We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Should the taxpayer fund insurance for those on flood plains?
Comments
-
If you buy an asset you take a risk. If a new high speed rail link is put in or motorway built or a particularly good state school in the area pushes up the value of your home, that would be confiscated using your logic.
If you expect your fellow taxpayers to share in your losses they should also get a share in your profits.
Firstly I believe in land value taxes so if property became more valuable due to external factors as you outline then yes, the community should benefit by increased income from the increase in land value.
As far as buying assetts at our own risk then I agree about some assets and situations and not about others.
There are two reasons
Firstly because it may well be in the countries overal economic interest for society (the taxpayer) to protect the citizen
Secondly that there is a measure of fairnes when it is unreasonable for a private person to possibly have sufficent knowledge to make a fair judgement.
So for the first one might ask would it be in the countries interest for say 1 million people to default on their mortgages because their property is now unsellable?
Obviously you would refuse to bail out the banks and obviously would allow private savers in banks to loss their life savings. (obviously you don't support the 85K government backed saving guarentee?)
On the second issue how any normal person evaluate flood likelihood with our changing weather patterns combined with new land useage?
Insurance is the right way forward but in the event of insurance failing then it's appropriate for the government to intervene.0 -
paulmapp8306 wrote: »Its not reasonable at all. Its reasonable for the government to fund flood defenses yes. But if the flood overcomes the defenses then it does. Nothing is fool proof, and its why we have insurance.
Its reasonable for insurance companies to reduce premiums for homes in a risk area where the risk is minimised by flood defences, and this is where the tax payer is helping the insurance policies be available and affordable.
The alternative, is for insurance to be withdrawn for everyone - and for the tax payer to funs ALL damage. Would you expect the tax payer to fund damage in a fire? or if a truck ploughs into your home? No - thats what insurance is for.
Its kind of like the airoplane v car accident thing. Many Many more people die in car accidents than aircraft ones - but the death toll per accident is much higher in an air accident - so its reported more. In this case a single flood affects many people so theres this call for tax payers help.
I agree; it is for insurance to take the load.
However if insurance does not then I think it reasonable for the government to intervene.0 -
Secondly that there is a measure of fairnes when it is unreasonable for a private person to possibly have sufficent knowledge to make a fair judgement.
I still don't get why it's reasonable to palm off risk onto the taxpayer, i.e. other people.
If I bought shares in a cigarette company just before it was discovered smoking was bad for people should I be bailed out?
If I buy a car that later turns out to be unreliable and so have a low resale value should I be bailed out?
If the answer to these is no, what's different? Much of life is about risk and the Government can't just magic that away.0 -
I still don't get why it's reasonable to palm off risk onto the taxpayer, i.e. other people.
If I bought shares in a cigarette company just before it was discovered smoking was bad for people should I be bailed out?
If I buy a car that later turns out to be unreliable and so have a low resale value should I be bailed out?
If the answer to these is no, what's different? Much of life is about risk and the Government can't just magic that away.
That argument would appear to apply equally well to, say, the building of the Thames flood barrier. Why should I as a non London tax payer help pay for it? On the other hand if the building of state funded flood defenses is justified then it is surely justified to subsidise house restoration if that's a cheaper option.0 -
Having thought about this some more, and given that we now have so many homes already built on flood plains, I think that it is probably necessary to provide flood insurance on affordable terms.
Affordable, though, means different things to different people. I would say that up to say 5 times the normal premium, the householder should pay the true cost of his insurance. Beyond that, there should be some assistance.
At the same time, there should be a ban on building on high risk areas of land.No reliance should be placed on the above! Absolutely none, do you hear?0 -
I still don't get why it's reasonable to palm off risk onto the taxpayer, i.e. other people.
If I bought shares in a cigarette company just before it was discovered smoking was bad for people should I be bailed out?
If I buy a car that later turns out to be unreliable and so have a low resale value should I be bailed out?
If the answer to these is no, what's different? Much of life is about risk and the Government can't just magic that away.
You haven't answered my substantive points which are about things that the individual can't reasonably be expect to manage or even know about.
An individaul can't realistically even know about changing land usage maybe miles from their home; even if they did and had the expertise to assess the significance they would have no realistic prospect of changing such land usage.
Comparing writing off a car with one's property or life savings misses a few important points.
Give a straight answer yes or no.. to
do you support the government's guarentee in principle for retail customers saving?0 -
An individaul can't realistically even know about changing land usage maybe miles from their home; even if they did and had the expertise to assess the significance they would have no realistic prospect of changing such land usage.
Isn't this a bit fanciful? How many areas have been affected in this way?No reliance should be placed on the above! Absolutely none, do you hear?0 -
Isn't this a bit fanciful? How many areas have been affected in this way?
I believe Clapton's description should cover the major flooded areas around the Severn. Also, I think you will find that quite a lot of flooding is surface run-off into normally small streams rather than major rivers overflowing onto their flood plains. Again due to changes in land use.0 -
I believe Clapton's description should cover the major flooded areas around the Severn. Also, I think you will find that quite a lot of flooding is surface run-off into normally small streams rather than major rivers overflowing onto their flood plains. Again due to changes in land use.
"several years later a housing estate is build some miles away that affects the water absortoin on a flood plain (all authorised by our government)
several years later, my property is flooded."
That's happened all over the Severn area? Really?No reliance should be placed on the above! Absolutely none, do you hear?0 -
I believe Clapton's description should cover the major flooded areas around the Severn. Also, I think you will find that quite a lot of flooding is surface run-off into normally small streams rather than major rivers overflowing onto their flood plains. Again due to changes in land use.
Sometimes its just nature. Heavy rain in a concentrated period of time.
Rivers can have a decline of only one foot in a mile. So are very slow moving. The water doesn't magically flow away in minutes.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards