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

I was thinking about the same thing the other day. One of the things that sprung to mind is that a lot of people don't actually have the luxury of choosing where they live. They're born there, they work minimum wage jobs, moving to another state is expensive...

I'm fairly certain almost all homeowners have home insurance, especially considering most don't outright own their homes and banks require it.

Problem is a TON of people are renters.

Replacing homes and possessions should be on the people that own those things. Replacing the bridges, infrastructure etc. seems an undue burden.

originally posted by: carewemust

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.

That is exactly what I thought when I read her post, I will be curious to the answer given, because I agree it is exactly the same thing, or I like to say "same # different smell"

FEMA hurricane insurance originally began because too many Congressmen were losing their beach homes to storms.
They make a nifty way to get them replaced for cheap.
Put the taxpayers on the hook!
It's expanded of course but the rich get far more benefits than the less well-to-do whose property isn't quite so valuable.

No! Your dumbass president should start doing something about global warming.
Jeezz..is there any real problem americans can tackle? (Except for printing more money?)

a reply to: carewemust


The Texas Gov. just wants more $$$ to start or continue some programs that have nothing to do w/a Hurricane and that is how it works w/municipalities that have/get access to "Federal Money". If they actually NEED $10M then they will try and get $25M, then they spend the $$$ on crap that hasn't anything to do w/the calamity..

a reply to: JimNasium

It's ironic that you say that, JN..

Senator Ted Cruz voted "no" for Hurricane Sandy aid, because he said the $51 Billion aid package was "full of unrelated pork".

Now, he's catching hell from some Northeast officials (namely Chris Christy) for saying how important it is for his state (Texas) to get many billions of dollars for Hurricane Harvey relief/recovery.

Story: time.com...

a reply to: Domo1


I notice from reading many of the comments in this thread that the majority of people don't realize that most Government money for hurricane recovery is NOT spent on rebuilding and repairing individual homes..or any other private property.

The vast majority of Phase-1 money goes to, cash for each survivor, food, hotels, clothing, unemployment pay, clearing streets, taking away trees...general cleanup. Something like $500 million a day is spent when a metro area is affected.

Phase-2 expenditure lasts for YEARS. It's the repair and rebuilding of the infrastructures..replacing government vehicles.. and lot of other things related to rebuilding.

The U.S. government does not have a specific fund set up for hurricane relief. Maybe citizens who live in states that see regular hurricanes should pay a special tax that goes into a hurricane recovery fund for state residents. This would reduce the amount of Federal Tax dollars that need to be specially appropriated by Congress after every hurricane.

Fear not, the British Virgin Isles, tax haven for many a celebrity not wanting to pay UK tax are now calling for UK aid.

a reply to: carewemust


'Irony' is one of My specialties. You didn't think I typed that just to type it do You? I'm well versed in Federal Money and how it gets blown... I'd opine You wouldn't be surprised to learn that those who want MORE and MORE use rationalizations to alibi their actions.. "Greenhead City did it..." I was once involved in a pretty big kidnapping, one that was broadcast nationwide, then the Feds came w/their $$$. Then the PD I was working for got a new $2.1M "Operations Center" (big van w/a bunch of surveillance crap) 2 new Enduro motorcycles; trips to Hawaii, Lost Wages, and ALL the OVERTIME one could work, all thanks to the taxpayer and those who they leave in charge to spend the $$$..

If there are votes included this is when You'll see other States getting crap later on...

a reply to: carewemust

What about the states like Illinois,who are #1 in state aid,if that were the standar5d,these states need federal aid occasionally ,but some poverty states are constantly getting aid,and the end of the year who requires more?in California we pay one of highest taxes,we should be taxed less by your standards

a reply to: carewemust


Should residents be compensated to move away from hurricane prone areas to avoid this issue ?

originally posted by: carewemust

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,

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

Why would you want to limit the scope to disaster aid...?

Surely the same principle applies to any federal expenditure that is not equally distributed amongst states?

a reply to: carewemust

Tornado damages cost billions too. So raise the taxes on the middle. Then we have earthquake prone areas too so raise the taxes in the west. And we have some states with volcanoes too so raise the taxes in the north west in Hawaii and in Alaska. Then we have the fire season in California so raise their taxes even more.
I'm gonna guess you don't live in a hurricane state.

But don't you worry your pretty little head because there's no hurricane anyway. The news is fake remember?

a reply to: ConscienceZombie

Move to where it doesn't have weather. Then there's no problem.
If you live where it rains you can have a flood.

So where is this mythical land that never has any sort of natural disaster?

Oh and the residents do pay more, and eventually the idiots that live 10 feet off the beach usually screw things up for the folks that live further in land.

a reply to: carewemust

I doubt it. How much does it cost every other spring when the Mississippi floods it's banks from winter snow run off?
How much real estate is lost to fires in California?

This discussion is over. We all have risks and we should all have insurance against those risks. And we all already pay taxes for the government to do these recoveries.
The short answer is people who don't have kids still have to pay for public education and people who don't get hurricanes have to pay for those that do.
Those same areas prone to hurricanes are also the top vacation destinies because of the very fine weather they enjoy most of the time and those tourist attractions already up the income revenue and the taxes on that revenue so those places pay more in taxes already.
I guess Florida and the coastal cities of the east coast can just keep that tax money in their own coffers and pay for their own damages but then we'd kind of stop being the United States and will be 48 separate countries on the continent t. Kind of like Africa or Europe.

a reply to: Irishhaf

Oh and the residents do pay more, and eventually the idiots that live 10 feet off the beach usually screw things up for the folks that live further in land.

Yep, theres a pattern here, those f..wits on the beach have the money to drag this crap out through courts and force councils into submission.

I realise this is a crass description but the generalization fits, and it works through all legal channels.

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

We can put Disney world in Ohio. Of course it would be closed from October to April but that's ok.
Instead of being 150.00 a day it will be 300.00 a day per person.
They won't mind paying that. And no alligators either.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

We can put Disney world in Ohio. Of course it would be closed from October to April but that's ok.
Instead of being 150.00 a day it will be 300.00 a day per person.
They won't mind paying that. And no alligators either.

I do not doubt it, makes me a little nauseous, not my thing, each to their own I suppose.

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

The coast is where the seaports are. Who's going to work those jobs? If everyone moves inland?
We still move most goods around the world by boats. It's not feasible or sometimes even possible to put some things on a plane.

Hey maybe we should pay more attention to the warming waters of the Atlantic.
Oh wait...that's more lies isn't it?