SA Footy

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39516346/ns ... ?gt1=43001
So because you don't pay they won't help. What a Joke thank god I live here in Australia

That is a disgrace!

Even I know you have to pay a fee to be on the firefighters list in America. I'm not saying it's right, but it's the same as people who don't have home insurance, and then cry foul when something bad happens to their house.

Seeing it is in a "rural" area, what happens if it catches light and turns into a reasonable-sized bushfire with loss of life and property?
Otherwise, fairs fair.

Strawb wrote:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39516346/ns/us_news-life/?gt1=43001
So because you don't pay they won't help. What a Joke thank god I live here in Australia

I would have thought that we all 'pay' but just in a different way. I pay 'council tax' on my property so essentially I'm already paying my 'fee'...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_tax

How Council Tax is spent

Although it is the only tax which is set by local government, the Council Tax contributes only a small proportion (25%, on average) of local government revenue. The majority comes from central government grants and from business rates which are collected centrally and redistributed to local authorities.

Local government provide services such as police, fire, recycling, refuse collection and removal, schools, leisure centres, park and ride schemes, parks and open spaces, street cleaning, subsidising of public transport, tourism, museums, social housing grants, housing and council tax benefits, environmental health and food safety in pubs, restaurants and shops, planning services, support for voluntary groups, meals on wheels, facilities for young people, adapting homes for disabled people, play centres for children, cctv installation, sports facilities, issuing taxi licences, flood defences, and many others.

A significant proportion of local government services are stipulated by central government in the form of statutory provision. Local councils are obliged by law to provide these services. The remainder of services are discretionary and are determined by the local council.

I do think what those firefighters did was morally questionable but thankfully no human lives were lost...I wonder what they would have done if a person had been trapped. I think there might be a case for ALL emergency service workers to take some sort of Hypocratic type oath.

Regards
JAS

We have to pay the Emergency Services Levy, I couldn't imagine someone who hadn't payed it not recieving the services of the MFS or CFS

Ian wrote:We have to pay the Emergency Services Levy, I couldn't imagine someone who hadn't payed it not recieving the services of the MFS or CFS

Another tax.

Shouldn't we have paid enough Tax..!

The Government should supply this service free to all of its people.

"Save The Murray Tax"

Ian wrote:We have to pay the Emergency Services Levy, I couldn't imagine someone who hadn't payed it not recieving the services of the MFS or CFS

Probably wouldn't carry a list here of who not to save. "Hmm that house is burning, anyone got the shitlist on them? just check if they've paid up before I put down my coffee"

JAS wrote:
I do think what those firefighters did was morally questionable but thankfully no human lives were lost...I wonder what they would have done if a person had been trapped. I think there might be a case for ALL emergency service workers to take some sort of Hypocratic type oath.

Regards
JAS

So because 3 dogs and a cat were left to die it's not so bad? Personally i hope the people that could have prevented the painful deaths of these animals yet did nothing can live with themselves. I'm not a believer in karma but i hope i'm wrong and it catches up with them in a big way.

rod_rooster wrote:

JAS wrote:
I do think what those firefighters did was morally questionable but thankfully no human lives were lost...I wonder what they would have done if a person had been trapped. I think there might be a case for ALL emergency service workers to take some sort of Hypocratic type oath.

Regards
JAS

So because 3 dogs and a cat were left to die it's not so bad? Personally i hope the people that could have prevented the painful deaths of these animals yet did nothing can live with themselves. I'm not a believer in karma but i hope i'm wrong and it catches up with them in a big way.

Of course it's sad and wrong that animals died but I think it would have been far worse if people had been died...in fact had people been killed I'd have probably accused them of manslaughter.

Regards
JAS

As I understand it, in the US a lot of functions run by the state government here are run by the County - the County being something like a large council area here.
Superficially, it would appear to make sense for the County to simply include the $75 in the annual rates bill.
However, that may not work if the rate payer does not pay the rates either, or if there is some state legal issue preventing them doing so.

The article seems to suggest the $75 is actually part of a separate insurance deal, possibly contracted with a private insurer.
In that case the cost of putting out any individual fire is subsidised by those who take the insurance and don't have a claim.
They make a valid point that if they let one pay if his home catches fire then everyone will go that way.
[Then the fee would have to be much higher per individual fire. $75 would not cover the cost of a fire service witha big truck and team coming to put out a barbecue.]

I notice from the article that the guy had skimped on his household insurance too.
I feel sorry for his family and the animals, but not for him - he made stupid choices and then expected to be bailed out anyway.
There are difficulties for us in making judgements about a system we are unfamiliar with - but he knew how their system worked..

Here, we pay through Fire Services Levies on insurance, and we carry those few who choose not to insure at all.
[Whether we should carry them is another issue - it may involve yet another means test.]

Psyber wrote:Here, we pay through Fire Services Levies on insurance, and we carry those few who choose not to insure at all.
[Whether we should carry them is another issue - it may involve yet another means test.]

Ironically, a very large proportion of money raised in the appeal after the Victorian Bushfires was allocated to people who were not insured. Brumby just couldn't overlook it as it was far too hot politically.

Be warned though - if your property is at risk in a bushfire and is deemed undefensible, expect that firies will allocate their limited resources to properties that are some chance of being saved. In Tasmania a few years ago, property owners were even tying ribbons on trees and letterboxes to indicate firefighters should NOT bother trying to defend their own properties.

The biggest damage caused by natural disasters is not actually fire, but flood. The insurance companies HATE floods.

Squawk wrote:The biggest damage caused by natural disasters is not actually fire, but flood. The insurance companies HATE floods.

I can believe that. My place in the Dandenong Ranges before I moved back to SA escaped the fires, but a few years earlier we had a flood into the under main roof garage after a heavy storm.
It was only about 50mm of water, but we had only recently moved into the house and had a lot of books and other items stored there while we worked out which we were keeping and where to put them, and which we were getting rid of.

"New for old" insurance saved the day and the insurance company shelled out $24K.
[It was one of those rare victories for the guy who paid the premiums, as most of it would have probably been chucked eventually.]

This dates back to the 18th century and the original basis of insurance where the fire brigade was paid for by the insurance companies. Once you paid your insurance, you received a "fire mark" which you hung on the face of your house.



If you had a fire, the fire brigade for that insurance company would put out your fire for you as part of the service. Obviously, the Insurers set this up to protect their investment (bet) in/on you. If you didn't have a "mark", then, theoretically, tough luck mate, however many fires were extinguished for non-subscribers to stop them spreading to subscribers properties, especially in the days of mainly timber houses

Over the years, governments have taken over the duties to "fund" the fire brigade.

Up until a few years ago, you paid a levy on your insurance to help fund the cost but it was inequitable because:

1. Successive governments just banked the levy
2. If you didn't insure, or under-insured, you weren't paying your way

In South Australia, we have now got the Emergency Services Levy which has addressed the funding problem and made the cost more equitable.

Victorians are getting ripped off blind - the country levy was up to an additional 84% at one stage - add on GST and Stamp Duty and it was close to 100% add on - no wonder people didn't insure even though they got exactly the same service. I believe Victoria has finally come to its senses and decided to move to the ESL approach.

As for:

Ironically, a very large proportion of money raised in the appeal after the Victorian Bushfires was allocated to people who were not insured. Brumby just couldn't overlook it as it was far too hot politically.

That is very wrong as these people were given more money than the insured people

The alternative: well, that's where this topic started.......

Psyber wrote:

Squawk wrote:The biggest damage caused by natural disasters is not actually fire, but flood. The insurance companies HATE floods.

I can believe that. My place in the Dandenong Ranges before I moved back to SA escaped the fires, but a few years earlier we had a flood into the under main roof garage after a heavy storm.
It was only about 50mm of water, but we had only recently moved into the house and had a lot of books and other items stored there while we worked out which we were keeping and where to put them, and which we were getting rid of.

"New for old" insurance saved the day and the insurance company shelled out $24K.
[It was one of those rare victories for the guy who paid the premiums, as most of it would have probably been chucked eventually.]

"Flood" is misunderstood by most people and reporters (who dont want to know the truth coz it doesn't sell papers)

Flood is actually the overflowing of a water from a natural or man made water course - it is not when the gutters in the street cant handle the flow

There are several problems with flood insurance:

1. "flood" claims is when you get a monumental "deluge" which includes both rising water and a broken, or overflowing, water course - what caused the damage?

2. and much bigger, problem is that the ACCC wont let Insurers create a standard Australian insurance definition for "flood", so they have said "well stuff you - if you wont let us try and fix this problem, we'll just keep doing what we do"

3. you can buy the cover but most people wont pay for it. There should be a national fund for flood as per the NZ model - one problem? Refer 1 above

Interestingly, a lot of Adelaide is a flood zone - we live on a flood plain - the Torrens is a disaster waiting to happen Be warned!!

A valid point Jimmy - in my case it was actually the overflowing of a water from a natural water course after heavy rain.
I had bought the lower 4 acres of what had been Arthur Streeton's "Longacre" property, and the rain washed down the hill from the upper end still owned by his grandson, Roger.

I'd never considered making sure I had flood cover until I bought the house I had on Delfin Island for a while.
And, as you say, a lot of Adelaide is on an old flood plain - who knows what the long term climate cycles may bring.
[I tend to buy houses that are uphill from everything else these days.]

Weird thing is they day after I read this thread, the bill for my Emergency Services Levy arrived in the mail.

I just drove past your house and saw this DB



Its not overdue, is it?

Jimmy_041 wrote:

I just drove past your house and saw this DB



Its not overdue, is it?

Probably about the same time I saw these shady cats all over your front lawn big fella. Don't worry, I told them to scat!

That's an old photo of Tori Spelling.....