That's a hard lesson to learn.

[Dupin]

According to merriam-webster.com, a tax is "a charge usually of money imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes." A fee, on the other hand, is "a sum paid or charged for a service" (The first definition given was in regards to feudal lords)

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tax%5B2%5D

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fee?show=0&t=1286666705

 

The main difference I can see is that taxes are mandatory, while fees are paid if one desires a service. In the current situation, the people did not pay taxes as they were under no obligation, and did not pay the optional fee, whether by accident or otherwise. If the family did not at any point support the F.D. through paid taxes, and were not paying the fee at the time of the fire, I do not see how the F.D. is obligated to service them.

 

No one (including myself) is here arguing definitions. Since when does a dictionary come into play concerning morality? The only example that comes to mind is the white-washing of the term "genocide".

 

 

Since when does morality come into play concerning a business transaction?

That's really the root of objection in this thread - firefighting should not be a business transaction, it should be a public duty.

[Riku3220]

According to merriam-webster.com, a tax is "a charge usually of money imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes." A fee, on the other hand, is "a sum paid or charged for a service" (The first definition given was in regards to feudal lords)

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tax%5B2%5D

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fee?show=0&t=1286666705

 

The main difference I can see is that taxes are mandatory, while fees are paid if one desires a service. In the current situation, the people did not pay taxes as they were under no obligation, and did not pay the optional fee, whether by accident or otherwise. If the family did not at any point support the F.D. through paid taxes, and were not paying the fee at the time of the fire, I do not see how the F.D. is obligated to service them.

 

No one (including myself) is here arguing definitions. Since when does a dictionary come into play concerning morality? The only example that comes to mind is the white-washing of the term "genocide".

 

 

Since when does morality come into play concerning a business transaction?

That's really the root of objection in this thread - firefighting should not be a business transaction, it should be a public duty.

And public duties should be supported by the public. These people don't pay the taxes or the fees that support the fire department.

[Saru Inc]

I think this is one of those rare threads in OT, where there isn't a right answer. Each is right in their own regards, honestly we should all agree to disagree and just lock this thread.

[Dupin]

According to merriam-webster.com, a tax is "a charge usually of money imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes." A fee, on the other hand, is "a sum paid or charged for a service" (The first definition given was in regards to feudal lords)

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tax%5B2%5D

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fee?show=0&t=1286666705

 

The main difference I can see is that taxes are mandatory, while fees are paid if one desires a service. In the current situation, the people did not pay taxes as they were under no obligation, and did not pay the optional fee, whether by accident or otherwise. If the family did not at any point support the F.D. through paid taxes, and were not paying the fee at the time of the fire, I do not see how the F.D. is obligated to service them.

 

No one (including myself) is here arguing definitions. Since when does a dictionary come into play concerning morality? The only example that comes to mind is the white-washing of the term "genocide".

 

 

Since when does morality come into play concerning a business transaction?

That's really the root of objection in this thread - firefighting should not be a business transaction, it should be a public duty.

And public duties should be supported by the public. These people don't pay the taxes or the fees that support the fire department.

Right, but that's the fault of the local government. The people should not be given an option.

[Assume Nothing]

You're exactly right; morality is opinion-based (I worded that sentence a little oddly, sorry). This is why it is pointless to argue about it. People are not going to change their morals because of factual evidence and legality.

 

You won't alter your opinions even if evidence is provided to you?

 

And a lot of legality is determined by our sense of morality: look at the change in laws regulating prostitution and marijuana.

I would alter my opinions based on factual evidence, but there are people in this thread saying it was "wrong" to let the house burn. They are clearly not being swayed by the fact that the family didn't pay the fee.

 

And religious extremists who mail bombs and kill doctors aren't going to be swayed by factual evidence. Shifts in morality are subtle, and are usually built upon by the nagging grain of curiosity formed by evidence prevented in a rational and emotionally conclusive format.

 

Even that analogy is terrible. Mailing bombs is nothing like letting a house burn for not paying a protection fee. A better analogy would be something like Hospitals refusing to treat a patient because they don't have insurance, and letting the patient die. I think in that case, it's not morally justified that they should do that, because there is actually a risk of life in that case.

 

Same applies to the burning house, someone could have gotten killed. To not save them, should be unlawful.

 

I don't follow: you're drawing a parallel between law and morality. What makes human life sacred, while the destruction of animals and property can have a dollar value attached? (In this case, $75.)

 

Believe it or not, morality and law is actually connected. This is the reason why different countries have different laws, because the different customs and communities would have different viewpoints of things considered 'taboo'.

 

And I didn't say the destruction of property should have a dollar value attached. And Human life is sacred because we, as humans, are always going to want to improve the planet, and preserve our own species. We are technically the most intelligent beings on this planet, so I don't quite see what your point is.

 

What does us being "technically the most intelligent" have to do with morality or law? Does morality dictate law, or law morality?

 

It works both ways. Rape is considered taboo and wrong, so it's illegal. It being illegal plays a part in it being considered taboo. The loop doesn't break until society changes

[Skeptical]

According to merriam-webster.com, a tax is "a charge usually of money imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes." A fee, on the other hand, is "a sum paid or charged for a service" (The first definition given was in regards to feudal lords)

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tax%5B2%5D

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fee?show=0&t=1286666705

 

The main difference I can see is that taxes are mandatory, while fees are paid if one desires a service. In the current situation, the people did not pay taxes as they were under no obligation, and did not pay the optional fee, whether by accident or otherwise. If the family did not at any point support the F.D. through paid taxes, and were not paying the fee at the time of the fire, I do not see how the F.D. is obligated to service them.

 

No one (including myself) is here arguing definitions. Since when does a dictionary come into play concerning morality? The only example that comes to mind is the white-washing of the term "genocide".

 

 

Since when does morality come into play concerning a business transaction?

That's really the root of objection in this thread - firefighting should not be a business transaction, it should be a public duty.

And public duties should be supported by the public. These people don't pay the taxes or the fees that support the fire department.

 

Yes, it was stupid of them not to pay the fee but is that enough reason to stand by while their house burns down?

[Alg]

Yes, it was stupid of them not to pay the fee but is that enough reason to stand by while their house burns down?

Morally, no.

[anonymous1234]

Yes, it was stupid of them not to pay the fee but is that enough reason to stand by while their house burns down?

Morally, no.

My morals say yes.

[Orpheus]

Yes, it was stupid of them not to pay the fee but is that enough reason to stand by while their house burns down?

Morally, no.

My morals say yes.

And I patently disagree. Goddamn. run4runes, you need to consider their position and put yourself in their shoes. Let's say you didn't pay this fee, should you just stand and watch helplessly as they don't hose your house down and watch it all burn? Would you LIKE that?

 

You really can't say for sure unless you put yourself into the situation. Morally, it was not a good reason to just watch the house burn.

[Giordano]

Even from a business standpoint you could charge them triple the 75 dollars plus everything they might as hell please and I bet the family would of accepted.

 

And if this is just like insurance, you can still pay for a car accident after you crashed. You can still pay doctors if you need surgery, with your OWN MONEY. That's what the family was trying to do. It's seriously stupid to put up a insurance policy but not having ANY OTHER OPTION to pay otherwise. This only supports the fact the government works more like a Mafia than anything else; and people die for such a thing...

 

I'm seriously sick of OT talking so much crap about morality. It's about being respectful; letting a man you don't know house burn down while you're RIGHT THERE with proper equipment to put it out, it's just flat out disrespect and a middle finger shoved right up his ass. Pathetic and embarrassing to the Fire Department.

 

Ignoring the fact that this WAS A FEE, NOT A TAX, should firemen even save children from fires? Since they don't pay any taxes whatsoever, and why bother saving an illegals' apartment if he doesn't pay taxes? Oh wait, now the fire's catching no Mrs. Smith's apartment but the fire's too big! They won't be able to contain it; oh crap there goes the entire apartment building.

[Alg]

It was a fee that served the same purpose as a tax.

[Giordano]

It was a fee that served the same purpose as a tax.

You might of missed my edited post:

 

"And if this is just like insurance, you can still pay for a car accident after you crashed. You can still pay doctors if you need surgery, with your OWN MONEY. That's what the family was trying to do. It's seriously stupid to put up a insurance policy but not having ANY OTHER OPTION to pay otherwise. This only supports the fact the government works more like a Mafia than anything else; and people die for such a thing..."

 

Because if it was a tax, they would of payed it due to the strong federal laws against not paying it; a fee is usually optional, with an alternative method of paying (usually more expensive on your part, but it gets the job done).

 

If this was ran by taxes, if they didn't pay taxes they would have to pay a fee once the firemen put out the fire; see, alternative. Will cost a hell of a lot more probably, but they still have the house, the US government has more money than before, it's a win-win situation.

[anonymous1234]

[hide]

Yes, it was stupid of them not to pay the fee but is that enough reason to stand by while their house burns down?

Morally, no.

My morals say yes.

And I patently disagree. Goddamn. run4runes, you need to consider their position and put yourself in their shoes. Let's say you didn't pay this fee, should you just stand and watch helplessly as they don't hose your house down and watch it all burn? Would you LIKE that?

 

You really can't say for sure unless you put yourself into the situation. Morally, it was not a good reason to just watch the house burn.

[/hide]

Assuming I didn't pay the fee (which I would have), I would not like it at all if they let my house burn down. I would certainly be furious with the fire department. It's human nature of people to push their morals on others, but then not accept the same consequences when it affects them. However, as I stated previously, there should have been an option implemented to pay a heavy fine to have the fire put out. No such option was in place, and it was this carelessness of the local government that allowed the Fire Department to stand by idly.

[Giordano]

However, as I stated previously, there should have been an option implemented to pay a heavy fine to have the fire put out. No such option was in place, and it was this carelessness of the local government that allowed the Fire Department to stand by idly.

Exactly. A mafia gives you once chance to pay and if you missed it you're [bleep]ed. A government should give you two times to pay, to keep you safe and protected like a certain important document says...

[sees_all1]

Read somewhere that this same thing happened two years ago, in the same area. If I was a homeowner in that area, there's absolutely no way I'd miss paying that $75 fee.

[Dupin]

Read somewhere that this same thing happened two years ago, in the same area. If I was a homeowner in that area, there's absolutely no way I'd miss paying that $75 fee.

If I was a homeowner in that area I'd get the hell out. I'd probably light the fire station on fire first though.

[Assume Nothing]

Read somewhere that this same thing happened two years ago, in the same area. If I was a homeowner in that area, there's absolutely no way I'd miss paying that $75 fee.

If I was a homeowner in that area I'd get the hell out. I'd probably light the fire station on fire first though.

 

I wonder what would happen if they forgot to pay the fee... >.>

 

I think it should be an offense to let a house burn down really, they could be sued for it though, correct?

[Dupin]

Read somewhere that this same thing happened two years ago, in the same area. If I was a homeowner in that area, there's absolutely no way I'd miss paying that $75 fee.

If I was a homeowner in that area I'd get the hell out. I'd probably light the fire station on fire first though.

 

I wonder what would happen if they forgot to pay the fee... >.>

 

I think it should be an offense to let a house burn down really, they could be sued for it though, correct?

Technically, no. It was definitely immoral, but perfectly legal. The owners were aware that they had not payed the fee for fire protection - The real issue is that there even was a fee. If the fire department wants money, it should be in a tax that doesn't give people any other option.

[sees_all1]

Technically, no. It was definitely immoral, but perfectly legal. The owners were aware that they had not payed the fee for fire protection - The real issue is that there even was a fee. If the fire department wants money, it should be in a tax that doesn't give people any other option.

 

Or that area should try to be annexed by the city... so they can pay the city's taxes and receive city services. As it is, the fire station and police force have no jurisdiction in that area.

[Alg]

Technically, no. It was definitely immoral, but perfectly legal. The owners were aware that they had not payed the fee for fire protection - The real issue is that there even was a fee. If the fire department wants money, it should be in a tax that doesn't give people any other option.

 

Or that area should try to be annexed by the city... so they can pay the city's taxes and receive city services. As it is, the fire station and police force have no jurisdiction in that area.

Unless I'm wrong the family in question lived in a mobile home. Not sure what that would do for the legality of it.

[Giordano]

Moblie homes are relativly stationary; its not a RV if anyones thinking that, its like those portable classrooms, but not one big room.

 

Either way they have an address, a street to get to, and live in moblie home neighborhoods. No way they cannot be protected because they're moblie homes.

[Skeptical]

I don't know about the rest of the world, but in every part of Ontario I know of, mobile homes are still considered residences, as they should be.

[unkn0wnwarrior]

Because the fee exists, I guess they did the "right" thing. But that fee seems ridiculous. My uncle's place burned down but only because the nearest fire department was the last to get there (volunteers who probably shouldn't have). There was at least departments there by the time the fire was out. No fees, just part of the almighty tax dollar.