Libertarianism in action.
16 Oct 2010, 2:47 pm
Chronos wrote:
The fired department is not funded by a risk based platform. They are funded by tax money and their operating cost is estimated on a census based platform.
They are entirely different.
In the instance being discussed, fire protection was by subscription which is a form of premium against the casualty of fire damage.
In most cities and towns, one is billed for fire services out of the property tax and one has no legal choice about paying for the service. All property owners are "billed" for police and fire protection and for support of streets, infrastructure maintenance and the schools.
ruveyn
16 Oct 2010, 11:38 pm
ruveyn wrote:
Chronos wrote:
The fired department is not funded by a risk based platform. They are funded by tax money and their operating cost is estimated on a census based platform.
They are entirely different.
In the instance being discussed, fire protection was by subscription which is a form of premium against the casualty of fire damage.
In most cities and towns, one is billed for fire services out of the property tax and one has no legal choice about paying for the service. All property owners are "billed" for police and fire protection and for support of streets, infrastructure maintenance and the schools.
ruveyn
If I pay a $100 car insurance premium for a year, and get in an accident that was my fault where there is $30,000 dollars in damages, the car insurance company loses money.
If I didn't pay my $100 premium that month I was in the accident, and my insurance lapses, and I am in the accident, the car insurance company doesn't lose money. It makes no sense for them to accept my $100 premium and retroactively cover my for that accident because that would then cost them $30,000.
Do you understand this concept?
If it costs a fire department $75 to respond to a call and fight a fire, and my house catches on fire, and I have paid the $75, then they lose no money when they come out and fight the fire. It's paid for.
If I haven't paid the $75 ahead of time and they come out and fight the fire, and I pay on the spot, or the next day, or a week later, they still have lost no money because they have $75 either way.
So in the case of insurance, money is lost if they agree to cover an accident in exchange for a late payment while in the case of the ire department, nothing is lost.
Is there something that is not clear?
16 Oct 2010, 11:50 pm
Well, Chronos, you are right that this is not like insurance in every detail, however, the similarity between this and insurance is that the $75 isn't for immediate service, but rather $75 dollars is the amount used to protect against the risk of fire. So, if the fire department both required $75 for immediate service and protection against risk, then they would only get requests for immediate service, as given the rarity of fires, the former is a better deal by far than the latter. The issue is that fire-fighting isn't economically rational on those grounds, as there are few fires, and the ones that do exist are relatively costly to put out. So, really, here's how it could work:
1) $75 for a subscription to fire protection.
2) A much higher price for immediate service.
Any other method ignores the large costs of a fire department and of individual fires.
17 Oct 2010, 4:16 pm
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Well, Chronos, you are right that this is not like insurance in every detail, however, the similarity between this and insurance is that the $75 isn't for immediate service, but rather $75 dollars is the amount used to protect against the risk of fire. So, if the fire department both required $75 for immediate service and protection against risk, then they would only get requests for immediate service, as given the rarity of fires, the former is a better deal by far than the latter. The issue is that fire-fighting isn't economically rational on those grounds, as there are few fires, and the ones that do exist are relatively costly to put out. So, really, here's how it could work:
1) $75 for a subscription to fire protection.
2) A much higher price for immediate service.
Any other method ignores the large costs of a fire department and of individual fires.
1) $75 for a subscription to fire protection.
2) A much higher price for immediate service.
Any other method ignores the large costs of a fire department and of individual fires.
Your reasoning assumes that the Fire Department has no base funding. That they do not have X amount to be ready to respond to any arbitrary call. But in this case, they do have a base funding. In fact, they can respond to Y number of calls with this base funding, regardless of where it is. So your argument does not apply.
It is insufficient to look at this matter outside of the context of which it is in.
17 Oct 2010, 4:50 pm
Chronos wrote:
Your reasoning assumes that the Fire Department has no base funding. That they do not have X amount to be ready to respond to any arbitrary call. But in this case, they do have a base funding. In fact, they can respond to Y number of calls with this base funding, regardless of where it is. So your argument does not apply.
It is insufficient to look at this matter outside of the context of which it is in.
It is insufficient to look at this matter outside of the context of which it is in.
So, basically, you are saying that they should tax their own community for the total cost, and only tax the other community for the marginal cost?? That's not going to fly because the community with the fire department is going to see this as unfair. Instead, the fire department's only solution is to treat all customers the same, as this will not piss off the tax payers that pay all of the real costs.
I mean, Chronos, if you had to pay $2 for something that your neighbor only paid 50 cents for, then you're probably going to question why this is, and if you find that the underlying factor is arbitrary, you're probably going to push for rectification so that way the prices paid by both parties are equal. First, because this might save you money. Secondly, just because people don't like situations they perceive as unfair.
17 Oct 2010, 5:11 pm
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Chronos wrote:
Your reasoning assumes that the Fire Department has no base funding. That they do not have X amount to be ready to respond to any arbitrary call. But in this case, they do have a base funding. In fact, they can respond to Y number of calls with this base funding, regardless of where it is. So your argument does not apply.
It is insufficient to look at this matter outside of the context of which it is in.
It is insufficient to look at this matter outside of the context of which it is in.
So, basically, you are saying that they should tax their own community for the total cost, and only tax the other community for the marginal cost?? That's not going to fly because the community with the fire department is going to see this as unfair. Instead, the fire department's only solution is to treat all customers the same, as this will not piss off the tax payers that pay all of the real costs.
I mean, Chronos, if you had to pay $2 for something that your neighbor only paid 50 cents for, then you're probably going to question why this is, and if you find that the underlying factor is arbitrary, you're probably going to push for rectification so that way the prices paid by both parties are equal. First, because this might save you money. Secondly, just because people don't like situations they perceive as unfair.
I was pointing out the flaw in your argument. I thought the purpose of my previous statement was very clear, but apparently not.
I will rephrase.
Your previous argument is flawed because it ignores the context of the situation.
If that is not clear then honestly, I am not sure how to clarify further.
18 Oct 2010, 3:31 pm
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
I mean, Chronos, if you had to pay $2 for something that your neighbor only paid 50 cents for, then you're probably going to question why this is, and if you find that the underlying factor is arbitrary, you're probably going to push for rectification so that way the prices paid by both parties are equal. First, because this might save you money. Secondly, just because people don't like situations they perceive as unfair.
But you and your neighbor do pay different prices for publice services, because one of your earns more money than the other, and (at least in theory) pays more taxes.
Suppose my partner and I earn $80,000 and $50,000, resepctively. Our total income tax bill is roughly $27,200. (about 20%)
Suppose our neighbours have a houshold income of only $45,000, with a tax bill of just $5000 (about 11%)
Both families receive the same public services, for different prices, and different costs.
However, in this province, our public medical insurance system is funded by premiums, rather than through general tax revenue. Both my partner and I, and our neighbours pay $102 per month for coverage (as individuals we would pay $57 each). We pay approximately 1% of our income in medical premiums. Our neighbours pay almost 3% of their income.
So which system is fairer?
_________________
--James
18 Oct 2010, 6:30 pm
Visagrunt, you're pulling in an outside issue that I have no desire to deal with. Proportionality vs flatness is a debate about what fair really means. Mere difference based upon geographic location, where one party is piggybacking off of the other, however, is a much clearer issue.
18 Oct 2010, 6:31 pm
Chronos wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Chronos wrote:
Your reasoning assumes that the Fire Department has no base funding. That they do not have X amount to be ready to respond to any arbitrary call. But in this case, they do have a base funding. In fact, they can respond to Y number of calls with this base funding, regardless of where it is. So your argument does not apply.
It is insufficient to look at this matter outside of the context of which it is in.
It is insufficient to look at this matter outside of the context of which it is in.
So, basically, you are saying that they should tax their own community for the total cost, and only tax the other community for the marginal cost?? That's not going to fly because the community with the fire department is going to see this as unfair. Instead, the fire department's only solution is to treat all customers the same, as this will not piss off the tax payers that pay all of the real costs.
I mean, Chronos, if you had to pay $2 for something that your neighbor only paid 50 cents for, then you're probably going to question why this is, and if you find that the underlying factor is arbitrary, you're probably going to push for rectification so that way the prices paid by both parties are equal. First, because this might save you money. Secondly, just because people don't like situations they perceive as unfair.
I was pointing out the flaw in your argument. I thought the purpose of my previous statement was very clear, but apparently not.
I will rephrase.
Your previous argument is flawed because it ignores the context of the situation.
If that is not clear then honestly, I am not sure how to clarify further.
I addressed the contextual matters sufficiently in as far as I could tell. That is to say that while the fire department in a literal sense could, this would effectually be allowing for freeriding off of the cost outlays of the town.
18 Oct 2010, 7:49 pm
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Chronos wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Chronos wrote:
Your reasoning assumes that the Fire Department has no base funding. That they do not have X amount to be ready to respond to any arbitrary call. But in this case, they do have a base funding. In fact, they can respond to Y number of calls with this base funding, regardless of where it is. So your argument does not apply.
It is insufficient to look at this matter outside of the context of which it is in.
It is insufficient to look at this matter outside of the context of which it is in.
So, basically, you are saying that they should tax their own community for the total cost, and only tax the other community for the marginal cost?? That's not going to fly because the community with the fire department is going to see this as unfair. Instead, the fire department's only solution is to treat all customers the same, as this will not piss off the tax payers that pay all of the real costs.
I mean, Chronos, if you had to pay $2 for something that your neighbor only paid 50 cents for, then you're probably going to question why this is, and if you find that the underlying factor is arbitrary, you're probably going to push for rectification so that way the prices paid by both parties are equal. First, because this might save you money. Secondly, just because people don't like situations they perceive as unfair.
I was pointing out the flaw in your argument. I thought the purpose of my previous statement was very clear, but apparently not.
I will rephrase.
Your previous argument is flawed because it ignores the context of the situation.
If that is not clear then honestly, I am not sure how to clarify further.
I addressed the contextual matters sufficiently in as far as I could tell. That is to say that while the fire department in a literal sense could, this would effectually be allowing for freeriding off of the cost outlays of the town.
How is it freeriding? He offered to pay/reimburse them for expenses.
18 Oct 2010, 9:26 pm
Chronos wrote:
How is it freeriding? He offered to pay/reimburse them for expenses.
It is paying the marginal cost rather than the average cost. The average person paying has to pay the average cost, so only paying the marginal cost is the following things:
1) A poor pricing strategy when demand is high.
2) Easily perceived as unfair to more responsible customers.
Even further, who is to say that $75 is the real cost of service? Firefighters are offering the service in expectation that most people will not require it. The pricing strategy could easily be such that putting out a fire is more expensive than the cost asked for, sort of like how insurance really does wor.
19 Oct 2010, 2:25 am
Chronos wrote:
How is it freeriding? He offered to pay/reimburse them for expenses.
And his offer should have been accepted. He was willing to pay something like the true cost of putting out his fire. But the rules of operation effective there and then are not good rules. Some provision should have been built into the system to enable the fire department to accept an enforcible pledge to cover the cost of the service.
To put it plainly, the operating rules are batsh*t crazy. A set of rules which leads to the man's house burning down unnecessarily should be changed asap.
ruveyn
19 Oct 2010, 1:18 pm
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Visagrunt, you're pulling in an outside issue that I have no desire to deal with. Proportionality vs flatness is a debate about what fair really means. Mere difference based upon geographic location, where one party is piggybacking off of the other, however, is a much clearer issue.
Geographic location is a red herring here. A homeowner's house is either within our outside the jurisdiction of the town. Towns may extend services to rural municipalities on a fee for service basis, but these are paid for out of the revenues of the rural municipality.
My response goes back to your example of one person paying $2 for the same service for which another person paid 50 cents. That is the very root of the progressive vs. flat tax and tax vs. fee-for-service debates.
_________________
--James
19 Oct 2010, 4:54 pm
visagrunt wrote:
Geographic location is a red herring here. A homeowner's house is either within our outside the jurisdiction of the town. Towns may extend services to rural municipalities on a fee for service basis, but these are paid for out of the revenues of the rural municipality.
My response goes back to your example of one person paying $2 for the same service for which another person paid 50 cents. That is the very root of the progressive vs. flat tax and tax vs. fee-for-service debates.
My response goes back to your example of one person paying $2 for the same service for which another person paid 50 cents. That is the very root of the progressive vs. flat tax and tax vs. fee-for-service debates.
visagrunt, here's my response:
1) That is off-topic. The topic is firefighting services, or even possibly more generally libertarian privatization schemes. This is neither.
2) The variable in the situation we are talking about is geographic location. The variable in the situation you are talking about is income, with part of the goal of progressive taxation being to get the proportion to be considered "fair".
3) Arguments for proportionality in taxation would not work for geography.
I mean, seriously, maybe you want to equate geography and income, but frankly, the comparison actually HURTS the case for progressive taxation, which is not something I think you want to do rhetorically. I am willing to take the case for progressive taxation seriously enough where I will not accept the comparison as more than a strawman of the idea.
19 Oct 2010, 8:53 pm
visagrunt wrote:
Geographic location is a red herring here. A homeowner's house is either within our outside the jurisdiction of the town. Towns may extend services to rural municipalities on a fee for service basis, but these are paid for out of the revenues of the rural municipality.
Actually, it's not. The homeowners house was outside the jurisdiction of the town and the town offered to extend services to nearby residents, rather then nearby municipalities, for a fee which the homeowner did not pay. The red herring was bringing up the tax system, which most people will admit in unfair, which is irrelevant since the man paid no taxes to the town supporting the fire department
_________________
NobelCynic (on WP)
My given name is Kenneth
