God bless the South Fulton Fire Department

[rah]

"You could look out my mom's trailer and see the trucks sitting at a distance," Bell said.

Back when I worked for an insurance company, not a lot of people in trailer parks carried fire insurance. I doubt it's changed much.
Instead of reduced coverage it could just be a higher premium. (which would probably be more than $75. )

[MikeH]

I totally disagree that funding it this way is a good idea though. Incredibly regressive. $75 whether you live in a shack or a multi-million pound mansion.

[C0ckney]

They likely attended the fire to make sure no lives were at risk and to keep it away from the property of people that paid.

no sh*t.

i take it you agree with the rest of what i said.

[MikeH]

The point is not "could they put the fire out" it's "what are the consequences for the system if they put the fire out" Which we've explained. Obviously they could have risked their lives to put the fire out.

[C0ckney]

yes they could have put the fire out and billed the people afterwards.

[MikeH]

See all the arguments I presented above as to why that would lead to the collapse of the system.

[C0ckney]

i have already addressed those arguments in post 110.

[MikeH]

You just said you weren't convinced. I am.

Victory is assured.

[C0ckney]

also, let's think about the costs and results here.

as it stands the fire service attends the fire. once they've made sure that no one is at risk they do nothing and people lose their house and possessions. clearly there are costs for attending the fire. the manpower, fuel, vehicle maintenance and so on. the people who bear these costs are those who pay the fees for the fire service. there is a 0% chance of recovering those costs from the people whose house has just burnt down.

if the fire service attended the fire and put it out. there would be these same costs, plus the cost of the water used to put the fire out. there would be a good chance that the person's house and possessions would be saved. they could then bill the people for the expenses involved. there would be a greater than 0% chance of recovering those expenses.

if you spend two minutes thinking about it, it's clear which is the better outcome.

[DaShi]

why?

Because the current system isn't working. The cost of a small increase in taxes to fund a fire department that covers everyone would solve this problem with less economic loss.

[C0ckney]

You just said you weren't convinced. I am.

Victory is assured.

and i explained why. my reasoning is sound.

people pay at the moment to insure themselves against the risk of fire. why would they not pay to do the same thing if the risk was to face a massive bill rather than the risk of having no protection in the event of a fire. in reality, in both cases, it's simply insurance against a financial risk.

[MikeH]

you think your reasoning was sound, but you weren't convinced.

What went wrong?

[C0ckney]

you were trying to make an arugment.

what went wrong?

[MikeH]

I made an argument by mistake.

[Felch]

I thought all the morons who don't understand economics would applaud this. After all, building a new house will stimulate the economy and make everybody richer, right?