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.
Do you have any source for that? Most of the studies I have seen claim a majority of the subsidies and claims go to the wealthy and that many of those who have made claims have made repeated claims. I realize that a lot of people have skin in this game, so there are many opinions out there, but hard to find any actual facts.
I have noticed that Gov Rick Scott and Vern Buchanan (R) FL, who are strongly against any taxpayer money going to help the unemployed, the hungry, the sick or those on welfare, are out there loudly protesting the removal of the government flood subsidies. Buchanan lives on Longboat Key, and it is well known that Buchanan's strongest supporters are the wealthy, many of who also live on the water. Scott is requesting a meeting with Obama (which is both hysterical and hypocritical, as he has made it clear in the past he wants nothing to do with the president and nothing from the president). These are not two guys who have ever shown any interest in helping the average working person with anything, never mind a little 50s ranch house.
What does the mortgage interest deduction have to do with the rain in Spain or with federal flood insurance?
It's a subsidy. Along with tax-free employer health care premiums that you probably take as well, it's one of the largest Whining over teeny tiny flood insurance subsidies when you are sucking down the big ones yourself is a little bit of a squishy thing to be doing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Linda_d
Building in a coastal area prone to storm surge or in a river/stream flood plain is like playing Russian roulette.
Save it. This is not a part of the question at all. Put simply, we WILL be building and operating on and along our coastlines and riverbanks. It is an economic necessity. The only legitimate debate is over how the costs of such building and operating will be split up. Poorly considered legislation that dumps all of those costs onto a small number of people is not a good or even tolerable plan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Linda_d
Local/state governments that choose to allow continued development in those areas shouldn't be subsidized by everybody in the country to do that.
Get real. Your local supermarket shelves would be empty without this development that you want to do away with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Linda_d
My hometown, which is in a very flood prone valley, bars new permanent buildings in certain areas, and if you live in a flood zone and you're home is seriously damaged by a flood, good luck getting a building permit to reconstruct it.
Luck won't be a factor. A little chart showing the tax revenues lost should be enough to jump the building permit hurdle. Then we send in the pros from Dover to ask why the people of today are being asked to shoulder the costs of global warming that won't be occurring yet for decades. That always gets them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Linda_d
The money the US government spends comes from one big pot. Giving $x to one program leaves less for $y program. Subsidizing flood insurance for well-to-do homeowners is just as much welfare as subsidizing food costs for poor families.
Wake up. There is actually no connection at all between federal spending and federal revenue. It's not like over at your house. And what we are subsidizing here is not individuals but the necessary presence of economic infrastructure in flood-prone areas. We ALL benefit from the activities conducted there, so there is not the slightest reason why we ALL should not be sharing in the costs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Linda_d
And don't give me this cago about "preponderance of population and economic activity" BS because we're not talking about all those people. Subsidized flood insurance only applies to a small percentage of coastal/riparian residents. Protecting them is certainly NOT in the "national interest". What would be in the national interest is for them to accept federal buyouts so that their flood-prone properties won't continue to cost other Americans billions of dollars whenever they suffer flooding.
Worthless tripe and nonsense. It most definitely is in the national interest to support necessary economic infrastructure everywhere, but the chief problem at hand in this case is with people who are not in flood plains now who suddenly will be if new standards are allowed to take effect. These are people who took all the precautions and followed all the rules, and now they are slated to be slammed for it. This plan sucks. Think up a different one. There's plenty of time for that.
IF it is indeed the wealthy folks on the water who can make this nightmare go away, then all we regular folks should be grateful for it.
These articles talk about the coastal areas being mostly wealthy. This is true, since waterfront property is very pricey. The articles also mention that Flood Insurance consists of many properties that are in these wealthy areas. And that the big expensive homes have flood insurance. This is also true.
The articles (as well as many posts here) are not differentiating between subsidized flood insurance and nonpsubsidized flood insurance.
You cannot assume that because a stretch of beach has 15 homes that have flood insurance, that those 15 homes have SUBSIIZED flood insurance. Changes are pretty high that 13 of those homes don't have subsidized flood insurance and 2 homes do have subsidized flood insurance. The 2 homes that are subsidized because they were built pre 1974 and their elevation is lower than required by FEMA. The 3 newer homes all are built to current standards therefore, those 13 homes are not subsidived; the homeowners of those 13 homes have flood insurance but the taxpayers aren't subsidizing the premium.
If you live in a flood plain even though you may be built to the current standards your lender still requires flood insurance, which is only available through FEMA. This comes from a friend who lives in flood plain, has his house up to current standards and is required to buy FEMA insurance by his lender. His house was built in 1991 and all living quarters and utilities are no less than 14' above ground.
On the other hand, if you pay off the mortgage you can drop the insurance. But, you carry the risk.
Your friend with the 1991 house. Yes, he/she has flood insurance. But his/her FEMA flood insurance premium is NOT subsidized by the taxpayers or anyone else. It's a non-subsidized policy.
Most FEMA flood insurance policies aren't subsidized. The new law is only targeting subsidized policies.
Do you have any source for that? Most of the studies I have seen claim a majority of the subsidies and claims go to the wealthy and that many of those who have made claims have made repeated claims. I realize that a lot of people have skin in this game, so there are many opinions out there, but hard to find any actual facts.
I have noticed that Gov Rick Scott and Vern Buchanan (R) FL, who are strongly against any taxpayer money going to help the unemployed, the hungry, the sick or those on welfare, are out there loudly protesting the removal of the government flood subsidies. Buchanan lives on Longboat Key, and it is well known that Buchanan's strongest supporters are the wealthy, many of who also live on the water. Scott is requesting a meeting with Obama (which is both hysterical and hypocritical, as he has made it clear in the past he wants nothing to do with the president and nothing from the president). These are not two guys who have ever shown any interest in helping the average working person with anything, never mind a little 50s ranch house.
As I earlier quoted from the original article I posted:
"Critics of the flood-insurance subsidies tend to point out that they disproportionately benefit wealthier homeowners. The libertarian R Street Institute, drawing on data from the GAO, notes that "78.8 percent of subsidized policies are in counties that rank in the top 30 percent of home values, while less than 1 percent are in counties that rank in the bottom 30 percent." That fact may also help explain why the program is so difficult to repeal."
If someone can post up alternative data that supports a different view I would like to see it. So far, data from the GAO trumps unsourced assertions.
Meanwhile, we still have the little matter of a $24 billion deficit that can't be addressed because folks who claim they are in support of smaller government, less regulation and lower taxes are attempting to keep feeding to their constituents.
It's a subsidy. Along with tax-free employer health care premiums that you probably take as well, it's one of the largest Whining over teeny tiny flood insurance subsidies when you are sucking down the big ones yourself is a little bit of a squishy thing to be doing.
Save it. This is not a part of the question at all. Put simply, we WILL be building and operating on and along our coastlines and riverbanks. It is an economic necessity. The only legitimate debate is over how the costs of such building and operating will be split up. Poorly considered legislation that dumps all of those costs onto a small number of people is not a good or even tolerable plan.
Get real. Your local supermarket shelves would be empty without this development that you want to do away with.
Luck won't be a factor. A little chart showing the tax revenues lost should be enough to jump the building permit hurdle. Then we send in the pros from Dover to ask why the people of today are being asked to shoulder the costs of global warming that won't be occurring yet for decades. That always gets them.
Wake up. There is actually no connection at all between federal spending and federal revenue. It's not like over at your house. And what we are subsidizing here is not individuals but the necessary presence of economic infrastructure in flood-prone areas. We ALL benefit from the activities conducted there, so there is not the slightest reason why we ALL should not be sharing in the costs.
Worthless tripe and nonsense. It most definitely is in the national interest to support necessary economic infrastructure everywhere, but the chief problem at hand in this case is with people who are not in flood plains now who suddenly will be if new standards are allowed to take effect. These are people who took all the precautions and followed all the rules, and now they are slated to be slammed for it. This plan sucks. Think up a different one. There's plenty of time for that.
Translation: "I want taxpayers to continue to subsidize my risky life-style in the name of 'community' and 'infrastructure'."
We now have better flood plain maps than we had even a decade ago. Deal with it. Don't want to pay flood insurance, don't buy on the water.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,585 posts, read 81,186,228 times
Reputation: 57820
I have always chosen to live in areas with some risk of earthquakes, and no one has subsidized my earthquake insurance, which I have always paid for. Why should flood be any different? When you choose to live in an area that could flood, you should be prepared to pay for the insurance.
They're making my grandmother get flood insurance (just started recently) on a home she's lived in for 30 years that has NEVER flooded and never will flood... her back yard is literally a large hill that's probably 30-40 feet up from the river and during the worst river peaks the water would be nowhere near her home elevation-wise her basement could flood to a few feet deep if the sump pump gave out, that's about it. $1000+ bucks a year forced on people who may or will never get a flood? meh. I'd rather get a second sump pump with a couple of backup generators instead.
They're making my grandmother get flood insurance (just started recently) on a home she's lived in for 30 years that has NEVER flooded and never will flood... her back yard is literally a large hill that's probably 30-40 feet up from the river and during the worst river peaks the water would be nowhere near her home elevation-wise her basement could flood to a few feet deep if the sump pump gave out, that's about it. $1000+ bucks a year forced on people who may or will never get a flood? meh. I'd rather get a second sump pump with a couple of backup generators instead.
Does your grandmother have a mortgage? It is my understanding that the only homeowners forced to buy flood insurance are mortgage holders and they are forced to do so buy the lender. Also, she can challenge the decision of her home being subject to flood insurance.
I am not sure sump pump failure or sewer backup is even covered under FEMA flood insurance. Normally that is a rider to a home insurance policy.
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.
