On 11/10/2013, at 2:15 AM, "Jordan Hayes" <jmhayes at j-o-r-d-a-n.com> wrote:
> I've never lived anywhere in the US that has fire protection paid for by "the willing" -- property taxes pay for fire protection in most places[*]. Are you saying that taxes should pay for your online access to the NY Times? That seems fine to me in principle, but I think we're a long way from that.
Funny you should say that, here the government whacks a levy on property insurance which partially funds the fire service. ( also a levy on municipal rates.) So those who don't bother with property insurance (or more commonly, under-insure their property for the risk of fire) pay less than their "fair" share of the cost.
Ironically, the logic of the tax on insurance is the "user-pays" principle. But it has the opposite effect, the tax simply raises the cost of insurance and thus deters people from buying enough insurance to replace their property if it is destroyed by fire.
Every so often there will be a major bush-fire where the chickens come home to roost. The victims of bush-fire are effectively covered by public sentiment which will not allow them to suffer from this loss. Those who are under-insured get compensated fully from the proceeds of any public appeal. It happens every time, so demonstrating the fatal flaw in the notion of user-pays.
So why tolerate, let alone encourage, insurance companies gouging a profit out of the unavoidable social need for a fund to compensate people for losses from fires I ask.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas