3 ms·

That would create an incentive for firefighters to burn down people's houses. I'm not saying they would, but it's best not to create such situations. It would

That would create an incentive for firefighters to burn down people's houses. I'm not saying they would, but it's best not to create such situations. It would be harder to determine the right price to charge people. It's not the water that costs anything, it's the equipment. Remember, this organization is not seeking to make a profit, just cover costs. If people pay in advance, you charge (number of houses / cost of maintenance). Very straightforward. If people pay after the fact, you have to charge (number of houses that will burn down / cost of maintenance). But you don't know in advance how many houses will burn down. Finally, while letting a house burn down is an ugly business, it's also pretty ugly when you have to send out collections. You already know they were too poor or irresponsible to pay the fee upfront, so it's not like they have a nest egg sitting around.

elbrodeur 16y ago
Already, for the uninsured, if you break a leg and need an ambulance ride you get one. It costs an arm (in addition to your wounded leg) but you get it. Would you say this creates an incentive for EMTs and paramedics to break people's legs? Again, systems are in place to already collect from people who can't afford lump sum payments. Amortized scheduling occurs in pretty much every industry. Yes, a certain number of people cannot and perhaps will not pay. But the net benefit to society is manifest when your neighbor's house isn't burnt to the ground.
anigbrowl 16y ago
You are half-right, and such things used to happen occasionally - back when there were multiple competing fire departments, some of them veered towards being protection rackets. That's a big reason service is a (local) government monopoly nowadays.