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.
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.