In the news today

[Splash!]

Taxes from their home municipality. The house that burnt down does not reside in the town where the fire department is funded by taxes. That's the whole idea behind the annual fee.

Financially disadvantaged family hasn't been paying the annual $75. House catches on fire, fire department comes, bills them for $11,000. They don't pay it, or simply can't afford it. Suddenly the fire dept is doing work unfunded. Others follow suit, do the same thing. If the fire dept can't collect, they're working unfunded. I fail to see why this is hard to understand.

Fire dept runs out of funds working in a different town that refuses to fund them through taxes of their own. Which the fee essential is, it is an opt-in tax.

Option A: Increase taxes on their home municipality, now one town is funding the rural one, who gets services for free.
Option B: Stop ever coming to rural area, houses burn to the ground, people die.
Option C: Close fire dept, both towns' houses burn to the ground, people die.

The answer is going to be Option B.

Conclusion: There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Either pay the fee, or vote for a new fire house (volunteer likely) funded by taxes.

No, option B pretty asinine. We are talking about someone's house burning down here, which is an emergency service. You should put out the fire first and ask questions later, even if the person whose property you are saving is a dick. If you are worried about the "message it would send to other people", then also consider the message being sent out when the fire authorities just sit by and do nothing as someone's house burns down (even if it is within their means). It creates a lack of trust.

If people not paying is resulting in serious underfunding as you say, then there are better ways to resolve the problem. Maybe some sort of contractual mechanism whereby, if you have not been making your payments, and request a fire to be put out, any property saved can be used as collateral if the the service is not paid for after the fact. Of course, there might be other loose ends to tie in this scenario, but still, a complicated situation like this demands a slightly more refined solution, not just "no money, burn in hell". Option B is screwing over people that actually might have a change of heart after having their house saved and decide to pay (especially if their house is worth more than $11,000).

Yes, there should be serious repercussions for those who refuse to pay after having their house saved. Maybe more effort should be spent on accountability, rather than resorting to oversimplified and selfish solutions because lack of accountability is assumed to be a general and immutable fact.