"Government should compensate flood victims and purchase houses"

wotsthat

wymondham wrote: »

I'd much rather fund this than continue to pay for India's space programme whilst its slums increase......

There's a queue a mile long to spend the foreign aid budget. It seems that whatever the problem is we can cure it by scrapping foreign aid.

wymondham

wotsthat wrote: »

There's a queue a mile long to spend the foreign aid budget. It seems that whatever the problem is we can cure it by scrapping foreign aid.

I think it's just people seeing how crazy it is to send millions abroad to countries that don't need it (India/Pakistan etc) then we borrow money to run the country and hence don't do all that is required to adequately protect from flooding - if this was a person, people would scream how silly it was to give money to your neighbour when they have their flats screens etc, then borrow from the bank to pay your mortgage....

wotsthat

wymondham wrote: »

I think it's just people seeing how crazy it is to send millions abroad to countries that don't need it (India/Pakistan etc) then we borrow money to run the country and hence don't do all that is required to adequately protect from flooding - if this was a person, people would scream how silly it was to give money to your neighbour when they have their flats screens etc, then borrow from the bank to pay your mortgage....

I think it's just crazy that whenever there's a need for the government to spend (always) someone will link it to the foreign aid budget. I've seen..

- if we didn't give money to Pakistan then it could pay for a flood response
- if we didn't give money to Pakistan we'd have better cancer treatment
- if we didn't give money to Pakistan we'd have aircraft on our aircraft carriers

Whether we have an appropriate foreign aid policy is a separate debate. Getting rid of it won't improve a future flood response, lead to a cure for cancer etc.

vivatifosi

There was an interesting commentary this morning on TV re the government's new flood scheme. The long and the short of it was:

People in a low council tax band (a, b?) would qualify for the most help

Help would taper and stop altogether at the other end of the council tax scale, with the view that people can afford to defend their own homes.

New houses would be exempt to deter developers from building on flood plains. I found this last point interesting, as they will probably go ahead anyway and it's the homeowners that will take the hit, so caveat emptor anyone buying a new house in a flood zone.

ETA: found an article that covered most of that (not the first bit re lower council tax):
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/insurance/10630084/Wealthy-homeowners-wont-be-helped-by-flood-insurance-scheme.html

BillJones

vivatifosi wrote: »

Help would taper and stop altogether at the other end of the council tax scale, with the view that people can afford to defend their own homes.

It seems that there's pretty much no sphere of human experience now where someone won't pop up and suggest or demand that "the rich" should be treated worse than the general population, as "they can afford it".

It seems that the very idea that anyone ends up better off than anyone else is seen as wrong now, and that government must use every opportunity to chip away at the differential.

If people want actual equality of outcome (everyone left with the same disposable income, same housing, same car etc.) then they ought to come out and say so, and accept the dissection of such a view, rather than try to introduce the policy by stealth.

They also should not be surprised or upset when people lobby to push back against this. People who've put in the effort through a half a lifetime of planning, working, and foregoing pleasure, to rep the rewards later are not going to sit back and happpily listen to others demanding that we be punished for it.

wymondham

wotsthat wrote: »

I think it's just crazy that whenever there's a need for the government to spend (always) someone will link it to the foreign aid budget. I've seen..

- if we didn't give money to Pakistan then it could pay for a flood response
- if we didn't give money to Pakistan we'd have better cancer treatment
- if we didn't give money to Pakistan we'd have aircraft on our aircraft carriers

Whether we have an appropriate foreign aid policy is a separate debate. Getting rid of it won't improve a future flood response, lead to a cure for cancer etc.

I think it's quite a natural reaction. Money has not been spent as it was not deemed necessary or they could not afford it. If you had considerably more money to spend then the chances are it would get spent.


Can you justify to me why we send millions to India, who have a rapidly growing space programme and who's slums are getting bigger as their government prefers other uses? There are many ways to save money for UK based problems not just foreign aid, but this stands out as being crazy.

skitler

BillJones wrote: »

It seems that there's pretty much no sphere of human experience now where someone won't pop up and suggest or demand that "the rich" should be treated worse than the general population, as "they can afford it".

It seems that the very idea that anyone ends up better off than anyone else is seen as wrong now, and that government must use every opportunity to chip away at the differential.

If people want actual equality of outcome (everyone left with the same disposable income, same housing, same car etc.) then they ought to come out and say so, and accept the dissection of such a view, rather than try to introduce the policy by stealth.

They also should not be surprised or upset when people lobby to push back against this. People who've put in the effort through a half a lifetime of planning, working, and foregoing pleasure, to rep the rewards later are not going to sit back and happpily listen to others demanding that we be punished for it.

if folk have done nothing to protect there own homes, then why should the tax payer. its down to each individual home owner to make sure there house/home is safe from what ever disaster can happen. if your saying you cant afford to do that, then you cant afford to live there. you need to look at relocating to where is within your means, just like everybody else, disaster, recession, whatever the reason.

vivatifosi

Wales left out of clean up cash:

http://news.sky.com/story/1214453/wales-left-out-of-govt-floods-clean-up-cash

The money no object approach announced by Cameron applies only to England as it is up to the other countries within the UK to deal with their own flooding.

BillJones

skitler wrote: »

if folk have done nothing to protect there own homes, then why should the tax payer. its down to each individual home owner to make sure there house/home is safe from what ever disaster can happen. if your saying you cant afford to do that, then you cant afford to live there. you need to look at relocating to where is within your means, just like everybody else, disaster, recession, whatever the reason.

No, I was saying exactly the opposite! and am bemused by your reading of my opinion.

skitler

BillJones wrote: »

No, I was saying exactly the opposite! and am bemused by your reading of my opinion.

I know what you meant.


I just picked yours at random really as there's a few of you to the same thinking.