(took this story from the news and embellished a bit)
You are a fire chief. In your little turd of a county, residents are required to pay $75 per year in order to pay for the local fire department. In the spirit of freedom, residents aren't forced to pay. Instead, the mayor publicly declares that those who don't pay are not covered by your fire department.
So one day you get a call, and it's some hillbilly crying about his house burning down. You look him up, and he is not on the list. You apologize and refuse to help. Then you get another call, this time from his neighbor, who did indeed pay his $75. You marshal the men, blare the sirens, rush to the scene, and stop the fire from reaching the neighbor's house.
The original hillbilly is standing next to the truck, begging you to help him. The fire has almost reached his house, and all you have to do is turn the hose a few degrees and put out the fire. You can tell that the hillbilly is poor and stupid, and his family is wretched enough even with the house.
So... what's the right call here? Put out the fire or be fair to those who actually paid their $75 and watch the house burn to the ground?
This could catch on.
Instead of FICA withholding we opt-in
Instead of fund ing schools with property taxes, you pay when you go
Instead of supporting the Army with taxes, you pay to have your house protected
Last edited by Aruj Reis; 10-08-2010 at 10:49 AM.
Reason: Halo would have been better
will there be a welfare FD (subsidized protection for low-income families) or a green fire department (you get a tax credit if you subscribe, but they use 'post-consumer' fluids)?