Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

6 Bumps

Ok...I am sick of hearing about the house burning, but, Do you not agree...

That by him not paying and everyone still expecting the firemen to show up...that it is like saying that your employer refuses to pay you at all even with letters and warnings. But, then you still show up to work everyday.

uh, no...I will NOT show up anymore..even if the business is failing. ( As in, you don't pay me for my services, I am not showing up to put out your fire)


Asked by BradenIsMySon at 12:03 PM on Oct. 8, 2010 in Politics & Current Events

Level 33 (59,467 Credits)
This question is closed.
Answers (23)
  • They could have put out the fire, and billed him for it. Not that hard to figure out.

    However, if he hasn't paid the past bill in three years, what leads you to believe he will pay that bill? The only way out would be to have the city place a lien on his home and increase the amount by interest each year the bill isn't paid. The, he would have still not paid the other bills as well. Where do you draw the line?

    Answer by urkiddingright at 9:38 PM on Oct. 8, 2010

  • It's sad but he had the option to pay and CHOSE not too. People talk about paying taxes and whatnot, well obviously there isn't enough tax money in these areas to pay for the things needed. I think if they don't like the laws move to adfferent area

    The fire took 2 hrs. to reach the house, why didn' the homeowners getthem out?

    Answer by JuLiAnSmOmMy317 at 1:01 PM on Oct. 8, 2010

  • no, I"m never going to agree that it was ok privatize vital emergency services at such a ridiculously inflated cost. the counties own documentation states that for a .13 percent tax increase EVERYONE could have been covered without this travesty of "subscription" services.

    Answer by autodidact at 12:23 PM on Oct. 8, 2010

  • i think its a terrible thing to happen..but come happened once before, and they let him pay, after the fact! this wasn't a new charge, or recently passed. this policy had been in place for half my life, and most of yours, OP. i agree 100%!
    not everything can be paid for with are put up to voting by the people/residents of said-city/county/etc.

    Answer by dullscissors at 12:36 PM on Oct. 8, 2010

  • I agree with both you and gertie. He should have paid the $75. My emergency services are paid for with property taxes.

    Answer by sopranomommy at 2:03 PM on Oct. 8, 2010

  • He gambled and lost, end of story. :)

    Answer by urkiddingright at 3:15 PM on Oct. 8, 2010

  • I still think they should of saved the animals!

    Answer by kiansmom0423 at 12:06 PM on Oct. 8, 2010

  • I see what you're saying OP...but I agree with gertie. Tax money should be allocated to emergency services, schools, and that order. Then, and only then, should it go to other interests. No emergency service should have to seek funding on their own. Isn't that why we pay taxes?

    Answer by brandyj at 12:23 PM on Oct. 8, 2010

  • I think the whole way the operate that system is stupid. And no, that man's home should not have just been let to burn. He offered payment. He made a mistake in forgetting, he didn't blatantly NOT pay. They let his animals die. How could humans be so cruel and down low? And how could anyone who's supposed to be human be so cruel and agree with the fire dept.? There were ways to work that situation out, and they let it go too far. Shame on anyone agreeing with the fire dept.


    YOU are forgetting that the HOMEOWNER let his animals die. He had 2 hours BEFORE the fire reached his home to get them out!


    Answer by tiddliwinks at 3:32 PM on Oct. 8, 2010

  • If he hadn't paid his $75 dollar fee they should have put the fire out then put a lien against his property for the entire cost of fighting the fire if he didn't pay.

    Answer by annabellelee at 2:23 PM on Oct. 8, 2010

Next question in Politics & Current Events
What if...

Next question overall (Money & Work)
Have you ever thought