Special Rage: For want of a surcharge, a house was lost.

[silveradept]

I'm guessing most people in the United States have heard of the Tennessee man whose home burned down because the fire department had not collected his service fee. In addition to the taxes to his taxing district, if the person wanted fire service from the nearby city, he would have had to pay an additional $75, money that he was willing to pay to get the fire department to put out the blaze after they arrived to soak a neighbor's yard because that person had paid their surcharge. Of course, in this particular vein of opt-in government, and in the world where such service models reside, it's natural to assume both that the person whose house was burning down would stiff them the fee once his house was saved, and that something like fire services is more like insurance, where you can opt out and carry substantial risk on your own if you do.

No, really. that is the kind of thing they believe in.

For want of $75, a fee apparently forgotten rather than deliberately withheld, a house burned down, destroying several hundred thousand dollars worth of material and taking the lives of the family pets. This does not seem to be a sound decision monetarily. From a more human point of view, what kind of government is willing to let a house burn down that hasn't already been condemned or otherwise proven to be more of a hazard standing up than it is in ashes?

Apparently, in Tennessee, they feel the most effective form of government service is fee-based. Are they also of the opinion that police services are an extra fee? How do they feel about libraries and public schools? If something like this is ringing some bells for you, you paid attention in school enough to learn that all of the services we consider tax-supported essentials were, at some point in our history, fee-based private hires. Police used to be hired on a fee basis to protect property, functioning as private security. Fire services used to be an opt-in fee paid. And then disasters hit, and the people realized it would be better for everyone in the long run if those services were contracted by the government for all of the people in their sphere of influence and paid for through taxes. It's much easier to spread the costs of catastrophe prevention and public safety among a lot of people than make a few who can't afford it have to carry them. Same with education and library services.

Besides, if you want to see what kind of damage gets wreaked upon people routinely because tehy can't afford private services and there are no public alternatives, check out health care and insurances. Everything, from check-ups, to transport to hospital and whatever gets done there costs money. The current options are to get some form of insurance, with varying levels of protection and cost. Anyone too poor to afford this insurance gets nothing, or gets put in a lottery to see whether they'll get lucky enough to have a benefactor pick up the cost of their insurance. To extend the fire metaphor, some insurances cover the cost of fire extinguishers to put out small problems before they get bigger, and others force you to wait until the house is on fire and will be destyroyed before they'll send anyone to put out the blaze, and even then, you still have to pay for some part of putting out the fire. If your ambulance company isn't in your insurance network, or your doctor hasn't been approved of, they'll pay less to nothing, regardless of whether the company or doctor is the best as what they do or not. So even people who thought they had protection may watch the house burn down and the insurance company refuse to pay anything related to it. How much easier is it to spread the costs across a much greater pool of people, so that everyone can be certain that they'll be able to get what they need without having to worry about whether their insurance company ill pay for it?

The fact that no humans were hurt in this will probably inspire less of a call to fix the problem. What we should be insisting on is that everyone be covered, without having to pay in additional surcharges because of geography, for the basic requirements of functioning society - shelter, food, police, fire, medicine, schools, libraries, and infrastructure. Past that point, people are free to do with their money as they like and contract with whomever they like for additional things. We should be long past the point where someone's house burns down because they're not inside the city limits and thus have to pay additional fees to get their closest fire services to come out and put out the blaze. We're past the point where security in our persons and possessions is a for-hire service only.

Yet there are still plenty of politicians that want to return us to the past times when we had to pay for all of those things. Not coincidentally, they're being funded by, own, or otherwise have an interest in companies that stand to profit by rolling back the safety net. Complain as you like about your tax burden - but recognize how much you use the things paid for by that tax burden every freaking day of your life. And require anyone with a vision of Galtian utopia or "limited government" to explain fully how they intend for people to be able to afford their newly-privatized services. If it sounds like anything other than a variation of "I Got Mine, Frak You" or "Some people just don't deserve to live", let me know. I will be very interested in how they've done it.

Comments

[ilyena_sylph]

This is beautifully written. Very, very nice.

*applauds*

[marshtide]

...good grief. And these people think socialism is scary.

Also, I'll take high taxes which fund lots of public services, thanks.

[silveradept]

Quite. If public services weren't fighting each other for reduced revenues, it would be pretty interesting to see what kind of services tehy could provide.

just look at the comments

[nebris.livejournal.com]

http://community.livejournal.com/the_recession/686825.html

[scribe-of-stars.livejournal.com]

Yet we could have the best of both worlds--lower taxes and good infrastructure--if we renovated our infrastructure and kept an eye out for bureaucrats skimming money off the top for Porsches and whatnot.

[shenalia.livejournal.com]

Hard to afford renovations of infrastructure under Davis-Bacon (http://www.gpo.gov/davisbacon/).

[silveradept]

Not impossible, though, if you actually choose to dedicate resources to the improvement of the infrastructure. Possibly by deciding certain subsidies can be redirected, other engagements wound down, and money found or raised through things like bond issues to ensure that it goes to purpose, for example. And with a watchful eye from people who really would rather see the thing go down in flames making sure the corruption and graft stays out of it.

[shadesfox.livejournal.com]

Dude didn't forgot to pay. He plain refused to pay. The fire department called him in August, he told them he wasn't going to pay. He originally said this too on TV. He changed his story.

[silveradept]

Is that original story captured anywhere that can be referenced?

[shadesfox.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately no sources I can find. News casts tend not to be well preserved. Though I did find this article,
http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local/Firefighters-watch-as-home-burns-to-the-ground-104052668.html
"I thought they'd come out and put it out, even if you hadn't paid your $75, but I was wrong"

I'm also looking into a rumor that the $75 isn't actually optional, but carries a fine if missed that is never actually collected because of some weirdness involved in trying the enforce the fine because the city is on the Tennessee/Kentucky state line.

[silveradept]

Keep me informed as to what you dig up. Truth is always preferable to spin.

[cookie-chef.livejournal.com]

My understanding is that this was not the first time he refused to pay either. Someone on my f-list cited a report they'd read that said this is the second fire that happened on his property in a number of years. When the past fire broke out, he had neglected to pay that year too. Oh, and apparently the county offers assistance if the $75 fee is too steep, but he did not take advantage of that. He was, from what I understand, not only notified by phone but also sent a letter regarding the $75 fee. Ultimately, he chose not to pay and is now reaping the consequences.

Truly, I don't feel sorry for him....although I will say this...two f-listers suggested the fire department could help him and then bill him for services rendered. If he did not pay the bill, they could put a lien on the house (hypothetically, had it not burned to the ground). This sounds fair to me as the tally for firemen, fire equipment and other emergency personnel arriving on scene could tally a thousand dollars or more. The way I look at it, if $75 is all it takes to buy me a little peace of mind and protect one of the largest investments of my life, then you better bet I'll fork that money over.

[silveradept]

I'd like to read that report, if possible. It changes the dynamic of the story significantly from the current statements by the person in question, so I'd like proof to back up the assertion that he willingly refused to pay.

Your mention of "well, having seen this, I'm much more likely to pay up now" is one of the points people make in saying that this is why we should let houses burn. That argument seems more like the equivalent of "Well, having watched the mafia shred my neighbor's store, I'm much more inclined to pay their protection money". than one in favor of "government services should be opt-in or more like insurance policies."

[cookie-chef.livejournal.com]

Prepping for an out of town wedding--I'm the cake and reception favor girl-- so I'll fish out what I can, if I have time.

[silveradept]

No rush, nor worry. Thank you for looking into it.

[krinndnz.livejournal.com]

Oy. People that don't believe in the concept of a "public good" (e.g. public fire department, public police department) seem to inevitably work tremendous harm on the public good (the other kind).

[silveradept]

I'm usually confused at the point where they insist that that kind of damage is preferable and necessary in a system, even when it's' a matter of "pay $75" versus "house burns down and people pay out $100-200 thousand USD in insurance payments."

[southernmyst.livejournal.com]

Aye, this is what I was thinking when someone posted about it on my flist yesterday: the system is messed up. That LJ friend talked as if it was an insurance, but to me, fire protection should be taken care of by taxes, and automatically cover every bit of land in the country. Forgotten or non-payments should result in fines, liens, and other sanctions; not discontinuation of services. The risk of fires getting out of control and killing is too high.

I didn't know that about these things historically being opt-in, that's interesting; seems a history lesson is in order for all maintainers of systems like this. I guarantee they don't know that.

You mention now insurance payout must happen; I'd be surprised as heck if there is one, and the insurance company (if there is one) doesn't wrangle out of paying up based on "homeowner's negligence" for not paying for the fire department.

[silveradept]

That would be a way to go, but do they really want to be the insurance company that's known for that move? Furthermore, what I don't know is whether county taxes paid are put toward some sort of fire services somewhere, whether it's the contract with the nearby municipality or some sort of county fire system. If there was a county fire system, even if it was based in the other side of the county, then the requirement to have fire services is covered - just that the house would have burnt by the time they got there.