I'm somewhat inclined to agree that there's nothing wrong per se with paying for additional services that you desire. The problem is manyfold. > Someone who h

I'm somewhat inclined to agree that there's nothing wrong per se with paying for additional services that you desire. The problem is manyfold. > Someone who has a very large house with very large grounds paying for additional private services for fire protection seems _fair_ to me. The need to pay for additional services at all is indicative that the public service is insufficient to keep us and our property safe. Fire does not discriminate between rich and poor; that should be a concern for everyone, but only the rich can do something about it (by throwing money at it). > Should the public pay for the increased cost to cover someone with a house and property much larger than what the median home and property is? If the rich have more land and property to risk, then they should be paying more taxes too. The public service should not discriminate against them. Why is the service insufficient to keep their property safe, and how can we trust them to keep the poor safe? Of course you can have more land than the average citizen without being FU rich. In that case, the land is probably your job, and someone else's food or job down the chain. Shouldn't the public service protect those too? > And keeping the fires from spreading though their own property will no doubt have a beneficial effect on those around them, too. Yep, helps all the rich in their rich enclave where the poor cannot afford to live. > The wealthy are stepping up to the plate and paying for the additional services they need without public help. One of the fears I perceive here is that it's a slippery slope. If public service is insufficient and privatization becomes more prominent, one day it's going to be the one and same fire service everyone needs, but only the rich can afford. See health care, etc.