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?
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?