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

a reply to: DanDanDat

how far inland did this hurricane cause problems??? heck, we're getting rain from it where I am at. what about harvey, how far inland did that effect? what you are proposing is to make the coastline into a nature preserve/recreation area.. but then to have a recreation area, you are gonna need some kind of businesses close by for those who wish to relax and enjoy that beach to buy gas, drinks, ect. then there's the fishing industry, one of the big hits this time was on a fishing community. you still need employees and just how far to you think someone is gonna travel for their minimum wage convenience store job? all those hotels and such on the beachfront serves to weaken that storm much more than just flat beach sand would. wouldn't eliminating them just bring the damage further inland anyways??

I tease my wife, who grew up in Florida, that each individual/family only gets federal financial aid for hurricane damage ONCE. Ever. After that if you are still dumb enough to rebuild and live in the hurricane zone then all damages and responsibility are yours alone, not the rest of the country's.

Now if the state of Florida wants to somehow provide financial aid for hurricane damages that is a different story. It's in their best interest obviously to keep people living there. But don't make the rest of the country pay for it.

a reply to: jjkenobi
I like your idea.

We should just label Florida a land of danger, and charge everyone an entrance fee.

That money will then go to the Florida relief fund, and will take care of any repairs for any Floridians.

We would have to charge additional fees for snowbirds, and for any long term visitors.

Everyone wins. The average American won't have to see their tax dollars go to stupid people that live in coastal areas, and those that want to vacation along the coast, will pay for the privilege of rubbing elbows with the foolhardy.

I am sure this will make the average American ecstatic, as they watch their tax dollars go to much more worthy causes, like tearing down crosses, and monuments. There even may be a few dollars left over for saving the rats.

Higher taxes are not needed to fix these problems and more in America. Of the $1,000,000,000,000+ federal budget, about 80% of that does to direct and indirect military costs. That leaves only about 20% to pay for everything else, including the interest on the federal debt. It's repulsive, how our tax money is squandered.

a reply to: enlightenedservant


I was comparing Tennessee to Chicago, LOL.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Do a little research into what all the Federal Government does, and how costly it is, to pay for hurricane relief/recovery. Or, even better, simply read the brief articles I linked to in in the opening post to this thread.

Hurricanes are regular, expensive visitors to the USA. Earthquake disasters are expensive, but they are NOT regular visitors to the U.S..

U.S. taxpayers covered 17% of recovery costs for Hurricanes before Katrina. Katrina hit U.S. taxpayers for 62% of the recovery cost. Sandy...a whopping 80%.

What percentage of hurricane recovery cost should U.S. taxpayers be on the hook for? Don't you think 62% and 80% is too high?

originally posted by: carewemust
U.S. taxpayers covered 17% of recovery costs for Hurricanes before Katrina. Katrina hit U.S. taxpayers for 62% of the recovery cost. Sandy...a whopping 80%.

What percentage of hurricane recovery cost should U.S. taxpayers be on the hook for? Don't you think 62% and 80% is too high?

For infrastructure? It should probably be 100%, which brings up the question of if we should nationalize, because I don't like the idea of publicly funding a companies liabilities.

a reply to: Aazadan
Well it really wouldn't be a company that the public would be funding.

The homeowners and the businesses have to pay for the reconstruction. The best they can hope for are low interest loans, which I don't think is unfair, since we keep bailing out banks and big businesses, because they are too big to fail.

It is only fair that the American people get some of their money back, because personally, I think they are too important to be left to drown.

Perhaps if the government made a truely concerted effort to find those trillions they so casually talk about, maybe, just maybe, this would not be as much of a problem as some people seem to think it is. youtu.be...

There will always be a disaster occurring somewhere. As Americans we have always been one of the first to step up to the plate to help. Hurricanes season comes every year it is true, but Florida has not been its main target with the last several years of hurricanes that developed.

They, like many other disasters, are difficult to predict and to accurately track.

Why stop at punishing Americans for where they choose to live? Why don't we stop helping everyone everywhere that lives in a area where a disaster or calamity strikes? Or better yet, why don't we offer exemption status to all those that want their tax dollars exempt from paying for a disaster recovery.

They can join the "I Don't Give A Damn About Anyone But Myself Club", and when their life gets turned upside down, due to a natural disaster, they can enjoy each other's company, while they bitch about how heartless those selfish Americans are.

Lightning, monsoons, cyclones, typhoons, sinkholes, sandstorms, wind storms, earthquakes, avalanches, ice storms, mudslides, volcanoes, forest fires, methane bursts, etc., etc., etc.

You can't hide from Mother Nature. Living and breathing is a risky business. Like they say, enjoy every second of every day given to you in the present, for it is truly a gift.

a reply to: carewemust

Obviously, the construction of building needs to be rethought and re-engineered.

a reply to: rickymouse

We already pay higher insurance premiums here in Florida. Ever since hurricane Andrew our insurance premiums have gone up. Especially if you live close to the water.

If you live in a flood area. You must have flood insurance. Which is basically everyone east of I-95.

originally posted by: NightSkyeB4Dawn
a reply to: Aazadan
Well it really wouldn't be a company that the public would be funding.

The homeowners and the businesses have to pay for the reconstruction. The best they can hope for are low interest loans, which I don't think is unfair, since we keep bailing out banks and big businesses, because they are too big to fail.

It is only fair that the American people get some of their money back, because personally, I think they are too important to be left to drown.

Perhaps if the government made a truely concerted effort to find those trillions they so casually talk about, maybe, just maybe, this would not be as much of a problem as some people seem to think it is. youtu.be...

There will always be a disaster occurring somewhere. As Americans we have always been one of the first to step up to the plate to help. Hurricanes season comes every year it is true, but Florida has not been its main target with the last several years of hurricanes that developed.

They, like many other disasters, are difficult to predict and to accurately track.

Why stop at punishing Americans for where they choose to live? Why don't we stop helping everyone everywhere that lives in a area where a disaster or calamity strikes? Or better yet, why don't we offer exemption status to all those that want their tax dollars exempt from paying for a disaster recovery.

They can join the "I Don't Give A Damn About Anyone But Myself Club", and when their life gets turned upside down, due to a natural disaster, they can enjoy each other's company, while they bitch about how heartless those selfish Americans are.

Lightning, monsoons, cyclones, typhoons, sinkholes, sandstorms, wind storms, earthquakes, avalanches, ice storms, mudslides, volcanoes, forest fires, methane bursts, etc., etc., etc.

You can't hide from Mother Nature. Living and breathing is a risky business. Like they say, enjoy every second of every day given to you in the present, for it is truly a gift.

I'm referring to damage to public property, not private property. Public systems cost a lot to rebuild. Roads, electric poles, cell towers, water pipes, etc. Floods absolutely destroy this stuff. Right now, we rebuild that with money from federal disaster relief funds, which come from taxes. I see no reason that we shouldn't fully fund a recovery from a national tax.

I don't approve of such funds going to repair private homes and businesses (beyond the initial blankets, food, etc). Instead, that seems to me like the perfect situation to have insurance, and many of these places are insured.

Now going more broadly, not all disasters hit insured areas. For example, where I live has no consistent natural disasters. No earthquakes, no tornados, and I'm well above the flood plain. If a disaster hit me, I would have general renters insurance and that would be it. I wouldn't be able to rebuild with that, but at the same time I can't reasonably buy into insurance funds either.

I'm not quite sure what to do about that situation. I've never been a big fan of insurance systems. A general $50000 policy though, doesn't go very far. If I could put those funds into a decent return investment, to withdraw when disaster hits, I could get far more than $50,000 from the same amount spent on premiums. Of course, that means dodging unpredictable disasters for awhile.

a reply to: Aazadan

Then what is a person to do when the insurance companies themselves want to bail on disaster areas, such as Florida???
www.sptimes.com...

Published February 23, 2008

State Farm, the largest private insurance company in Florida, will stop writing new homeowner policies anywhere in the state, a company spokesman confirmed Friday.

State Farm has a significant presence in the Tampa Bay area with about 120,000 policyholders, or nearly one out of every five homeowners. The company's latest move won't directly affect those policyholders.

This is an old article....maybe they changed their tune...I dunno.
I'm willing to be they are not the only insurer to bail on disaster prone areas! No...they are still out...as are other big companies. State Farm doesn't want the liability....neither should tax payers.
www.foxbusiness.com...

Florida’s insurance landscape is largely made up of smaller companies since the industry giants pulled out of the state years ago due to high risks they were unwilling to take and a challenging regulatory environment. Therefore, reinsurance will play a big part in the recovery efforts for Floridians over the coming months.

more background
www.bizjournals.com...

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: enlightenedservant

I was comparing Tennessee to Chicago, LOL.

I wasn't attacking you and wasn't really attacking your post. I was just pointing out that I've never heard anyone call Tennessee's weather temperate, especially within the context of "residents of disaster states needing to pay higher taxes". I guess you meant temperate temperature?

Because TN gets yearly barrages of tornadoes and floods, literally catching the tail end of the tornado alley storm systems. TN & Kentucky aren't seen as "hurricane states" since neither is on the coast, but both states also typically get hit w/the remnants of southern hurricanes (like right now w/Irma). So they still get damaged from those storm systems, too.

Either way, I agreed w/pretty much the rest of your post.

a reply to: carewemust



No, I think we should just institute a surtax on winter vegetables and Orange Juice, and seafood.

a reply to: enlightenedservant


Thankfully, Irma didn't inflict much damage upon Tennessee. Officials there are thankful and relieved.
www.timesfreepress.com...

Also, the overall U.S. Damage from IRMA is less than anticipated. "Only" $18 Billion, with much of it covered by insurance.
Miami Herald: www.miamiherald.com...

It's ironic that CUBA saved U.S. lives and property.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Do a little research into what all the Federal Government does, and how costly it is, to pay for hurricane relief/recovery. Or, even better, simply read the brief articles I linked to in in the opening post to this thread.

Hurricanes are regular, expensive visitors to the USA. Earthquake disasters are expensive, but they are NOT regular visitors to the U.S..

U.S. taxpayers covered 17% of recovery costs for Hurricanes before Katrina. Katrina hit U.S. taxpayers for 62% of the recovery cost. Sandy...a whopping 80%.

What percentage of hurricane recovery cost should U.S. taxpayers be on the hook for? Don't you think 62% and 80% is too high?

Katrina was a disaster in more was than just he hurricane. Many people in New Orleans, politicians included, did virtually nothing to prepare for that storm, and then blamed everyone else when they had problems afterward. We were in a coastal area at the time, and knew the routine for hurricanes. New Orleans failed. In that case, no, federal tax money should not have been sent in those amounts. Sandy, not as familiar with the circumstances, off the top of my head, so I can't comment on that right now. Too much else going on these days. Katrina, though, was something else.

How about wildfires? There are areas, such as California, where these are quite common. Mudslides, too. No tax money for them! Let them all relocate, right? How about tornadoes? Other floods? Those are also quite common. The simple fact is, people can experience a disaster anywhere. You don't tax someone more because you decide that their disaster could have been avoided, and they don't deserve coverage.