Well said VC. It doesn't sound like he takes responsibility for his actions in the first place and he sure as shit sounds like the type of person who would sue afterwards in blaming others for his problems. Especially in the US.
Didn't pay fee? We'll watch while your house burns down.
- Thread starter Lone Wolf
- Start date
Well said VC. It doesn't sound like he takes responsibility for his actions in the first place and he sure as shit sounds like the type of person who would sue afterwards in blaming others for his problems. Especially in the US.
H
HubbaHubba
P
PhoneGirl
So, if you couldn't afford to pay your bills on time and as a result you were neglected help from an emergency service resulting in your house being burnt down, would you really be thinking:
Awe damn, it's my own fault anyways ...
Awe damn, it's my own fault anyways ...
H
HubbaHubba
or didn't pay your MSP premiums for a few months thus didn't get emergency medical surgery.........it would never happen, why? Because we as a society wouldn't allow someone to die over 100 or 200 bucks.
my take on this situation is not that the bill wasn't being paid on time - it was being refused to be paid at all. correct me if i'm wrong
pg, there are certain inescapable facts in this life, and those facts become more clear if you live in a small rural community. for example, from a small community you may have to drive say three hours to get to a particular airport so you can catch the one daily flight to a major city to make connections for an international flight (say you're going on a rare holiday to New Zealand). but due to a snowstorm you arrive an hour after the flight has departed but you paid for the flight with a non-refundable ticket and your next connection was a tight one. so there you are, one hour late and as a result you are out for the entire bill: flights, accomodations, the works... and being too naive in the ways of the world, you didn't purchase missed flight insurance.
can you call the insurance company and ask to buy the insurance after the fact? no
can you call the airline and offer to upgrade your fare to make it refundable? no
are you shit out of luck? yes
it's the same way with the guy who didn't pay the utility for fire protection. he made a calculated decision to not do so, and the fire department could not enter his property to fight the fire. case closed. he was shit out of luck
life is like that sometimes
pg, there are certain inescapable facts in this life, and those facts become more clear if you live in a small rural community. for example, from a small community you may have to drive say three hours to get to a particular airport so you can catch the one daily flight to a major city to make connections for an international flight (say you're going on a rare holiday to New Zealand). but due to a snowstorm you arrive an hour after the flight has departed but you paid for the flight with a non-refundable ticket and your next connection was a tight one. so there you are, one hour late and as a result you are out for the entire bill: flights, accomodations, the works... and being too naive in the ways of the world, you didn't purchase missed flight insurance.
can you call the insurance company and ask to buy the insurance after the fact? no
can you call the airline and offer to upgrade your fare to make it refundable? no
are you shit out of luck? yes
it's the same way with the guy who didn't pay the utility for fire protection. he made a calculated decision to not do so, and the fire department could not enter his property to fight the fire. case closed. he was shit out of luck
life is like that sometimes
but enough people don't pay their premiums and the system goes broke and people don't get the routine surgery required to keep them alive for a few years longer. hubba, everybody's gotta pay their bills or society goes to shit
H
HubbaHubba
I understand that but some people can't pay them and not because they don't wanna.
**It's the fact they let animals die that pisses me off.
P
PhoneGirl
I was comparing this experience to solely emergency services.
I understand policies surrounding missed airline flights, but how is that comparable to a citizen who was in dire need of emergency services and protection from immediate danger? I don't think that's comparable to basic needs like food, shelter, and protection.
I understand policies surrounding missed airline flights, but how is that comparable to a citizen who was in dire need of emergency services and protection from immediate danger? I don't think that's comparable to basic needs like food, shelter, and protection.
and i was comparing it to the utter uselessness of trying to argue with insurance companies. islandzen said it best below:
this is exactly why the fire department was forbidden to enter the property... cats, dogs, cattle, horses, people, whatever... they could not cross his property boundary. in Canada we have the so called 'Good Samaritan' law - you can't be sued for doing an act that is deemed to be acting as a good samaritan. but the US has no such law - in the US you CAN be sued for acting as a good samaritan so municipalities charge fees for emergency services, and the fine print on the back of your receipt for paying the fees includes a clause where you waive the right to sue the provider of those emergency services. if you don't pay the fees you don't enter into that agreement and you don't get the services because you haven't agreed to that waiver saying that you won't sue the provider of emergency services
if you can't understand anything about the previous info, i can't help you any more. read the Bible to understand more about the story of the Good Samaritan and there are a few self-help books at Chapters that will give you a basic understanding of legal liability and contract law. make sure you read the part that talks about other jurisdictions like the US
i promise not to post on this thread any more as i'm sure everybody is tired of hearing the 'logic based' arguement about it
H
HubbaHubba
lol...VCC you are 100% right and I know that...it is the "good samaritan" and animal lover in me that is sickened by the situation.
I'm not sure how much protection the Good Samaritan clause provides anyway. I'm not a lawyer but I took a law course and I remember our instructor said if you were to give someone CPR to someone who couldn't breathe and ended up breaking his rib, he could technically sue you unless you can prove to the court what you did was what a "reasonable man" would do. To bring that to this example, if the fire department needs to break some windows or break some doors to save this guy's cats and dogs, he could actually sue the fire department to recover some of the damages to his property. It sucks but that's how liability in our society has evolved.
Why not ? At least it's informative. It might not be as funny as you and hubb's digging at each other, or just generally poking the bear as some are wont to do, including myself. It can't be about, pussy, beer, food, hockey and brown shoes all the time, Spermie not withstanding....
why do you guys encourage him...
I guess so uncleg...
my apologies
it's just that I find al very pedantic...
the kind of guy, who, if you're standing behind him in a lineup waiting to buy your morning coffee, turns around while holding his briefcase and out of nowhere decides to very intensely explain to you why an ant is the strongest animal on earth...
Along the same vein, there is this ex-NBA bench-rider up in Oregon who is running for Governor. As can be expected, as much dirt as can be dug up will be dug up.
Somehow he not only allowed this fire department to burn his house down, but he then claimed a $350,000 tax deduction:
Home > Politics & Elections > 2010 Elections
Dudley defends $350,000 tax deduction for allowing Lake Oswego Fire Department to burn down a house he owned
Published: Wednesday, October 06, 2010, 6:43 PM Updated: Thursday, October 07, 2010, 6:29 AM
Jeff Mapes, The Oregonian
Follow Share this story
Story tools
Lake Oswego Fire DepartmentLake Oswego fire fighters douse flames from the corner of a 4,500-square-foot home donated by Chris Dudley to the city's fire department on June 6, 2004.
36
Share 108 Comments Republican Chris Dudley took a $350,000 tax deduction for allowing Lake Oswego firefighters to burn down a house he owned -- and planned to demolish -- while using a tax strategy that has since run into determined opposition from the Internal Revenue Service.
Dudley's aides defended his action, saying that the tax deduction was ethical and legal, and that he had no hint at the time that the IRS wanted to eliminate the practice of claiming a large tax break for donating unwanted houses to fire departments for training exercises.
However, the new revelation, first reported by Willamette Week, again focused attention in the governor's race on Dudley's wealth and handling of his personal finances. Democrats, who have been hammering him for once moving to Washington state to save money on taxes, seized on the new report as another indication of his interest in pushing the envelope to lower his tax burden.
After retiring from the Portland Trail Blazers in 2003, Dudley bought a 4,500-square-foot home on 1.7 acres of land adjoining Oswego Lake Country Club and approached the local fire department about donating the house for training exercises.
Dudley obtained an appraisal listing the value of the structure at $350,000, which he claimed as a tax deduction after fire fighters used the house for a series of drills in June of 2004 that eventually burned it to the ground. Dudley had a new 8,500-square-foot home built that he and his family now live in.
Dudley campaign manager Josh Ginsberg said "he did everything by the book," and aides say that the IRS never contacted him about the deduction.
The tax break was based on a 1973 IRS ruling that allowed the practice. But by the late 1990s, some taxpayers had come under IRS scrutiny, although it wasn't until well after 2004 that it became widely known that tax officials were trying to crack down on the deduction.
Michael Goller, a Wisconsin lawyer who represents a property owner in a key case challenging the IRS on the deduction, said "there would be no reason for anybody in Milwaukee to know about the issue in 2004, let alone in Oregon."
In fact, the Wisconsin case is still in the U.S. Tax Court, which has yet to rule on whether a lakeside property owner in the countryside outside of Milwaukee can claim a $76,000 deduction for allowing fire fighters to burn down a house he didn't want. The IRS recently won cases against two Ohio property owners -- including Kirk Herbstreit, a well-known ESPN football analyst -- for claiming the deduction, but both hinged on a technicality of whether they obtained proper appraisals.
Goller argued that the house was of large value to the local fire department, which could get the kind of practice simply not available in a typical training facility. He likened it to someone donating clothing that no longer fits, but still has market value when given to charity.
IRS attorneys countered that claiming the full market value of the house was "excessive" and presented evidence that the house would be next to worthless if someone actually had to move it to another property.
Dudley spokesman Jake Suski said the donation had "tremendous value to the Lake Oswego Fire Department and that was an important consideration for Chris and his wife."
Gert Zoutendijk, the deputy fire marshal in Lake Oswego, said the department has accepted the donation of three or four homes since Dudley's for training exercises. He said the agency gets an average of two or three requests every year to donate homes, but he said many are not acceptable because they are too close to other houses or are otherwise too dangerous to deliberately set on fire.
Jillian Schoene, a spokeswoman for Democrat John Kitzhaber, said the tax break shows that "Chris Dudley deserves more scrutiny" and raises "questions about his values."
The Democratic Party of Oregon scheduled a Thursday press conference with former Secretary of State Bill Bradbury to demand that Dudley release his income tax records. Party spokeswoman Amy Wojcicki said the tax break sheds light on the "choices (Dudley) made to get out of contributing to important services."
Dudley, however, has noted that he paid some $440,000 in Oregon income taxes when he lived in Camas, Wash., for three years during the 1990s and contributed heavily to Portland-area charities.
Kitzhaber has released tax records related to a loan that reporters questioned, but he has not released his entire tax returns.
-Jeff Mapes
Related topics: chris dudley, internal revenue service, lake oswego, oregon governor 2010
Sponsored Links
Somehow he not only allowed this fire department to burn his house down, but he then claimed a $350,000 tax deduction:
Home > Politics & Elections > 2010 Elections
Dudley defends $350,000 tax deduction for allowing Lake Oswego Fire Department to burn down a house he owned
Published: Wednesday, October 06, 2010, 6:43 PM Updated: Thursday, October 07, 2010, 6:29 AM
Jeff Mapes, The Oregonian
Follow Share this story
Story tools
Lake Oswego Fire DepartmentLake Oswego fire fighters douse flames from the corner of a 4,500-square-foot home donated by Chris Dudley to the city's fire department on June 6, 2004.
36
Share 108 Comments Republican Chris Dudley took a $350,000 tax deduction for allowing Lake Oswego firefighters to burn down a house he owned -- and planned to demolish -- while using a tax strategy that has since run into determined opposition from the Internal Revenue Service.
Dudley's aides defended his action, saying that the tax deduction was ethical and legal, and that he had no hint at the time that the IRS wanted to eliminate the practice of claiming a large tax break for donating unwanted houses to fire departments for training exercises.
However, the new revelation, first reported by Willamette Week, again focused attention in the governor's race on Dudley's wealth and handling of his personal finances. Democrats, who have been hammering him for once moving to Washington state to save money on taxes, seized on the new report as another indication of his interest in pushing the envelope to lower his tax burden.
After retiring from the Portland Trail Blazers in 2003, Dudley bought a 4,500-square-foot home on 1.7 acres of land adjoining Oswego Lake Country Club and approached the local fire department about donating the house for training exercises.
Dudley obtained an appraisal listing the value of the structure at $350,000, which he claimed as a tax deduction after fire fighters used the house for a series of drills in June of 2004 that eventually burned it to the ground. Dudley had a new 8,500-square-foot home built that he and his family now live in.
Dudley campaign manager Josh Ginsberg said "he did everything by the book," and aides say that the IRS never contacted him about the deduction.
The tax break was based on a 1973 IRS ruling that allowed the practice. But by the late 1990s, some taxpayers had come under IRS scrutiny, although it wasn't until well after 2004 that it became widely known that tax officials were trying to crack down on the deduction.
Michael Goller, a Wisconsin lawyer who represents a property owner in a key case challenging the IRS on the deduction, said "there would be no reason for anybody in Milwaukee to know about the issue in 2004, let alone in Oregon."
In fact, the Wisconsin case is still in the U.S. Tax Court, which has yet to rule on whether a lakeside property owner in the countryside outside of Milwaukee can claim a $76,000 deduction for allowing fire fighters to burn down a house he didn't want. The IRS recently won cases against two Ohio property owners -- including Kirk Herbstreit, a well-known ESPN football analyst -- for claiming the deduction, but both hinged on a technicality of whether they obtained proper appraisals.
Goller argued that the house was of large value to the local fire department, which could get the kind of practice simply not available in a typical training facility. He likened it to someone donating clothing that no longer fits, but still has market value when given to charity.
IRS attorneys countered that claiming the full market value of the house was "excessive" and presented evidence that the house would be next to worthless if someone actually had to move it to another property.
Dudley spokesman Jake Suski said the donation had "tremendous value to the Lake Oswego Fire Department and that was an important consideration for Chris and his wife."
Gert Zoutendijk, the deputy fire marshal in Lake Oswego, said the department has accepted the donation of three or four homes since Dudley's for training exercises. He said the agency gets an average of two or three requests every year to donate homes, but he said many are not acceptable because they are too close to other houses or are otherwise too dangerous to deliberately set on fire.
Jillian Schoene, a spokeswoman for Democrat John Kitzhaber, said the tax break shows that "Chris Dudley deserves more scrutiny" and raises "questions about his values."
The Democratic Party of Oregon scheduled a Thursday press conference with former Secretary of State Bill Bradbury to demand that Dudley release his income tax records. Party spokeswoman Amy Wojcicki said the tax break sheds light on the "choices (Dudley) made to get out of contributing to important services."
Dudley, however, has noted that he paid some $440,000 in Oregon income taxes when he lived in Camas, Wash., for three years during the 1990s and contributed heavily to Portland-area charities.
Kitzhaber has released tax records related to a loan that reporters questioned, but he has not released his entire tax returns.
-Jeff Mapes
Related topics: chris dudley, internal revenue service, lake oswego, oregon governor 2010
Sponsored Links
"alinburnaby": Just to let you know that for my part I found what you wrote very interesting, comments to the contrary notwithstanding, and I appreciated the lengths you went to with regards to including a researched article in order to educate members of the forum like me.
I agree.
The comments came from someone whose contributions always consist of a few lines of trollish, venomous drivel with the only variation being who it is directed at.. meh. Consider the source.
At this point, it's pretty obvious he's just an unhappy, bitter and negative person who's just desperately trying to drag others down to his level. Misery loves company is the expression, no?
