It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Should Residents of Hurricane States Pay Higher Taxes?. Hurricane Recovery is Very Costly.

page: 4
20
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2017 @ 11:20 AM
link   
a reply to: TonyS

The populations matter because the OP is basically proposing a tax hike for the majority of the US population, since a majority of US citizens reside in one of those States (and in Puerto Rico, which is also a hurricane prone territory of full US citizens). I don't think it makes sense to do that when we can just reallocate the $500 billion plus that we spend per year on the DoD.

And no, it's not just evil, rich, luciferian elites who are residents of "hurricane states", as the OP put it. Remember the context; the OP is talking about a higher tax on the entire States, not just the wealthy members of those States. Hence my post.




posted on Sep, 11 2017 @ 11:25 AM
link   
So basically the OP is saying screw helping those in need after a hurricane, you owe more money and should pay it.

Is that the American way?



posted on Sep, 11 2017 @ 11:43 AM
link   
Well being that the majority of states hit by hurricanes happen to be popular holiday destinations for Americans I think they ought to charge visiting Americans treble rates for food, drink and accommodation and then when you whine they say "well it's to cover hurricane damage in future". How would you like that.



posted on Sep, 11 2017 @ 12:25 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Well, you're comments seem on point relative to the OP.

Don't think you'll get much traction on the Defense budget however. The "Deep State" is all about, funded by and plugged into the Defense Budget; all the alphabet Intelligence agencies, their contractors, etc. I'd have to guess you already know that regardless who sits in Congress or the White House, the "Deep State" is firmly in control and is the Wizard behind the screen that controls the puppet political government.

They aren't about to reduce the Defense budget. Best we can hope for is they don't decide to get the US into a major war somewhere.



posted on Sep, 11 2017 @ 12:32 PM
link   
a reply to: crayzeed

You mean Florida and SC?

Texas, Loisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia are not huge tourist destinations.



posted on Sep, 11 2017 @ 12:36 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

On one hand, I think the burden of the costs of disaster recovery should be, first on the individuals, followed by counties, then states, then federal.

If a higher burden is placed on all of us, we are essentially subsidizing the cost of living in some of the most "prime real estate" areas of the country. (So-Cal, So-Fla, etc.)

On the other hand, I do believe we should collectively (as a nation) step up when a "beyond typical" disaster strikes. I also believe that any "disaster pool" would be "borrowed from", much like social security, then claimed to be "insolvent", and we'd be back to tax money being used to subsidize the cost of living in prime real estate.

It could be done in a way that makes sense and doesn't make the rest of us pay to subsidize people's desire to live in disaster prone areas without the ability to afford rebuilding on their own, but it most likely wouldn't be.



posted on Sep, 11 2017 @ 12:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Onslaught9966
So basically the OP is saying screw helping those in need after a hurricane, you owe more money and should pay it.

Is that the American way?


I mean, actually, yes, that is supposed to be the "American Way", except that we will generally step up to help as we can. The problem is that every American is expected (on average) to ante up hundreds of dollars (in the form of our share of the cost) to pay to rebuild what, in many cases, are places we couldn't afford to live ourselves.

It would make more sense for those who enjoy the benefits of coastal living to also pay the costs.



posted on Sep, 11 2017 @ 12:50 PM
link   
So based on this hypothesis, the western states that have wild fires EVERY YEAR should pay more Federal taxes, the states with military bases (targets for incoming missiles) should pay higher taxes, all the states with big rivers in them that have a history of flooding should pay higher taxes, states with volcanoes, geysers, on a failt line should all pay higher taxes, ad nauseum. Here’s an idea...we (citizens of the US) are all Americans, how about we take care of our brothers and sisters in time of TRUE need. There is no logical way to parse out increased Fedral tax by state based on what “might” happen.



posted on Sep, 11 2017 @ 12:53 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

Sure! While we're at it, let's also tax those living in tornado states. Oh, earthquake states too! Seriously, do you ever read what you're writing? Natural disasters happen all across the nation.



posted on Sep, 11 2017 @ 01:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: EternalShadow

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: EternalShadow

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: EternalShadow

Income-tax dollars are already appropriated. The Feds didn't "set aside" the $250 billion (quarter of a Trillion) dollars that they will spend on Harvey/Irma combined.



So where does the money come from?

The money is "appropriated" by Congress. If you recall, just last week, Congress appropriated $15 Billion for Harvey relief. (H.R. 601) The Texas Governor says that at least $100 billion MORE will be needed.


But where does the money come from?


The money comes from Taxpayers. Since its the government, they could also PRINT more or BORROW more from the banker in China.
.

THANK YOU! ....geezus! Was that so hard?

Your whole idea is to raise taxes! That's why I kept asking you where the dough was coming from!

I don't think taxing people DOUBLE for existing is going to go over too well.

Remember, WE fund the government and THEY work for us!

At least in a few of my dreams I've had here and there..



posted on Sep, 11 2017 @ 01:08 PM
link   
a reply to: dogstar23

To Florida's credit, it has a "hurricane disaster pool". It was drained in 2005, but appears to have made a come-back. Not sure how well funded it is, however.


www.flgov.com...



posted on Sep, 11 2017 @ 01:11 PM
link   
Should people who live in earthquake prone states pay more taxes?

Should people who live in drought prone states pay more taxes?

Should people who live in states that get too much snow pay more taxes?



posted on Sep, 11 2017 @ 01:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: crayzeed

You mean Florida and SC?

Texas, Loisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia are not huge tourist destinations.


Louisiana is a big tourist destination for Mardi Gras.



posted on Sep, 11 2017 @ 01:27 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

I think foreign aid and the federal gov't should take a pay cut first.



posted on Sep, 11 2017 @ 01:44 PM
link   
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest


To boil down my O.P. that started this thread..

1. U.S. Hurricanes are frequent, and are very costly.
2. U.S. Taxpayers paid 17% of hurricane recovery efforts before Katrina.
3. Katrina (Bush/Obama) ballooned that percentage to 62%
4. Sandy (Obama) ramped it up even further to 80%

If you have financial interest (live, own a business, property) in a state that is visited by a hurricane more than once per decade, should that state set up a Hurricane relief/recovery fund where people with a financial interest in that state contribute to a fund (are taxed)? The reason for doing this would be to lower your state's repeated burden to taxpayers in all the other states.
edit on 9/11/2017 by carewemust because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2017 @ 02:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme
Just FYI "taming that swamp" causes worse flooding.. Swamps and wetlands are natural barriers/absorbers of flood waters. Not sure what source you'd believe so search "losing wetlands flooding" there's literally millions of hits



posted on Sep, 11 2017 @ 02:19 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

Who exactly is receiving this money? Government buildings? People should have home insurance that will cover their losses.



posted on Sep, 11 2017 @ 02:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: WhyDidIJoin
a reply to: carewemust

Who exactly is receiving this money? Government buildings? People should have home insurance that will cover their losses.


The state is recieving the money. It's for infrastructure repair like power, water, and roads. Private businesses and homes come from insurance funds that those private entities contribute to and isn't government subsidized, with the exception of federal flood insurance, but I don't know much about that particular program.



posted on Sep, 11 2017 @ 02:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: crayzeed

You mean Florida and SC?

Texas, Loisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia are not huge tourist destinations.

Here's a list from a 2014 article of the most popular States to visit by other US citizens (aka domestic tourism). HERE

Texas was ranked #4, Georgia was #9, Alabama was #14, Mississippi was #27, and Louisiana was #29. Florida was ranked #2 and South Carolina was ranked #7. So I think it's safe to say that at least Texas, Georgia, and Alabama should also be considered good tourism destinations.



posted on Sep, 11 2017 @ 03:31 PM
link   
My view:

If you want to play that game, then you need to offset those tax requirements based on the strategic value of the location. Take Houston for example.....do you really want to play tough with Houston on hurricane relief? Do you know what you would be paying for gas if Houston decided to push back?

Equal protection under the law. The US Government isn't an insurance agency, and tax isn't a risk equation. I can't believe that has to even be pointed out.




top topics



 
20
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join