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

September 10, 2017

Before hurricane Katrina in 2005, the Federal contribution to recovery efforts was approximately 17% of total storm recovery cost. Starting with Katrina, Federal aid has exploded to over 62% of total storm recovery cost.

Dollar-wise, the Federal Government contributed approximately $115 billion (62%) towards Katrina recovery, and $55 billion (80%) towards hurricane Sandy recovery in 2012.

For hurricane Harvey, the governor of Texas estimates that between $125-$150 billion Federal dollars will be needed to "assist" with recovery.

Source Article: www.cnn.com...


As of this writing, hurricane IRMA is still damaging property in Florida, but "modeling" software estimates that non-insured damages will exceed $100 billion.
Source: money.cnn.com...


QUESTION:

Should residents and businesses in Hurricane-prone states, contribute to a Federal Fund that will be available to help them recover? Right now, the entire country pays an ever-increasing dollar amount and percentage, of overall recovery costs. Is that fair to residents in states that do not experience large, expensive disasters, on a regular basis?

-CareWeMust

Every WORKING citizen already pays into a fund for the recovery of the dollar that will NEVER happen.

It's called income tax.

You know, the whole robbing Peter to pay Paul situation?

Smh.

Yes they should. It should be the same in tornado ally and earth quake prone areas as well. You want to live in high risk areas then you should have to pay higher to do so. Or build your home or business more withstanding towards those risks.

Not to mention this is covered in the free market of House Insurance???
In natural disaster prone areas, those whom take on House Insurance have to pay a higher premium to cover the potentiality.

originally posted by: ConscienceZombie
Yes they should. It should be the same in tornado ally and earth quake prone areas as well. You want to live in high risk areas then you should have to pay higher to do so. Or build your home or business more withstanding towards those risks.

Hurricane recovery costs the Federal government far more than tornado and earthquake recoveries. Certainly there will be some huge earthquake in the U.S. eventually. But, it's not a regular, ongoing, ever-increasing expense.

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.

SOVAKA:
That $250 billion is AFTER home and business insurance payouts are made.

We have higher insurance rates here because of snow. I think that hurricanes should be considered in rates, especially if you live right next to the ocean. People need to have flood coverage to get covered for floods. They can spread out some of the cost, but why should people in a low risk area be paying the same rate as those who build or buy in a high risk area? Some of those places they build houses should have never been allowed to have houses built there in the first place.

a reply to: rickymouse


People who live in Hurricane-prone areas DO have higher insurance rates, RickyMouse. That's for their personal assets. The U.S. Government spends billions to make a state "whole" again.

For example, take Hurricane Katrina. Here is how the U.S. Government spent $115 billion dollars.

Expenditures for operations and human services encompassed much of the immediate relief provided by FEMA, including food and shelter, search and rescue operations, and protection of critical infrastructure. Not surprisingly, most of that spending occurred quickly.

In contrast, outlays for infrastructure assistance have occurred more slowly. Debris removal made up the bulk of such expenditures in the first year; afterward, expenditures for reconstruction of public infrastructure (such as bridges, schools, and utilities) and post-disaster hazard mitigation have accounted for most of the spending in that category.

Source: sites.law.lsu.edu...

a reply to: rickymouse

In New Orleans flood insurance is almost quadrupled in flood zones. So yes they do pay.

a reply to: ConscienceZombie

Your last sentence sums it up, build infrastructure that can handle such conditions.

I live in a cyclone prone area, and all buildings are built accordingly.

Much smaller population I know, but there seems to be a carry on and people acting surprised whenever a hurricane prone area gets hit with a hurricane!

a reply to: carewemust

Should residents and businesses in Hurricane-prone states, contribute to a Federal Fund that will be available to help them recover?

Well, there is an argument for that - but then *any* federal program or aid that is not nationwide (and there are a lot!) should be reconsidered.

Also, besides the ideological question there is the question of whether or not the US as a whole is better of with a fast (and thus expensive) recovery of the struck states.

So one should consider these two points carefully before settling on an answer.

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?

originally posted by: carewemust
Is that fair to residents in states that do not experience large, expensive disasters, on a regular basis?

If I got to pick and choose my taxes, there are all kinds of stuff I could not pay for. Stuff I don't need, want, or am morally against.

Thank goodness we can't actually do that. Of course we should all pitch in. That's the only way taxes work.

a reply to: carewemust

There are several ways to do this. One way is disaster insurance that would take into account losses in a specific region and adjust premiums. It would cover hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, and forest fires.
Another way is to limit payouts to some fixed amount regardless of the actual value of the property, say 25% of the value up to $50,000. If people can afford million dollar houses, they can afford private insurance.
Another method would be "one and done." If the people living in flood plains or oceanfront houses or any other disaster prone area decide to rebuild on the flood plain, oceanfront, or beside a volcano, they are on their own. To get the payout in a hurricane prone area or floodplain, the owner signs over the property to the government; essentially the government buys the destroyed building and the land it sits on. Eventually the government will own the disaster prone land, raze the buildings and provide beachfront land to the local community for public use.

One of the typical questions asked an owner by local press is "are you moving now that you have been flooded out three times in the last 5 years?" Usually, the owner responds with something like they are not giving up and they are going to rebuild [again] while looking determined and heroic standing waist deep in mud. "That's the spirit" says the interviewer. Apparently they have lots of spirit but little in the way of brains.

originally posted by: DupontDeux
a reply to: carewemust

Should residents and businesses in Hurricane-prone states, contribute to a Federal Fund that will be available to help them recover?

Well, there is an argument for that - but then *any* federal program or aid that is not nationwide (and there are a lot!) should be reconsidered.

Also, besides the ideological question there is the question of whether or not the US as a whole is better of with a fast (and thus expensive) recovery of the struck states.

So one should consider these two points carefully before settling on an answer.

DupontDeux,

1.) What existing Federal Aid program(s) is/are for specific states that regularly endure disaster of some kind?

2.) The Hurricane-prone states should contribute to the Federal Hurricane Relief fund. It's something they are guaranteed to draw from...at some point.

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.

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: carewemust
Is that fair to residents in states that do not experience large, expensive disasters, on a regular basis?

If I got to pick and choose my taxes, there are all kinds of stuff I could not pay for. Stuff I don't need, want, or am morally against.

Thank goodness we can't actually do that. Of course we should all pitch in. That's the only way taxes work.

That is a positive and empathic way to view how America is structured, Abysha. I take it that you're all for Single-Payer government run healthcare in America too. Same concept.

I do not believe it is fair to charge everyone more just because they live in a particular state. Now if they live or choose to build in a flood zone or coastal area subject to hurricane flooding, they can and often have to pay for insurance. If they don't have flood insurance, these hurricanes have cost them their entire house and all their flooded possessions. I heard about 80% of flooded Harvey victims lost their homes. I don't believe our government is going to pay them for it.

I live on high ground far away from coastal areas in western South Carolina. I think it would be as fair to make me pay for someone building on the coast as it would to make someone living in the Rocky Mountains or smoky mountains. I pay US taxes like everyone else. Should required flood insurance payments be higher and should it be even more expensive for million dollar homes? I think so. Should I have to pay flood insurance when I choose to live hours from the coast at least 600 feet above sea level? No.

If it makes the op feel better, a 500 foot high tsunami might wipe out and kill everyone at elevations less than 500 feet including everyone in Florida but it wouldn't touch me unless I was visiting the beach or other cities. On the other hand I believe 100 million or more people live within 500 feet or less above sea level and they pay a lot of the total national taxes. Without all these extra people, the national debt and liabilities the rest of us would owe might be over 2 or 3 million per person.

We all pitch in.. That's the deal. East coast has fire season, west coast has hurricane season, the middle is tornado alley. We all live in a disaster prone area. Didn't even mention earthquakes.

Having lived half my life one block from the Atlantic and the Gulf, it does seem ludicrous that people continue to live/build homes there knowing full well that destruction could happen at any moment. This is very common knowledge.

My friends in Miami Beach, Tampa and St. Petersburg are out of electricity right now and in St. Petersburg, because they are right on the beaches are flooding. Yes, they pay high flood insurance and high taxes that should cover their losses but they don't.

The answer is paying attention to common sense-don't build on the beach or close to the beach, or low lying areas. If the feds are going to have to pick u millions because of their bad decisions, then the government should have the right to say no to building in these dangerous areas.

I totally understand having to rebuild community, traffic and governmental structures and the safety, health and well being of citizens however, personal property is not the responsibility of government. This is where private insurance and private, community based groups can chip in and help their neighbors.

I say this with personal knowledge. Same goes for building homes where fires are a common occurance, homes on hillsides that can slide off and earthquake areas with high potential of devastation.