Refusing to provide fore services to those who do not pay sounds like its correct and good. But it has down sides:

First, it doesn't save you any money. An fire large enough for people to call the fire department for is a hazard that has to be monitored, if not actively addressed. The fire is not going to stop until it runs out of fuel or is put out. Chances are it gets bigger and more expensive, and more hazardous, to put out.

The only people capable of monitoring the fire is ... wait for it... the fire department. Which means the fire department has to roll on every fire, even if they don't intend to actually put it out. If they have to go out, in case it gets out of hand, they will be spending the same time on the road and will have to bring the same number of people and the same equipment as they would if they actually intended to fight the fire.

They are also legally required to rescue people. To not rescue a person when they are on site and aware of their predicament would open the FD to being sued and possible criminally charges of 'depraved indifference'. Won't take many of those cases to eat up the budget. There is also the question of exactly how the FD determines there is nobody trapped without searching the house.

Second, the local taxing authority will be losing money even if the FD doesn't go out. If the house burns it can't be taxed. Even assuming low rates the loss of a medium-sized home from the tax rolls is going to cost the taxing authority a whole lot more than $75.

Third, the maintenance of a current database of who has paid, or not, and getting the accurate information out to the fire crews is not free. It is going to cost time and money to maintain that list. And God forbid if there is any error. County says I didn't pay. Homeowner says they did. If the FD lets the place burn and the HO pulls a receipt out of the smoking ruins the county and FD will be hip deep in lawyers. Best case, you get off just buying them a new house. If it happens once the county tells the FD to put out all the fires to save money.

There is also the intangible of sending emergency workers out on calls and telling them not to do what they do. Kind of rips the enthusiasm out of the job having a bean counter tell you you can't practice your calling. And if the crew, or even a single fireman, disobeys; will you fire them? What is that going to do for morale.

Letting the house burn if they didn't pay their fee sounds good until you look closely at it. It sounds like a deterrent. But people don't operate that way. If they did there would be no drunk driving and people wouldn't take chances. Problem is that people inherently assumes they are bulletproof. That it won't happen to them.

A better approach would be to expect a $75 fee to be paid but to bill anyone who has not paid it an additional amount. They could figure what hat would be but $750 wouldn't be unreasonable. This would be run through the normal tax system so that the unpaid tax is converted to a lien.

The funny thing is that this is not the first time this question has come up. Many of the first fire departments in the US were set up on a subscription basis. Most cities had several firehouses run as independent companies. If you wanted fire protection you contracted with a firehouse and were given a plaque to nail to your eave. If a fire was spotted alarm would be called and one or more companies would arrive. Non-contracted companies were required to rescue people but not fight the fire. Desperate homeowners would often offer up a large sum and the various companies would frequently have a fistfight, as the fire burned, to determine who took up the offer.

There was also the tendency for rich neighborhoods to have many fire companies and poor neighborhoods to have none. Unfortunately once a fire has become a major conflagration, building strength burning through the poor section of town, it is really too big to stop. So the rich, and well protected, neighborhoods burn in turn.

Fire companies also were quite territorial. Hire the wrong company and they might find their path blocked by a rival company when it is time to put your house out. A lesson to building owners to hire only the local boys if you wanted fire service. Rival companies might also sabotage equipment and cut hoses. If a company got the reputation for not being effective, for whatever reason, it tended to lose subscribers and go out of business.

The main reason we went to universal coverage was that it was/is simply more efficient. Firemen get to concentrate of putting out fires. Crews can be deployed in the most efficient manner to fight a fire without having to worry about who has, or hasn't, paid.

Yes, there are people who don't pay. Scofflaws who try to beat the system. Poor people who simply can't pay, won't. Scofflaws won't. People who are well connected politically to the municipality or fire chief won't. That is the way it has always been. Some of that can be handled administratively and/or through taxing authority. But no matter how right letting non-paying houses burn seems it is likely to cost you more in the long run to 'teach them a lesson' than to just put it out and sort it out later.