Should Residents of Hurricane States Pay Higher Taxes?. Hurricane Recovery is Very Costly.

You pose an interesting question, but you really need to take into consideration that hurricanes are not the only costly disaster the US faces every year.

If you change it so that anyone in a hurricane risk zone has to pay extra into a fund to cover disasters, then it has to be considered what to do with other states in which catastrophic events also take place.

California? Earthquakes and wildfires and mudslides. What about all the states in the US that are devastated by tornadoes, leading to billions of dollars in damages? Hawaii is not even safe as some of the volcanoes there have destroyed villages full of homes.

There are few states in the US that are truly free from major disasters. Is everyone supposed to pack up and leave those states for others? Not sure that's feasible.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: carewemust

Have you ever been to the Texas coast? It doesn't look like Florida. Most of the beaches are terrible and you can watch the tankers and blinking of off shore rigs at night.

A lot of the destruction is also infrastructure. Not just mansions. It's not the same as Naples.

No. The only part of Texas I have visited is the Dallas/Fort Worth area. I understand what you're saying though. When Harvey hit Texas, the gas prices in Chicago shot up 50 cents @ gallon to $2.77...where they remain today. So far, Irma has not caused that to increase any further.

a reply to: carewemust

the thing it though, is there any area that isn't free from the natural disasters of one type or another?
the northern states can have some really vicious winters, I remember times where six feet of snow fell in just one storm while living in NY. then there's the ice storms which are worse than the snow. droughts anyone? floods? earthquakes? forest fires??
ten to one, the area you are living in isn't immune to natural disasters, so, well, if you want to punish those who life in areas prone to natural disasters, then how about this,
if you live in an area that is hit by a natural disaster of any kind that results in federal funds being shelled out, TO YOU, then you pay an additional tax for a year afterward to help replenish the funds.. AFTER YOU ARE PAID FOR THE DISASTER THAT HAS AFFECTED YOU.

what the heck, there's still people waiting around for money from their loses in katrina! why the heck should anyone have to pay anything if they have to sit around ten years or more to get relief when a disaster happens?

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Relax, I wasn't implying that you were lying. Just expressing shock. To be fair you have a lot of sports listed there that are of interest to former alumni or native Alabamians, but few others. The Space Center is awesome and I hope to go some day!

I would love to see the Tuskegee museum too.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: carewemust
the thing it though, is there any area that isn't free from the natural disasters of one type or another?

Probably not.
But people living on steep hillsides prone to slides and people living at sea level and people living in a flood plain should sign a waiver they are responsible should the obvious happen.

IMHO that is folly...and not like living near a fault line or in tornado alley.

They certainly shouldnt be given federal money to help rebuild their water front properties.

Heard the mayor of Tampa say, after being asked if the city planned to rebuild in wiser locations, "This is Florida everyone wants to be by the water" ... well than don't cry when your house gets flooded, that was the risk you took putting it there in the first place.

a reply to: Subrosabelow

Your sentiment has been echoed several times by other ATS posters to this thread. That's why I worded my opening post that started this thread carefully.

To summarize:

1. Disasters where the governor of a state requests billions of dollars are, mostly HURRICANE disasters. As you see in Table-1 at this website, www.ecowatch.com... , from 2005 to 2015, the government spent 3 times more on hurricane relief/recovery, than all other U.S. natural disasters COMBINED.

Obviously, there are natural disasters in all parts of our great country every year. But only HURRICANES are REGULAR, MASSIVELY EXPENSIVE visitors to the South/Southeast U.S..

2. Before Hurricane Katrina, the U.S. Taxpayer contributed, on average, 17% of the cost of Hurricane relief/recovery. For Katrina, that contribution skyrocketed to 62%. For hurricane Sandy, it was 80%. (No wonder N.J. Governor Chris Christie enthusiastically hugged Barack "golden-goose" Obama when he got off that helicopter!)

People are still in recovery-mode at the moment. But if the U.S. government doesn't begin asking for states to once again carry more of the burden for Hurricane recovery, America's goals of Tax Cuts, Infrastructure Improvement, Affordable Healthcare, etc., will be severely watered-down, or cancelled.

a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

and people living in the northern states should expect to have six feet of snow drop on them overnight!!

funny thing, I lived in tornado alley for over ten years... never really saw a tornado although we did have one kind of hop over our church once while we were in it.

I like my idea, if you end up having to collect the funds, and they are actually paid to you, then for a year afterwards, you pay an additional 2 % tax for the year afterwards, or till the amount that was given to you is returned, whichever comes first. if it's a city that needs the money to fix common assets that the community uses, then they can collect the tax from their citizens for a year to pay into the fund. or something to that extent.

a reply to: carewemust

We are going to Tenn. Plan is to buy some land and learn to be self sufficient. Some of the things that I should have learned when I was a kid from my grandparents.

And I think it's wise. I've been living here my whole life and it seems over the last 5 years or so there is a growing trend of tornados, (where none previously where), flooding, stronger hurricanes. I think mother nature wants her coast back.

~Spin

a reply to: DanDanDat

there is one problem with this though, the beaches are big tourist attractions, and in order for them to be tourist attractions, there has to be businesses and people to run these businesses. heck norfolk va has one of the biggest naval stations, along with the facilities needed to repair the ships.... in order to have these, you need residents to man the stores, restaurants, machine shops, banks, ect.

unless you want to make our entire coastline a nature preserve, people are gonna have to live on the coastline.

originally posted by: spincycle
a reply to: carewemust

We are going to Tenn. Plan is to buy some land and learn to be self sufficient. Some of the things that I should have learned when I was a kid from my grandparents.

And I think it's wise. I've been living here my whole life and it seems over the last 5 years or so there is a growing trend of tornados, (where none previously where), flooding, stronger hurricanes. I think mother nature wants her coast back.

~Spin

Tennessee is a good choice. Nice people, temperate climate, and great fishing! The climate change you're experiencing where you live now could be tied to the average temperature of the plant's atmosphere increasing. That's the going theory, for what its worth. Keep thinking ahead and planning wisely, Spin. Doing so will continue to bring you joy and peace in life. Good luck!

-CareWeMust

a reply to: carewemust

Not unless people in their places also "pay more" for whatever hits their areas. Tornadoes can happen most anywhere. Floods any place near a river, lake, etc. How about earthquakes? Volcanoes? Wild fires? No; we all pay more than enough taxes. Local areas, now, should do more to prep for such things. Note, Floridians aren't complaining like what we saw after Katrina, because they mostly know what to do. New Orleans, a lot of things should have happened long before that storm hit, that would have lessened the damage.

originally posted by: spincycle
a reply to: rickymouse

We do pay a higher price. Also, regular insurance does not cover "hurricane damage." In Texas it is called TWIA or Texas Windstorm. I understand your point, but consider all of the communities that get commodities from places along the coast like Texas. You get oil, electricity, etc etc. Should those be taxed at a higher rate to pay for the fact that we live and work in these industries in a dangerous place? I wouldnt actually be worrying about ppl paying more honestly. It is the ppl that have zero coverage and then get free checks from the government that I have a problem with. I make 10 bucks an hour and somehow I manage to pay for TWIA, Flood, AUTO, and Homeowners ins. I didn't actually choose to live here. I was moved here when I was 2 right before hurricane Alicia hit. Tho, I am moving out of state because of said natural disasters that I'm tired of dealing with.
Oh, and apparently Houston is raising taxes to help cover costs of rebuilding. Alos, most of the water in my county was pumped down here from surrounding counties and some areas are still unreachable because of that. Class actions incomming.

On another note Hi lol read your stuff alot....dig what you have to say. I've been lurking this board for close to 18 years now.

Yeah, I know that there is a difference in premiums, just like flood insurance premiums. I don't pay for the flood insurance, there would have to be ten feet of rain before I even had to start worrying about a flood because I live on a hill. Even then, I would just get some leaks through the basement wall, but the road to town would flood. Lots of people here do live in low areas, to them it is beneficial to have flood insurance.

My insurance covers against hurricanes and tornadoes, no extra premium is needed. We have hardly no chance of ever having a hurricane here, and tornadoes are very rare. But if we do not shovel the roof and there is a collapse in the winter, it may not be covered if there is over four feet of snow on it. Earthquake coverage is included here, there has only been one quake in many many years here in the UP and that didn't do any damage at all where it happened.

Our auto insurance is higher here because of the ice and snow though.

Everyone actually pays a small bit of disaster insurance on their house insurance, it is included in all policies. Insurance companies pay that to the government like a tax. That rate should be evaluated by risk. People complain when they try to do that. The government should pay out to homeowners only once with that, many people build right back in the high risk spot and collect again and again. Some places should not have homes built on them. That is my only gripe. If you live near a river and it floods every year, the insurance premium in that spot should be higher. Why should people who live in low risk places keep supplying these people with reduced premiums?

I wouldn't build a house where it is in a floodplain. There should be parks and public beaches next to the ocean, not residential houses. Maybe some restaurants would be nice, it would be a fun public place. Also, they could have free parking for people that way, the homeowners would not be taking so much land. It would lower the destruction by hurricanes that endanger local people.

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: carewemust

Not unless people in their places also "pay more" for whatever hits their areas. Tornadoes can happen most anywhere. Floods any place near a river, lake, etc. How about earthquakes? Volcanoes? Wild fires? No; we all pay more than enough taxes. Local areas, now, should do more to prep for such things. Note, Floridians aren't complaining like what we saw after Katrina, because they mostly know what to do. New Orleans, a lot of things should have happened long before that storm hit, that would have lessened the damage.

If Warren Buffet said to you: "Ms. LadyGreenEyes, of these 5 states, which is most likely to be the next one to have at least a $10 Billion request for U.S. Taxpayer aid, for natural disaster relief/recovery?

1. Michigan
2. New York
3. Oregon
4. Florida
5. Illinois

If you answer correctly, you get $5 million in cash!"

WHICH STATE WOULD YOU PICK?

When I was stationed in El Paso Texas, I questioned a charge on my electric bill. I was told that was to assist people in the North East during the winter! I requested the charges be rescinded, but was told it was not optional!
In Sierra Vista Arizona 5 or 6 years ago, we had a bad cold snap. The gas company cut off all gas (heating) for homes south of Buffalo Soldier Trail....but continued to send gas to MEXICO. The gas company has refused to respond to questions about this issue.

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: carewemust

Not unless people in their places also "pay more" for whatever hits their areas. Tornadoes can happen most anywhere. Floods any place near a river, lake, etc. How about earthquakes? Volcanoes? Wild fires? No; we all pay more than enough taxes. Local areas, now, should do more to prep for such things. Note, Floridians aren't complaining like what we saw after Katrina, because they mostly know what to do. New Orleans, a lot of things should have happened long before that storm hit, that would have lessened the damage.

If Warren Buffet said to you: "Ms. LadyGreenEyes, of these 5 states, which is most likely to be the next one to have at least a $10 Billion request for U.S. Taxpayer aid, for natural disaster relief/recovery?

1. Michigan
2. New York
3. Oregon
4. Florida
5. Illinois

If you answer correctly, you get $5 million in cash!"

WHICH STATE WOULD YOU PICK?

It's not that simple. Which of these places receives federal money for other reasons, and in what amounts? Why is disaster relief the only focus here?? How about federal welfare? Disasters like this are NOT that common - Tampa hadn't seen a direct hit since 1921 - but welfare pays out all the time. I notice you left out California, Washington, Oregon, etc. Earthquakes and fires are fine to pay for?

People in these areas pay far higher insurance rates; they don't need higher taxes, and no, all do NOT choose to live in such areas.

a reply to: carewemust

Funny how people lover to blame the victim.

If they did not want to do that they would look a little further up the line and ask, why doesn't the state change the building code to enable and encourage people to build concrete homes with concrete roofs?

But no, they blame the victims of the powerful, their supporting breauracy that denies the victims the opportunity to change and improve things to enable them to adjust to cyclone conditions.

a reply to: carewemust

Tennessee is a good choice. Nice people, temperate climate, and great fishing!

Wait what? An entire branch of my family lives in Tennessee and the weather there is anything but temperate. The saying in Tennessee is "If you don't like the weather, wait 5 minutes". It can hit 70 degrees on Christmas or still be snowing in April (that happened just these last 12months, btw).

Tennessee also gets a lot of tornadoes and flooding. There was one year (maybe 2010 or 2011) when nearly the entire State flooded from a single storm system. Something like 30 counties needed emergency disaster relief (should they get tax hikes, too?). The next year got almost as much flooding, with Memphis getting hit particularly hard. And the worst part is that those floods came as after effects of major tornado producing systems that were barreling through the State. (ETA: Ok, technically the massive tornado systems covered several States in the Southeast. So TN wasn't the only one that got hammered with floods and tornadoes those years.)

Other than that, my only real gripe with TN is politics/social stuff. Everything else seems pretty good. And the nature is absolutely amazing there. An ex-gf and I once planned to visit all of the State parks, national parks, and waterfalls throughout the Southeast. We broke up before we could complete that goal, but the ones in Tennessee and Kentucky stand out the most to me. Some are so beautiful that you never want to leave. Those 2 States even have incredible cave systems, though I've only gotten to actually visit a few.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: DanDanDat

there is one problem with this though, the beaches are big tourist attractions, and in order for them to be tourist attractions, there has to be businesses and people to run these businesses. heck norfolk va has one of the biggest naval stations, along with the facilities needed to repair the ships.... in order to have these, you need residents to man the stores, restaurants, machine shops, banks, ect.

unless you want to make our entire coastline a nature preserve, people are gonna have to live on the coastline.

You can enjoy the beaches and still build your city in land where it is more wise. Yes you might loose the convenience of walking out of your hotel room right out onto the beach ... but humanity will survive that inconvenience... we might even learn to enjoy the more peaceful beach front with out all the hustle and bustle.

a reply to: DanDanDat
I hope the America you describe never happens. If it does, the closest the average American will get to seeing a beach or any other part of the real America, will be through 3D movies and glasses.

Foreign investors and the rich will take over those areas and if they let you in, it will be at a hefty cost, which they will be justified in charging, as you have already said, it is too expensive to maintain without substantial funding.

The government can't afford the maintenance of the parks we have now.

I am all for smaller government. A handful of us old folk and rednecks, will continue to make do with what we have, and will likely have to fight tooth and nail to keep the rich and big businesses away from our doors, but that will keep us united against the rest of the world, including your described version of the new average American.

I have never asked anyone for one dime that I haven't earned or paid for.

I have no problem with giving up the government tit. I never suckled from it in the first place.