes aren’t opt-in, and services like the fire and police departments provide in areas where they are paid for by taxes are also not opt-in.
I hear eventually maybe money is great for paying the bills today.
I understand your position. I also think it’s very focused on your feelings versus the reality of the situation.
Yes. But, honestly, I don’t expect to get what I would consider to be decent answers out of you or anyone else who shares your position.
And I find that an odd criticism. After all, asking “should” is to ask for a normative opinion. Specifically, not a “what is?” (i.e., “what’s the reality of the situation?”) but a “what ought?” (i.e., “how ought things be?”). A purely subjective question, IMHO.
Ah, never mind then.