And you think Hurrricane damage is a "common issue" in NJ/NY/NYC/CT? To name just a few of the 20+ states hit. NC, commonly hit, and a few more exceptional.No.
I wouldn't oppose low-interest loan offers (a la FHA 203B loans) for those who need new housing, but if you don't insure your home properly it isn't the responsibility of everybody else to cover it.
When we insured our home I made sure that we had coverage that corresponds to common issues in our area: tornadoes, internal damages related to foundation settling, and constriction/warping damaging related to excessive drought (i.e.: our roof decking had warped during the 2011 drought, causing severe leaking and damage...turns out, insurance covers those damages if you have the right policy).
And you think Hurrricane damage is a "common issue" in NJ/NY/NYC/CT, etc?
Yes, so is California.Are those coastal states?
Yes, so is California.
Nice deflection Attempt from Your own "common issue".
Another deflection Attempt from Your Own "common issue".How many hurricanes occur on our side of the Pacific?
How many hurricanes occur on our side of the Pacific?
None hurricanes only happen in the Atlantic. Typhoons happen in the Pacific:2razz:
Another deflection Attempt from Your Own "common issue".
Many states had unprecedented damage.
Of course we should. We're a country. We strive together. We help our neighbors and our countrymen (and women, but countrypeople is a linguistic abomination). How can a person claim to love America yet harbor such disdain for so many Americans?
Same point, really.
MBig is trying to argue that eastern coastal state residents shouldn't be able to predict that they will need to invest in insurance coverage that includes damages caused by hurricane or sea-baring storm activity.
His premise is idiotic, to say the least.
I was just being a smart ass. But still should we have a recovery system for people in CA suffer earth quak damage?
I don't think we should have a system that allocates tax revenues for the rebuilding of homes. Assistance can come in many forms. Obviously people have to live and work in California to meet the needs of the U.S. economy. But it is more than feasible for somebody living in California to insure their home against earthquake damages, and to build their homes to meet specifications for earthquake safety and durability. If they fail to take those steps, they're SOL when their house comes tumbling down.
That doesn't mean we don't help in other ways...it just means we don't help them recover something they failed to protect on their own.
It would be like me expecting the residents of Texas to replace my car after a tree falls on it because I only had liability insurance.
I don't agree with your analogy. It was not an act of god that put you in that ditch. A hurricane, tornado, earthquake are acts of god beyond humans ability to control.
I changed the analogy probably while you were reading....
Only if taxpayers get a benefit out of it that more or less outweighs the cost to them for doing so. Leaving hundreds of thousands of people without homes (I don't know what the numbers are, exactly), businesses ruined, etc., has a cost, both socially and economically. I have no idea exactly what that cost is, or how it compares to the addition tax burden. But if it is about equal or less costly, people having homes would seem to be the better option.The damage is estimated at $20 BILLION plus. Insurance is estimated to only cover half, few homes have full coverage and many have no insurance coverage at all. Should taxpayers pay to rebuilt homes damaged or destroyed by hurricane Sandy?
It isn't disdain, it's practicality.
If you build your house in an area that is at risk of specific natural or man-made disasters, you insure your house against them. If you don't, it's a sad situation, but it isn't the responsibility of the rest of the country to rebuild for you in the exact same area with the exact same risks. There are ways we can help people who experience hardship that don't encourage them to repeat the same bad behavior. Rebuilding their house on the tax payers dime isn't one of them.
And how much of the country would that stance disallow people to live in? The entirety of California is out from the earthquakes. A lot of the northeast suffers substantial damage from blizzards. Tornado alley would be emptied. A large amount of the southeast coast is out from hurricanes and flooding. NYC and Long Island are out... most of the east coast, really. A lot of the midwest is subject to damage from droughts. So, by your logic, living in about half of the continental US is "bad behavior".
Probably more than half, actually. That's not practical at all. Practical is to realize that there is no magical safe place to live. There are dangers. And we must have the good sense not to throw a hissy fit when the world doesn't cater to us. Disasters happen. And they happen EVERYWHERE. This is nothing more than a selfish refusal to help others in need. I have no doubt that if you were the one in trouble, you'd want their help. I'm also pretty sure you'll deny that here, but it's purely speculative until it actually happens.
The damage is estimated at $20 BILLION plus. Insurance is estimated to only cover half, few homes have full coverage and many have no insurance coverage at all. Should taxpayers pay to rebuilt homes damaged or destroyed by hurricane Sandy?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?