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

a reply to: enlightenedservant

How in the hell is *Alabama* a larger tourist destination than Louisiana?

Regarding the OP: My family home has survived the last 40 years of hurricanes. We lost exactly 1 package of shingles during Katrina. We haven't flooded...ever. Why? Because like true Louisiana natives...we build our houses in the area high ground and put them on pedestals on top of *that.*

Sure. I'll pay more for insurance that I've never used...we'll charge the difference to the rest of the states for the 1/5th of the nation's gasoline that we produce. We won't even mention the plastics, heavy fuel oils (like that heating oil the North is so fond of), and various other petrochemicals. Look up "petroleum refineries in the US" on wikipedia and there are 4 of them within 10 miles of my current location, and a fifth that's incorrectly represented.

Face it, OP. Mother Nature can get you no matter where you live. Whether it's blizzards and ice storms, wildfires, tornadoes, and earthquakes, you can't make yourself 100% safe. At least with hurricanes you get a few days notice. To me nothing is more terrifying than living in an area that can start shaking at a moment's notice and obliterate everything in the city in a matter of seconds.

a reply to: carewemust
Florida does have a hurricane relief fund.

Natural disasters are cyclical, are not always predictable, and there is no State that is immune.

People don't choose were they are born and packing up and moving to a safe place when you come of age, isn't often feasible.

Where are all of these people that live in disaster prone areas supposed to move to?

The cost of the US maintaining whole states as national park land because they are supposedly too large of a financial burden for the average American to live there, because there may be a natural disaster, makes little financial sense.

What does this America you speak of look like? Masses of people forced into living in supposedly safe ghettos, with the rich owning massive plots of land. Sounds almost feudal.

I have been through many hurricanes. I have never filed a claim for assistance from my private insurance, or for government assistance. I am not alone. More home owners don't file claims than those that do.

Rebuilding is not free. You have to pay for that house or building that is being reconstructed. That is not where the government money goes.

The increase in numbers is not just in inflation. The increase in population has a greater impact.

[quote ] Each year there are approximately 4 million births in the U.S. and 2.4 million deaths. The growth due to natural increase (total births minus deaths) is therefore 1.6 million per year. Yet according to the Census Bureau's decennial census, U.S. population is growing by approximately 3.3 million per year. [quote /]
www.susps.org...

If you don't want to give privately, don't. No one is going to think less of you.

I think you are right on one level. Our government does not spend our tax dollars wisely. Punishing Americans for where they choose to life, or are forced to live, is not the answer.

I think stopping our tax dollars from going to other countries, and to other peoples before caring for the needs of American people, is a place to start. But the trend is to care for everyone else, and to throw the American under the bus.

If you made this post about stopping or reducing aide to any other group of people, this thread would be 155 pages long by now, and you would have been called every name in the book, including the spawn of Satan. But you are safe because you are only talking about taking assistance away from Americans.

originally posted by: carewemust
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.

Ok. Then state gov't should take a pay cut, and spending on programs like public education and medicaid should be temporarily diverted. Those are financial black holes...especially the top heavy education system.

No need to raise taxes. Its a matter of better budgeting.

No. "The People Government" that receive the taxes should budget and manage money better. The news is already saying "FEMA" is broke and can't pay for all this mess. That, and I'd wager most homeowners, business owners and other property owners, were already in the insurance wracket/socialist banker scheme "if we all pitch in", just paying "their fare share".."freedom tax" but also paying for "insurance", the insurance companies gambled they'd never have to pay. No, people pay enough "tax". What we have is poor money management and a government that buys what it wants, not what it needs. What needs to happen is "comunities" need to get of momma sow's nipples and start thinking of themselves. Like it used to be. Back when the Feds sent "aid" and not "compliance". Money/Taxes need to stay in the State. Where it can be better watched/handled closer to home, "by the people". How dare, you even suggest this Idea. You suggest throwing other peoples money at the fed government? Because it has obviously, worked so well for the last hundred years. floods, fire and famine. But the feds are paying people to lick stamps, fill the ink jar and fold the napkins.. You're right. The answer is more tax! However, I do believe people should be responsible for their own stupidity. If you live in a flood zone. You get what you get. If the insurance companies agree to reimburse you for your stupidity? They get, what they agree to. It's a vicious circle of stupidity. I don't feel sorry for any of them. But nobody needs to pay "higher taxes"! It wouldn't help or fix anything. Unless, maybe a new alphabet agency that runs out of money, when they're supposed to do there job. Then cries for more money.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Temporarily cutting Medicaid? What good is it fix a city's buildings and infrastructure if we're going to cut the healthcare of the people who live there? Shouldn't the health of actual citizens who need that healthcare be more important than the inanimate buildings & infrastructure?

a reply to: netwarrior

How in the hell is *Alabama* a larger tourist destination than Louisiana?

Are you implying that I'm lying? Or are you just not familiar with what's in Alabama? Either way, don't forget that tourism includes domestic tourism. College football games & other forms of sports tourism are included in this (think Alabama football, Auburn football, UAB, etc). There's also stuff like the U.S. Space & Rocket Center, which I visited twice while on school field trips.

Then there's the widespread tourism destinations connected to the Civil Rights Movement. Start with places like the Rosa Parks Museum, Tuskegee University (ever heard of the Tuskegee Airmen?), and the city of Selma, where one of the most infamous marches in the entire Civil Rights Movement occurred. And don't forget, one of the most famous things associated with Dr MLK is "Letter from a Birmingham Jail", which he wrote while confined in a Birmingham jail. Surely you can understand why a lot of us go to these places to connect to that part of our history, right?

Put it like this, I've been to Alabama maybe a dozen or so times. But I've never been to Louisiana. Mardi Gras has no meaning to me, so I simply haven't found a reason to go there.

a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

Given climate change this is bigger question than simply about hurricanes. Living in coastal areas may seem prettier, but when you factor in climate change, sea level rises, tsunami, erosion, wild fires etc.. The coastal areas will always have a higher risk than inland area (With the exception of forest fires and tornadoes) .

If global society can take a tsunami where 250,000 people and not determine it makes sense to move inland.. Nothing will change that.

a reply to: mzinga

And if you follow the logic...the cause of climate change rests more in the highly urbanized northeast and with foreign nations who heavily invest financially in those regions.

Seems to me like non-gulf states make out ok just fine at the expense of the gulf states.

a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

I referenced the Florida hurricane relief fund a few posts above yours. It is funded from voluntary contributions and has been emptied out by...I think, hurricane Wilma.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest

originally posted by: carewemust
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.

Ok. Then state gov't should take a pay cut, and spending on programs like public education and medicaid should be temporarily diverted. Those are financial black holes...especially the top heavy education system.

No need to raise taxes. Its a matter of better budgeting.

Have you heard the estimates of what just the Federal Government (taxpayers) is expected to shell out for IRMA and HARVEY? $290 Billion is what the research think-tanks are estimating. (Insurance, and contributions, will pick up the other 50% or so, of recovery costs.)

The entire 2017 budget of Texas is $217 Billion. And for Florida, its $82 Billion.

States can't handle this load with their current budgets. To ease the burden on taxpayers across the country, states that routinely require "disaster declarations" due to Hurricanes, should build up a fund, by taxing individuals and businesses in those states. Not the full $xxx Billion, but much of it.

It's just like a smoker paying more for health insurance because its more likely he/she will have a smoking-related illness. In the case of hurricanes, states like Florida are GUARANTEED to have that illness...regularly.

People want to live near the water....developers give them what they want.
If folks want to life precariously, that is on them.

IMHO, it is borderline criminal to allow developments in or near flood plains, low lying areas...like much of the newly built up areas of the Gulf and Atlantic coasts.

I should not have to pay higher insurance premiums because of this.
I should not be financial responsible for shoring up National Flood Insurance.....already billions in debt before Harvey.

ETA
I would be in favor of less foreign aid, and more aid for the US, though.
That costs taxpayers nothing.

a reply to: Lilroanie

I know. Thank you. I was just pointing out the work and engineering that made Florida what it is today. I never said it made the environment safer or happier lol.
I agree the water still comes in. Now it has no where to go but your house.
The water around the keys is very deep. They can't even build a breakwater barrier to make the islands grow.
Though that may be what they did to build up Miami beach.

a reply to: rickymouse

We do pay a higher price. Also, regular insurance does not cover "hurricane damage." In Texas it is called TWIA or Texas Windstorm. I understand your point, but consider all of the communities that get commodities from places along the coast like Texas. You get oil, electricity, etc etc. Should those be taxed at a higher rate to pay for the fact that we live and work in these industries in a dangerous place? I wouldnt actually be worrying about ppl paying more honestly. It is the ppl that have zero coverage and then get free checks from the government that I have a problem with. I make 10 bucks an hour and somehow I manage to pay for TWIA, Flood, AUTO, and Homeowners ins. I didn't actually choose to live here. I was moved here when I was 2 right before hurricane Alicia hit. Tho, I am moving out of state because of said natural disasters that I'm tired of dealing with.
Oh, and apparently Houston is raising taxes to help cover costs of rebuilding. Alos, most of the water in my county was pumped down here from surrounding counties and some areas are still unreachable because of that. Class actions incomming.

On another note Hi lol read your stuff alot....dig what you have to say. I've been lurking this board for close to 18 years now.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I think it's actually California and Texas that lead as well as some northern states you wouldn't expect.

www.eia.gov...

a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

I think there should be zones of coarse where some ocean high risk mansions shouldn't be covered but the Texas and Louisiana cost are very industrial coastlines.

a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

The U.S. Government (in 2015) spent $49.5 Billion on Foreign Aid, according to the Congressional Research Service.
Source: www.cfr.org...

The cost to the U.S. Government for Harvey and Irma is (conservatively) estimated to be $290 Billion.

The U.S. could redirect foreign expenditures to domestic needs here at home, but that $49.5 Billion would only be a drop in the bucket, compared to what is actually needed for everything from lowering healthcare costs, to natural disaster recovery.

Regarding building homes, businesses, condos, etc.. on low-lying coast lines, the global warming people advise against it. They say the sea levels will soon rise to a point where even moderate cyclones will cause horrific property damage.

I live in a hurricane proned state, but I am quite far from any shoreline and at a much higher elevation.
should hurricane prone areas pay more, I'd say probably ya, especially those who have high dollar homes in those areas that they get to rebuild year after year. but half of texas is a flipping desert, a good part of virginia and north carolina are mountains... believe me, any hurricane heading my way would be torn up by the danged mountains long before it got to me!!!

a reply to: carewemust

Have you ever been to the Texas coast? It doesn't look like Florida. Most of the beaches are terrible and you can watch the tankers and blinking of off shore rigs at night.

A lot of the destruction is also infrastructure. Not just mansions. It's not the same as Naples.

a reply to: spincycle


Thank-you for that very informative post, spincycle. You seem to be very wise for being in your early 30's.

Where are you thinking of relocating to? Word of caution though.. Don't move to Illinois!

a reply to: dawnstar

That would be a good idea. People who live in the section of states that can expect a hurricane of a certain magnitude (Category 2 maybe?) to damage their property, could pay into a hurricane relief/recovery fund that would used to offset the FEMA and emergency appropriations from Congress, after the Hurricane.