DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**igs00r** · 05-10-2010, 07:29 PM

I almost agree. But then, he was offering to pay whatever the costs were (and probably over and above that too!) to put it out. He wasn't saying "I'll pay my $75 now!". It didn't even sound dangerous, like entering a burning building. Just turn on the water and knock it down from the outside.

Instead this sounds petty and vindictive.

But if every home owner outside the city didn't pay until their house was on fire, the city wouldn't collect the revenue they probably need to insure they have the ability to respond when necessary.

It costs a hell of lot more than $75 to respond to a fire. It's the collective fees from all of those who pay in that allow the city to maintain the equipment and man power needed for the few fires that they do respond to.

You don't wait for your house to flood and then try to buy flood insurance.

05-10-2010, 07:29 PM	#18
igs00r Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 601 Senior Member	I almost agree. But then, he was offering to pay whatever the costs were (and probably over and above that too!) to put it out. He wasn't saying "I'll pay my $75 now!". It didn't even sound dangerous, like entering a burning building. Just turn on the water and knock it down from the outside. Instead this sounds petty and vindictive. But if every home owner outside the city didn't pay until their house was on fire, the city wouldn't collect the revenue they probably need to insure they have the ability to respond when necessary. It costs a hell of lot more than $75 to respond to a fire. It's the collective fees from all of those who pay in that allow the city to maintain the equipment and man power needed for the few fires that they do respond to. You don't wait for your house to flood and then try to buy flood insurance.
	Quote