Posted on 05/25/2006 9:13:08 AM PDT by ExSoldier
I don't DO many vanity type posts, but this subject requires input from folks all over the nation. My wife and I were discussing the HUGE proposed hike of storm insurance rates for us here in Florida due to increased hurricane activity.
My genius wife had the BRILLIANT idea that legislation should be passed at the Federal level that would allow such insurance to be tax deductible. Not just the hurricane prone states (which this year runs from Maine to Mexico -- very unusual predictions) but also areas subject to earthquake, forest fire, tornado, etc. Pretty much everywhere in this country, homeowners are required to have some form of disaster insurance and this is getting to be the most formidable obstacle to home ownership. Such a tax cut would not necessarily provide an actual cash rebate but would serve to lower taxible income and thus lighten the load of the homeowner.
The obvious rebuttal is of course that Acts of God aren't covered. So far I'm thinking this would cover the WMD terrorist attack and tsunamis. But I'm not sure. Maybe somebody out there in freeperland could offer some specific language for potential draft legislation?
Required by whom the feds or the bank that give you your mortgage?
Make it so that anyone can deduct it regardless of whether or not it's required and you'll get a lot more people on board.
I would not support legislation that was geared towards only those folks who are required to have it.
If someone does not have a mortgage on their home I am not concerned with them having insurance...but I don't want them coming to the government if their house gets destroyed.
I can not support this. You chose to live where you are, you can move inland if you don't like the higher insurance. If you have rental property it is already deductible anyway.
I could never support this. I believe in Reagan's philosophy: Broaden the base, lower the rate.
You are proposing to narrow the base by increasing deductions.
If a homeowner decides to buy property in an area known to be in danger of destruction by seasonal weather such as hurricanes; where exactly, or when exactly does it become the responsibility of the US government to make it easy on that particular homeowner? We live with the choices we make.
Do you think Alexander Hamilton, or any of our founders would have given government monies (collected taxes) to a settler who lost his house because he knowingly built it next to a river known for flooding its banks? They would have told him he made the decision, now he must live with that decision.
When did our government become a charitable institution that we turn to every time we get into a jam?
NEWSFLASH: Hurricanes have been known to hit Florida and other coastal states!!
If you want government subsidies for living in certain states, take that up with your state government. Don't expect UT, CO, WY, etc. to pay for you.
I'd like to see the gov't, fed or state, buy up property along our coasts that are frequently damaged/destroyed by storms, at a fair price & with voluntary sellers, with the stipulations that no permanent structures will ever be erected again & is public access land forever.
Beyond that, I am inclined to let the market & the storms dictate the price of insuring a storm threatened coastal home. I realize that this will ultimately lead to only the very wealthy being able to afford beach front homes. But it is their money, so if they want to risk it blowing or washing away, let 'um.
Every time a 'cane hits my area, the rich get poorer & the poor get richer.
Right now, on the Gulf Coast, there are houses that have the Gulf under them at high tide. The owners want the Gov't (Fed, State, Local) to restore the beach that was restored a 2 years before. Nonsense!
Isn't there something in the Bible about the ignorance of building your house on sand?
Alexander Hamilton and the other Founding Fathers believed not in the concept of taxing the settler, but rather the concept of the foreign tariff to run the government. Were that such were so today! What do you think the Founders would have said of the entitlements we have today?
As far as the rebuttal argument of foresight as a bar, I would point out that EVERYWHERE in this country presents to possibility of some form of natural disaster. If you live in UT, CO or WY you run the risk of tornado, earthquake and forest fire. Tornados in particular cost more each year than hurricanes (barring the Andrew or Katrina events) especially in the matter of lives lost. What about areas of the northeast that have NOT seen the flood damage they've suffered this year...in the last 100 years? Do you propose to penalize them for not having the foresight to research flood levels for the last 100 years?
We'll be able to retire in five years. We will move to north Carolina (buy the land before then though) and build our dream home. We'll become residents (full time) and take part in local elections and pay our state taxes. We have no income tax burden in Florida. In the knowledge that we'll be subject to new threats of nature, we'll build so as to eliminate or minimize those problems. I expect that fire and flash flood is going to be the main risk. Therefore we'll build on high ground (ridge or mountain top) and of material and design that is fire resistant or fireproof.
I'm not asking for anybody to shoulder anything. In the alternative to my initial request, how about a tax credit to build such housing? Or a lower mandated insurance rate for homes that can demonstrate a higher level of resistence to natural disasters? Much like the energy credit for buying a fuel efficient car. Are you against THAT? I personally would much rather see the areas of Alaska, California, and all the areas of oil deposits drilled like a $10 hooker before I'd ask anybody to give up their H2 or raise the cost of fuel as high as it has become. But absent a collective spine in DC, I'll take a credit wherever I can find it. I'm also not proposing to write off the entire amount of insurance, but rather a portion.
Not everybody chooses to live where they do. Some folks are born in an area and because of finances and a familial support structure are unable to just up and leave.
I don't mean to sound whiny, but the seven responses I've read thus far have misinterpreted the proposal to mean that only certain areas of the country be subject to such exemptions. I'm proposing an across the board partial exemption for all Americans. But since it is her idea, I'll let Mrs ExSoldier post it this evening.
Ahhhh a little bit off topic here. I think that reference was to building upon the spiritual rock of Christ....
Your purposed tax break appears to too many people to be favoring those who must purchase this insurance and in particular the rich.
Change it to say that the first X amount of dollars (let's say $2000) spent on all homeowners insurance would be tax deductible if supplemental disaster insurance was purchased for this home also.
Setting a monetary limit stops the critics that would claim this is for the rich. Requiring disaster insurance would encourage this behavior while still being seen as an equal tax break for all.
If presented as an enticement to get people to buy disaster insurance, this bill would be easier to pass. Plus if it does pass you get double benefits, because you not only get a tax break, but also when more homeowners enter the insurance pool your insurance rates will decrease. And it becomes a win win situation for all.
What do you think?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.