Absolutely correct. Every area is prone to something, whether natural disaster or (as Upper Midwest points out) living costs unique to that area.
Unless/until the liberal socialist agenda catches hold, and all of the costs of living anywhere are shared equally by everyone (please, note the extreme sarcasm…this is not a plug for this idealogy), I\’ll choose which costs I want to accept, you choose yours, we\’ll each pay our own way based on those choices, and everyone will live happily ever after.
I wouldn\’t suggest that everyone pay the same for all areas. I, for example, live in AZ. I wouldn\’t expect / want to pay the same as someone in Miami, but wouldn\’t mind making a contribution to the fund just like the NFIP.
There are also other solutions to aid in the problem. For example, building codes in wind / flood prones areas should take that into consideration. Also, there could be a slight increase in sales tax in certain areas to help. I know tourism is a big industry in FL, so an increase in hotel / restaurant taxes could help significantly
With the \”move away\” comment. I was just trying to address several comments I\’ve read on this FL issue. I have read may messages that were simply to move to another part of the country. And my point was that if everyone moved away from wind / flood prone areas, we would have large segments of vacant areas of the country. I guess it was sort of a preemptive point.
It\’s just not true that all other areas of the country have large scale catastrophic risk. For example, Upstate NY, Vermont, Western Mass, & Western CT don\’t have those risks. They may have extreme weather but nothing approaching the destruction that accompanies hurricanes. The Insurance Commissioner in Florida promotes that idea to get people to climb aboard.
There are a number of subsidies that Americans accept with minimal complaint. Agriculture is subsidized at both ends (via Farmers & Food Stamps) because it\’s a necessity and stable food costs contribute to a stable economy. Taxes from more populous states are used to fund projects in states that would have difficulty financing them on their own. Again, people rarely squawk about their federal dollars going to build roads they\’ll never drive on because it promotes a common good.
Most social programs have a needs test to determine whether or not a person is eligible for the subsidy. Proponents of disaster funds and the suppression of property rates want the subsidy for all, regardless of the individual circumstances. There are people in Florida, like those in New Orleans, that do not have the resources to help themselves. They are native to the state and wouldn\’t know where to go if they were forced to move. On the other hand, there are baby boomers retiring and moving to Florida. They have assets that were acquired during the last 30-40 years — a period of economic growth unseen in the history of the world. Now they ask us to subsidize their insurance. It just doesn\’t seem right.
Those that are promoting government solutions need to address the following question. Consider the following situations.
1. A professional couple in their 20\’s with infant children has a $200,000 home with 5% equity and a 30-year fixed rate mortgage. Things are tight for them now but they expect things to get better as their careers develop.
2. A professional couple in thir 40\’s with teenage children have a $200,000 home and 0% equity. They\’ve taken out the equity obtained from the appreciation of the real estate to go on trips and to pay for private school for their children. They expect that things will be that way until the kids move out after college.
3. A retired couple with a $200,000 home with 100% equity. They\’ve raised their kids and with their pension and social security are looking forward to relaxing and enjoying life.
Should they all have the same level of government assistance for their insurance?
With the current system, and the identical house, we\’re being asked to help pay for their insurance regardless of the individual\’s financial situation. This is on top of the tax break that comes from being able to deduct mortgage interest from their taxes.
If someone can come up with an equitable way to help those that are in need, I\’m for it. As it stands now, the state of Florida uses a machete to carve out the subsidy instead of a scalpal. I lived and worked in Florida and I\’m glad I got out when I did.
If you can\’t afford it, we\’ll give it to you. If you want something that somebody else has, no problem…
I love the response of it costs me $3,200 on the coast for insurance and would only cost $350 for the same exposure if I were inland. Guess what… it\’s not the same exposure.
I am personally tired of having to subsidize people so that they can live where I would like to, but I\’;m smart enough to know I can\’t afford it!
I would like to request that my donations to the various cat. funds that I gave to be returned. I didn\’t realize that I was supporting a bunch of bleeding heart liberals when I made the contributions. If I would have, I would have thought about it a lot more than I did!
Let\’s all move to Mayberry. No quakes, no hurricanes, no tornadoes or floods. Just be careful when Barney (Fife or Franks?) puts his one bullet in his gun….that could be a disaster.
Mmmmm, I can smell Aunt Bea\’s pie cooling on the windowsill right now.
Upper State NY, Vermont, Mass, Conn. may not have extreme hurricanes, but they have have had several floods throughout the years which has been and can be catastrophic for the people, and flooding has a program in place, NFIP.
I have not met one company that sells a fair policy. Not one!
After denying claims for Katrina,
think they would pay us for one less than Katrina? They have figured out what can damage your home and that is what is excluded in your policy that varies by state.
Men need to just roll over and let the Women run this country.
Even with PMS we have honor and we fear accepting bribe money.
Government needs to adopt policies that attract private investment to the insurance market, not government capacity. Here we have an industry that, depsite making record profits in 2006, significatnly underperformed the Fortune 500. It\’s no wonder banks don\’t buy insurance companies. State regulation of insurance rates — treating insurers as if they are public utilities — is keeping investment out of the business and causing insurance shortages in Florida, the Gulf State and California. And it\’s all politics — lies to consumers about the cost of owning homes in a dangerous places. As a country we need to accept the fact that, just as the cost of buying a home can double or triple over time, so too can the cost to insure that home.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
Where would everyone move to, considering almost every area is prone to either earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, flooding or other catastrophe?
Absolutely correct. Every area is prone to something, whether natural disaster or (as Upper Midwest points out) living costs unique to that area.
Unless/until the liberal socialist agenda catches hold, and all of the costs of living anywhere are shared equally by everyone (please, note the extreme sarcasm…this is not a plug for this idealogy), I\’ll choose which costs I want to accept, you choose yours, we\’ll each pay our own way based on those choices, and everyone will live happily ever after.
I wouldn\’t suggest that everyone pay the same for all areas. I, for example, live in AZ. I wouldn\’t expect / want to pay the same as someone in Miami, but wouldn\’t mind making a contribution to the fund just like the NFIP.
There are also other solutions to aid in the problem. For example, building codes in wind / flood prones areas should take that into consideration. Also, there could be a slight increase in sales tax in certain areas to help. I know tourism is a big industry in FL, so an increase in hotel / restaurant taxes could help significantly
With the \”move away\” comment. I was just trying to address several comments I\’ve read on this FL issue. I have read may messages that were simply to move to another part of the country. And my point was that if everyone moved away from wind / flood prone areas, we would have large segments of vacant areas of the country. I guess it was sort of a preemptive point.
It\’s just not true that all other areas of the country have large scale catastrophic risk. For example, Upstate NY, Vermont, Western Mass, & Western CT don\’t have those risks. They may have extreme weather but nothing approaching the destruction that accompanies hurricanes. The Insurance Commissioner in Florida promotes that idea to get people to climb aboard.
There are a number of subsidies that Americans accept with minimal complaint. Agriculture is subsidized at both ends (via Farmers & Food Stamps) because it\’s a necessity and stable food costs contribute to a stable economy. Taxes from more populous states are used to fund projects in states that would have difficulty financing them on their own. Again, people rarely squawk about their federal dollars going to build roads they\’ll never drive on because it promotes a common good.
Most social programs have a needs test to determine whether or not a person is eligible for the subsidy. Proponents of disaster funds and the suppression of property rates want the subsidy for all, regardless of the individual circumstances. There are people in Florida, like those in New Orleans, that do not have the resources to help themselves. They are native to the state and wouldn\’t know where to go if they were forced to move. On the other hand, there are baby boomers retiring and moving to Florida. They have assets that were acquired during the last 30-40 years — a period of economic growth unseen in the history of the world. Now they ask us to subsidize their insurance. It just doesn\’t seem right.
Those that are promoting government solutions need to address the following question. Consider the following situations.
1. A professional couple in their 20\’s with infant children has a $200,000 home with 5% equity and a 30-year fixed rate mortgage. Things are tight for them now but they expect things to get better as their careers develop.
2. A professional couple in thir 40\’s with teenage children have a $200,000 home and 0% equity. They\’ve taken out the equity obtained from the appreciation of the real estate to go on trips and to pay for private school for their children. They expect that things will be that way until the kids move out after college.
3. A retired couple with a $200,000 home with 100% equity. They\’ve raised their kids and with their pension and social security are looking forward to relaxing and enjoying life.
Should they all have the same level of government assistance for their insurance?
With the current system, and the identical house, we\’re being asked to help pay for their insurance regardless of the individual\’s financial situation. This is on top of the tax break that comes from being able to deduct mortgage interest from their taxes.
If someone can come up with an equitable way to help those that are in need, I\’m for it. As it stands now, the state of Florida uses a machete to carve out the subsidy instead of a scalpal. I lived and worked in Florida and I\’m glad I got out when I did.
If you can\’t afford it, we\’ll give it to you. If you want something that somebody else has, no problem…
I love the response of it costs me $3,200 on the coast for insurance and would only cost $350 for the same exposure if I were inland. Guess what… it\’s not the same exposure.
I am personally tired of having to subsidize people so that they can live where I would like to, but I\’;m smart enough to know I can\’t afford it!
I would like to request that my donations to the various cat. funds that I gave to be returned. I didn\’t realize that I was supporting a bunch of bleeding heart liberals when I made the contributions. If I would have, I would have thought about it a lot more than I did!
Let\’s all move to Mayberry. No quakes, no hurricanes, no tornadoes or floods. Just be careful when Barney (Fife or Franks?) puts his one bullet in his gun….that could be a disaster.
Mmmmm, I can smell Aunt Bea\’s pie cooling on the windowsill right now.
Upper State NY, Vermont, Mass, Conn. may not have extreme hurricanes, but they have have had several floods throughout the years which has been and can be catastrophic for the people, and flooding has a program in place, NFIP.
I have not met one company that sells a fair policy. Not one!
After denying claims for Katrina,
think they would pay us for one less than Katrina? They have figured out what can damage your home and that is what is excluded in your policy that varies by state.
Men need to just roll over and let the Women run this country.
Even with PMS we have honor and we fear accepting bribe money.
Government needs to adopt policies that attract private investment to the insurance market, not government capacity. Here we have an industry that, depsite making record profits in 2006, significatnly underperformed the Fortune 500. It\’s no wonder banks don\’t buy insurance companies. State regulation of insurance rates — treating insurers as if they are public utilities — is keeping investment out of the business and causing insurance shortages in Florida, the Gulf State and California. And it\’s all politics — lies to consumers about the cost of owning homes in a dangerous places. As a country we need to accept the fact that, just as the cost of buying a home can double or triple over time, so too can the cost to insure that home.