The problem with this is what if no one in the neighborhood had paid their dues as it were?
First of all, I find this scenario completely unlikely for many reasons. If no one in an entire neighborhood wants to pay for fire protection, then a) there is an economic justice issue, such as poverty, preventing the people in the area from having the money, and the program never should have been implemented there anyway, or b) wow all of those people, and the municipality that made the fire program voluntary, are just dumb.
This would be a good model for low-income areas because it's bad public policy to force people to chose between fire protection and feeding their kids. It's also a bad idea to have a voluntary participation program in an area right next to a dry forest (which should have its own fire protection and control plan in place, by the way). These kinds of programs cannot succeed everywhere; all of the hypothetical situations that remove the situation to another location or add circumstances that aren't present here are really outside the scope of this story. The fact is that these firefighters didn't let anyone burn up inside the house, didn't let the fire spread to the neighbors, and didn't let it turn into a wildfire. The program worked like it was supposed to in this particular place. The people who instituted the program probably considered a lot of factors, including the risk to life and the risk of wildfire, when they put this in place.
The reason why I put forth all of the what ifs is because this is a county-wide thing for this particular area. A county that is 550 square miles. Thats a pretty huge area to have such a policy going for them.
Other interesting factors, median household income is 32.7k(49.7k for the US), the per capita income for the county is 17.4k (39.1k for the US)
Figures for the entire US are not valid comparisons to rural southern areas because the cost of living is so much lower there, and the expensive states skew the income figures. It costs more than 2x up here in NY what it did when I lived in a CITY in NC just to pay living expenses. Tennessee is definitely on the low end of cost of living estimates.
The valid measure of poverty would be a comparison of income to cost-of-living. If per capita income is 15k in a place where per capita COL is only 10 k a year, that standard of living could be higher than place with a per capita income of 30k where the per capita COL is 28k a year. The people in the first location would have 5k of disposable income per year per person, but the people in the second location would only have 2k. Invalid comparison is invalid.
The other question to ask is how the policy was put into place. Was it referendum? Did the public get notice and a chance to comment? Is the populace happy with it in general? Is the county primarily rural? Suburban? Are the officials who implemented the policy elected? Appointed? You can complain about a policy that doesn't affect you all you want, but until you understand the reasons behind it and the process that went into deciding on it, the complaints tend to be pretty impotent. Without knowing the circumstances of the county, how can you possibly say this policy is bad? How many people have opted out? How long has the policy been in place? How often has it resulted in something other than a loss of the property of the person who did not pay for the service? A myriad factors go into this kind of policy, and I'm betting that we don't know 99% of them.
I did see an interview with the gentleman who's house did burn down, he stated that he knows of 3 times that this has happened in the past and that he had heard of more.
IF you had taken the time to read the linked article and the links from the article you would have found that this has been in place since 1990.
Also the fire fighters did not even show up until the neighbors called and said their field had caught on fire.
Not to be too much of an ass but I am wondering why you're asking questions when the answers are so trivially found?
Not to be too much of an ass but I am wondering why you're asking questions when the answers are so trivially found?
Because I'm working and can't be bothered to look for stuff like that right now.
It applies though. I have a paper due at midnight, and at the moment I don't actually care about the answers.
It's mostly a matter of people criticizing policy without putting the real reasons why the policy is bad in their argument. Even if I knew the answers, I was making a point. If you criticize something, do it fully and present the pertinent information.
It's mostly a matter of people criticizing policy without putting the real reasons why the policy is bad in their argument. Even if I knew the answers, I was making a point. If you criticize something, do it fully and present the pertinent information.
It is why I linked the article, so I could shortcut rehashing it. if you wish I could lay out a well thought out, but lengthy, argument for why such policies, in general, are a bad idea™.
For a tl;dr version, It's been tried before and historically we found that certain services work more effectively when run by the public trust for the public rather than a private service that benefits the public good.
Indeed, it has been tried and failed. But never forget the power of a good ol' reminder every now and then. When people forget the lessons learned in the past, they sometimes need to be reminded. After this little reminder, there's a little less of a chance that the taxed will complain about that .13 going to the service they think they never use.
When people have been presented with good evidence and they still turn away, I am a fan of letting them see the consequences of their decisions. I am also kind of intolerant of stupid people. I understand not everyone shares my Darwinian view of society.
ETA: regarding rehashing details, the article I read didn't seem to do a while lot of in-depth analysis on the development of the policy and the implications. It was more like a collection of soundbytes from people involved. It's always a good idea to support your proposition with at least a little bit of a basis, even if you are repeating something that was in the article.
For want of $75 this guys house burned down? Damn!
Regardless I actually like the idea of a town that offers its residents the choice of whether or not they want emergency services. Just think of how getting a bill from your town explaining what services are being offered (and their direct cost) would affect the level of community involvement in said town.
Criminals could elect not to pay for the police force! People without kids could elect not to pay for schools! There is so much awesome in there!
For those who think I'm advocating such a thing I'm not. There are some govt services that should be paid for whether you directly benefit from them or not. There are also some govt services that can have their funding cut and still work well. The key is to find the sweet spot, which will not always be the same for every town.
When Cranick's house caught fire last week, and he couldn't contain the blaze with garden hoses, he called 911. During the emergency call, he offered to pay all expenses related to the Fire Department's defense of his home, but the South Fulton firefighters refused to do anything.
One has to wonder if they said no because it would set a precedent that you need only pay when they come? Depending on the number of fires that the dept responds to in a year a pay-per-fire system might result in them get no money to fund their department. More data required.
ETA: regarding rehashing details, the article I read didn't seem to do a while lot of in-depth analysis on the development of the policy and the implications. It was more like a collection of soundbytes from people involved. It's always a good idea to support your proposition with at least a little bit of a basis, even if you are repeating something that was in the article.
The article it's self links to more resources, granted I only glossed their cited links myself and one PDF caused my system to cry.
About social Darwinism, I am not too far off in my beliefs. I find it incredulous that any portion of government would have thought this is a good idea! It is as if no one reads history any more! Or worse, they read the history, they know the reasons why certain things are the way the are and then say "Well we won't make the same mistakes they made!" and go ahead and make the same mistakes!
It's like people and vaccines or faith healing!
I guess I should be happy that mumps has had a recent(ish) outbreak and had killed in a first world nation. But even so I still meet people who wont, for the fear of some imaginary father figure, inoculate their children and give their children the same protection they themselves enjoy.
"Well, I never got no Measles."
/facepalm
Yes, it would be best if these people left the gene pool as soon as possible. Even as such I still feel some sort of social responsibility. As if society as a whole has failed these people, has failed to properly educate them, has failed to show them how to think critically.
One has to wonder if they said no because it would set a precedent that you need only pay when they come? Depending on the number of fires that the dept responds to in a year a pay-per-fire system might result in them get no money to fund their department. More data required.
I would agree that it would set a bad precedent for such a system. However, interviews with this gentleman has revealed that the last fire chief had made exceptions to this policy.
There is actually a new commercial running (re: vaccines) that is making me deliriously happy. It's a scare-tactic commercial, but it's based on facts. In a nutshell, the commercial is a woman holding a baby and describing what Pertussis is, with the sound of a baby with the illness coughing in the background. The end line tells you to ask your doctor about the ADULT vaccine for whooping cough. I suspect this is a reaction to the woman who said she never even knew the vaccine existed, much less that she needed it. Yay for scaring people into science-based medicine!
One has to wonder if they said no because it would set a precedent that you need only pay when they come? Depending on the number of fires that the dept responds to in a year a pay-per-fire system might result in them get no money to fund their department. More data required.
I would agree that it would set a bad precedent for such a system. However, interviews with this gentleman has revealed that the last fire chief had made exceptions to this policy.
As I said previously, paying for a single fire would work with the system fine as long as the price was significantly higher than $75, i.e. by a few orders of magnitude.
As I said previously, paying for a single fire would work with the system fine as long as the price was significantly higher than $75, i.e. by a few orders of magnitude.
No, it would still present a problem. The money would not be paid until the fire happened. In the meantime, how do you pay for the training and supplies that the fire department uses to actually get to the point that they can put out the fire? There are up-front costs that cannot be paid if no one pays for fire protection until they have a fire that needs to be put out.
As I said previously, paying for a single fire would work with the system fine as long as the price was significantly higher than $75, i.e. by a few orders of magnitude.
No, it would still present a problem. The money would not be paid until the fire happened. In the meantime, how do you pay for the training and supplies that the fire department uses to actually get to the point that they can put out the fire? There are up-front costs that cannot be paid if no one pays for fire protection until they have a fire that needs to be put out.
Firstly, just because there is the option of pay-per-fire doesn't mean no one will pay the yearly $75; a good many people still would, I'd think. Secondly, the up-front costs would be solved easily enough by an initial investment, and from then on it would be sustainable even without yearly fees.
Secondly, the up-front costs would be solved easily enough by an initial investment, and from then on it would be sustainable even without yearly fees.
You underestimate the surprising cost of maintaining fire fighting equipment and trained men.
Firstly, just because there is the option of pay-per-fire doesn't mean no one will pay the yearly $75; a good many people still would, I'd think.
I"d wager it's just the opposite. Fires are rare, so no individual has any reason to buy in to the system. If they buy in, and there's no fire, they're out money. If they don't buy in, and they later have to pay up-front, they're only out the difference between the accumulated free years and the one-time fee: the fire is never a concern since it's fought either way.
Firstly, just because there is the option of pay-per-fire doesn't mean no one will pay the yearly $75; a good many people still would, I'd think.
I"d wager it's just the opposite. Fires are rare, so no individual has any reason to buy in to the system. If they buy in, and there's no fire, they're out money. If they don't buy in, and they later have to pay up-front, they're only out the difference between the accumulated free years and the one-time fee: the fire is never a concern since it's fought either way.
My point was that it works if the per-fire cost is high enough. Assuming $75/yr is reasonable, then $75 / (yearly chance of fire) is what you need for the one-time fee to be balanced vs the yearly fee.
Assuming $75/yr is reasonable, then $75 / (yearly chance of fire) is what you need for the one-time fee to be balanced vs the yearly fee.
No, because then the department needs to fund itself at a loss, which necessitates taxes or loans.
You only need tax money or a loan to start the program off, however (as with pretty much anything). Once fires start happening, it becomes sustainable, though you do need to keep a buffer in case you don't get many fires one year, or the like.
Alternatively, you could start some fires ^_~
Also, if it wasn't already clear, I'm not saying it's a good idea to have optional fire service in the first place, but I do think it's better to have the option of paying a one-time fee than simply letting a house burn down.
You only need tax money or a loan to start the program off, however (as with pretty much anything). Once fires start happening, it becomes sustainable, though you do need to keep a buffer in case you don't get many fires one year, or the like.
That's highly unlikely to work and overly complex. Fires are rare as it is, and you still vastly underestimate how much it costs to maintain a firefighting squad and equipment.
Fires are rare as it is, and you still vastly underestimate how much it costs to maintain a firefighting squad and equipment.
I don't see how that matters when you'd be getting the same average income in either situation. The one issue is that there might not be enough fires for too long a period of time, which would require additional tax money.
Nonetheless, the problem is still resolved by making the one-time fee high enough that most people go for the yearly fee.
It's no different to the way the vast majority of people choose to have various types of insurance, even though solely in terms of expected gain in money it's more efficient not to. Why do people buy insurance? Money is worth more to you the less of it you have, and so a small chance of suddenly losing a lot of money is worth insuring against, because that lost money would be worth more to you than its face value.
If you set it up properly, most people will go for the yearly fire fee over the one-time fee, but the one-time fee will remain an option.
Comments
This would be a good model for low-income areas because it's bad public policy to force people to chose between fire protection and feeding their kids. It's also a bad idea to have a voluntary participation program in an area right next to a dry forest (which should have its own fire protection and control plan in place, by the way). These kinds of programs cannot succeed everywhere; all of the hypothetical situations that remove the situation to another location or add circumstances that aren't present here are really outside the scope of this story. The fact is that these firefighters didn't let anyone burn up inside the house, didn't let the fire spread to the neighbors, and didn't let it turn into a wildfire. The program worked like it was supposed to in this particular place. The people who instituted the program probably considered a lot of factors, including the risk to life and the risk of wildfire, when they put this in place.
Or, they could all be morons. Who knows?
Other interesting factors, median household income is 32.7k(49.7k for the US), the per capita income for the county is 17.4k (39.1k for the US)
The valid measure of poverty would be a comparison of income to cost-of-living. If per capita income is 15k in a place where per capita COL is only 10 k a year, that standard of living could be higher than place with a per capita income of 30k where the per capita COL is 28k a year. The people in the first location would have 5k of disposable income per year per person, but the people in the second location would only have 2k. Invalid comparison is invalid.
The other question to ask is how the policy was put into place. Was it referendum? Did the public get notice and a chance to comment? Is the populace happy with it in general? Is the county primarily rural? Suburban? Are the officials who implemented the policy elected? Appointed? You can complain about a policy that doesn't affect you all you want, but until you understand the reasons behind it and the process that went into deciding on it, the complaints tend to be pretty impotent. Without knowing the circumstances of the county, how can you possibly say this policy is bad? How many people have opted out? How long has the policy been in place? How often has it resulted in something other than a loss of the property of the person who did not pay for the service? A myriad factors go into this kind of policy, and I'm betting that we don't know 99% of them.
Expansion of Subscription services!
The bottom of their article states that a 0.13 cent increase for property taxes would have covered the whole county with fire services.
I couldn't check this as the PDF did weird things to my browser. /shrug
IF you had taken the time to read the linked article and the links from the article you would have found that this has been in place since 1990.
Also the fire fighters did not even show up until the neighbors called and said their field had caught on fire.
Not to be too much of an ass but I am wondering why you're asking questions when the answers are so trivially found?
It's mostly a matter of people criticizing policy without putting the real reasons why the policy is bad in their argument. Even if I knew the answers, I was making a point. If you criticize something, do it fully and present the pertinent information.
For a tl;dr version, It's been tried before and historically we found that certain services work more effectively when run by the public trust for the public rather than a private service that benefits the public good.
When people have been presented with good evidence and they still turn away, I am a fan of letting them see the consequences of their decisions. I am also kind of intolerant of stupid people. I understand not everyone shares my Darwinian view of society.
ETA: regarding rehashing details, the article I read didn't seem to do a while lot of in-depth analysis on the development of the policy and the implications. It was more like a collection of soundbytes from people involved. It's always a good idea to support your proposition with at least a little bit of a basis, even if you are repeating something that was in the article.
Regardless I actually like the idea of a town that offers its residents the choice of whether or not they want emergency services. Just think of how getting a bill from your town explaining what services are being offered (and their direct cost) would affect the level of community involvement in said town.
Criminals could elect not to pay for the police force! People without kids could elect not to pay for schools! There is so much awesome in there!
For those who think I'm advocating such a thing I'm not. There are some govt services that should be paid for whether you directly benefit from them or not. There are also some govt services that can have their funding cut and still work well. The key is to find the sweet spot, which will not always be the same for every town.
One has to wonder if they said no because it would set a precedent that you need only pay when they come? Depending on the number of fires that the dept responds to in a year a pay-per-fire system might result in them get no money to fund their department. More data required.
About social Darwinism, I am not too far off in my beliefs. I find it incredulous that any portion of government would have thought this is a good idea! It is as if no one reads history any more! Or worse, they read the history, they know the reasons why certain things are the way the are and then say "Well we won't make the same mistakes they made!" and go ahead and make the same mistakes!
It's like people and vaccines or faith healing!
I guess I should be happy that mumps has had a recent(ish) outbreak and had killed in a first world nation. But even so I still meet people who wont, for the fear of some imaginary father figure, inoculate their children and give their children the same protection they themselves enjoy.
"Well, I never got no Measles."
/facepalm
Yes, it would be best if these people left the gene pool as soon as possible. Even as such I still feel some sort of social responsibility. As if society as a whole has failed these people, has failed to properly educate them, has failed to show them how to think critically.
Secondly, the up-front costs would be solved easily enough by an initial investment, and from then on it would be sustainable even without yearly fees.
Alternatively, you could start some fires ^_~
Also, if it wasn't already clear, I'm not saying it's a good idea to have optional fire service in the first place, but I do think it's better to have the option of paying a one-time fee than simply letting a house burn down.
Nonetheless, the problem is still resolved by making the one-time fee high enough that most people go for the yearly fee.
It's no different to the way the vast majority of people choose to have various types of insurance, even though solely in terms of expected gain in money it's more efficient not to. Why do people buy insurance? Money is worth more to you the less of it you have, and so a small chance of suddenly losing a lot of money is worth insuring against, because that lost money would be worth more to you than its face value.
If you set it up properly, most people will go for the yearly fire fee over the one-time fee, but the one-time fee will remain an option.