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.
One of the "good "things about socialism,is its ...efficiency in drinking the blood of taxpayers...
They invented the Value Added Tax,a sort of sales tax on almost everything.
VAT is the goldmine of the socialists in the Continent.
My idea is to use something...evil for a good purpose.
To use the efficiency of a VAT to cover the damages from natural disasters,hurricanes,earthquakes,floods,fires,oil spils,terrorist attacks etc.
A VAT of only 0.2% on EVERYTHING,would be a small nuisance but bring tons of cash to the gov.
0.1% would go to Fed gov,0.1% to State gov.
The tax would be CAPPED. It cannot grow. like cancer.
Capped at 0,2%,forever.
Its cause would be logical.
Any community can suffer from disasters.
U may vote about it...
Remember,only 0.2%,capped,never to rise...
I don't view this as a bad proposal, I wish we had discussions about options such as this at the national level.
However, my own view is that folks who live in resort type of areas, such as coastal Florida or California, have made substantial sums of money during the good times. As part of that benefit they should also shoulder the risks. With California the earthquake issue is very substantial, with a lot of potential damage and cost when the disaster eventually hits. In Florida, the hurricanes are a significant cost, and why should someone in Kansas City or Indianapolis pay a "fee" so those folks can pocket the benefit?
I see insurance as the equalizer, and those who are exposed to the risk should pay the mitigation cost.
When the politicians,any politician - the matter is technical,not partisan - poisons his relationship with his constituents,when he breaks their trust,then...we have bad government...
A VAT of 0,2% on everything would mean that
the 47% of adults who pay no fed income tax would pay 0.2%, all rates up by 0.2%
the local & state taxes would have a 0.2% surcharge,
estate ,municipal,property taxes,all up 0.2%.
That would be a goldmine.
But...easy to theorise,hard to pass...Like the real ID issue...
How about a 50% tax on the morons that insist on living on "the beach"? I'd definitely support that one.
Where does that stop? Do we need a tax for people that live in California where we know fires and mudslides happen? What about the morons that insist on living in the midwest where tornados strike?
I live along the eastern seaboard and definitely pay more insurance as a result, and I'm not on the beach.
And to me this is more appropriate. However, I'd ask if you are paying an appropriate share, or are you paying an excessive amount relative to your risk, therefore subsidizing those "on the beach".
ABSOLUTELY NOT!! However, I would support a law that requires insurance companies and/or industries to meet their obligations or require that their assets be sold off and distributed among the injured. If you want to live in a hurricane zone, you need to pay high hurricane premiums. If you want to live in a earthquake zone, the same logic applies.
This sounds much like the idiotic health insurance debate. There is no constitutional right to be protected from natural disasters just as there is no right to health insurance. If I decide not to have health insurance, I should have the right. If I decide not to insure my home that sits on the San Andreas fault, I should have that right.
Where does that stop? Do we need a tax for people that live in California where we know fires and mudslides happen? What about the morons that insist on living in the midwest where tornados strike?
Well, under some scenario where some kind of fairness is factored into the equation, along with common sense and plenty of scientific proof in meteorological, climatolgical and geological data. Plenty of which exists to fairly calculate risk and probability.....so as to come up with fair and varying types of insurance coverage.
And NO......nobody in Kansas should in any way, be financially liable for hurricane damage in Florida anymore than Florida should be liable for some volcanic eruption of Mt. Rainier if it should wipe Tacoma, Washington clean off the map.
This is where statistics and probability, along with some common sense....is needed.
No. Because politicians can't be trusted to use the money for disaster cleanup and mitigation. We all know that laws restricting the use of tax funds for certain projects are routinely circumvented.
Nor can they be trusted to "cap" a a tax.
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.
