Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That you are trying to equate local police and fire protection with federally funded flood insurance is laughable.
I'm not trying to equate them. I'm pointing out that the fact that they didn't exist at one time is not a reason they shouldn't exist now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd
You are the one arguing for federally funded insurance. I just pointed out that people were able to sucessfully live in flood zones prior to the existence of the Federal insurance, and that people would still be able to live there in the absence of the insurance.
The people living in flood zones were unable to obtain flood insurance because private insurers will not provide it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd
I thought that I made it pretty clear that taxpayers shouldn't be subsidizing insurance for people who choose to live in flood zones.
We would still be subsidizing flood zone damage anyway. Without the flood insurance program and people with homes and businesses in flood-prone areas paying premiums into the program, when flooding occurs, we'd end up paying the entire bill through things like FEMA grants which are used to help pay for rebuilding in areas that have seen natural disasters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd
You do realize that they pay a subsidized premium, don't you? That's what the argument is about. If they were paying 100% of the cost of their insurance, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
The premiums are subsidized because Congress doesn't want to jack up premiums even on people who've been flooded out more than a dozen times.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd
Yes, prior to the federal flood insurance program.
As long as there is a federal program, they won't be paying the full cost. They will be paying the subsidized cost. That's why the program exists.
We shouldn't be. That's the point.
If we don't, we'll end up paying the entire bill.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd
Let's see, I pointed out your false dichotomy. You didn't understand it, so I gave you link where you could educate your self, and you still don't understand it. Guess I will have to take you through it. This is pretty simple, but try to keep up.
I pointed out that people could choose to not live in flood zones, and you responded thusly:
The false dichotomy that you put forth is that there are two options. 1) Depopulate the flood zones and experience significant economic loss, or 2) Continue with the Federal Flood Insurance Program.
You really need to get your logical fallacies straight. Not only are you wrong, but you are embarrassing yourself.
Let's see what you actually wrote. . . OK, here it is:
You DID say "Your notion." You attributed something to me that I didn't say. Either quote me, or retract your lie.
I've already established that you attributed it to me.
Your position that the program either breaks even or results in a net gain is completely ridiculous. If it could return a gain, there would be no need for the government program. Private insurance would be all that is necessary. The program exists because private sector insurance can't/won't work.
Let's see. . . You don't know what a false dichotomy is, you don't know what a strawman is, you can't remember that you said "Your notion instead of "The notion," and you think a federal insurance program can make money where private insurance can't.
It's probably time for you to run along and play outside now. The adults are busy talking here.
Huh, I did say that.
Oh well. It must have been in response to:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd
The more important issue is that no one is forced to live there. That those who choose to live there expecting the rest of society to pay the price to insure their risk is the problem.
Which looks a lot like, if you don't like it, move.
The private insurance industry won't provide flood insurance. That's why the program exists. Private insurance isn't "all that is necessary" because it won't get involved at all.
houses near me in the flood zone go for as little as 100K after Sandy the flood insurance discount is nothing next to a rich person ability to write off a 1.1 million dollar mortgage.
If we can subsidize mansions for Millionaires and Yacht loans I hardle see why an Irish Widow in a 700 square foot bungalow in the Rockaways getting a bit of a break on flood insurance is a big deal.
Remember, it only insures up to 250K and only primary residences have cheaper flood insurance.
houses near me in the flood zone go for as little as 100K after Sandy the flood insurance discount is nothing next to a rich person ability to write off a 1.1 million dollar mortgage.
If we can subsidize mansions for Millionaires and Yacht loans I hardle see why an Irish Widow in a 700 square foot bungalow in the Rockaways getting a bit of a break on flood insurance is a big deal.
Remember, it only insures up to 250K and only primary residences have cheaper flood insurance.
There are many wealthy homeowners that will benefit from this legislation, there are also many middle class people that will also benefit but houses selling for $100K in the NY/NJ area rarity even after the storm.
There are many million dollar homes on the ocean and waterfront that will be subsidized by taxpayers, that may seem unfair but how would you discriminate.
In an area where my aunt and uncle live anything in a certain zone is considered beachfront. This includes trailer parks, lower income homes, and just middle class homes. Most of these homes are at least twenty to thirty miles from the beach. These people need some relief.
No, FEMA is just using their crayons each year to draw lines.
.
That explains why my Brother who is literally hundreds of feet above the river got that letter from FEMA, he's only half a mile away but it's all up hill to his house. You might as well start building an ark if he were going to get flooded.
In an area where my aunt and uncle live anything in a certain zone is considered beachfront. This includes trailer parks, lower income homes, and just middle class homes. Most of these homes are at least twenty to thirty miles from the beach. These people need some relief.
The federal government cannot continue to subsidize people that live in flood zones, there has to be a point where they need to take responsibility. Some of these homes have been reimbursed for several times their market value over the years, that practice needs to come to an end.
There are many homes that were built in flood plain miles from the ocean, you don't need to live on the ocean to be flooded.
That is true but these homes have NEVER flooded. Also, are we going to charge higher insurance for people that live near forests because of fire? Or are we going to up the insurance for everyone who lives in the tornado belt? Or are we upping the insurance for people that live in states with more sink holes? Every area has natural disasters. People that live in these areas are different from people that are wealthy enough to have vacation homes.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
