Go Back   Computer Forums > Welcome To Computer Forums .org > Social Lounge | Off Topic
Click Here to Login
Join Computer forums Today


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-31-2012, 05:23 AM   #61
muz
Golden Master
 
muz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 6,928
Default Re: The "Non-Political" Political Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by root View Post

none of this is disagreeing with what I said though?
Agreed , There will always be lazy people a recession doesn't change the number of lazy people who exist it merely just gives those lazy people yet another excuse for not working . You see after every recession the unemployment figure falling as all those that wanted to work find work ,yet there are always still a lazy few who dont find work . but chances are they never worked before it and wont work after it. Its a shame that people have been brought up not to value going out and earning money for themselves where they can .


I think at state/local level flood defenses should be provided paid for partly by a tax on buying or building property in affected areas.

When it comes to the actual rebuilding I agree that the person should be responsible for purchasing suitable insurance that protects against the risk .
However what happens when the cost of insurance rises in response to the prevalent risk of flooding and people can no longer afford to insure their property ?

For that reason and out of recognition of the fact that sometimes people buy houses thinking they are safe then years possibly even decades down the line their home does start getting regularly flooded I think there should be a government crisis loan type method of assistance available . Whereby you are provided with the necessary resources to move but the money to relocate is a loan .

Either that or you take steps to regulate insurers providing insurance against natural disasters etc etc so that they cannot charge unaffordable premiums , however this would only work so far until insurers see that it is not a profitable business for them anymore .

Because lets face it if you own a home that regularly gets flooded its going to be near impossible to sell it , and the more times it gets flooded the higher your insurance premium rises until you cannot afford to live there anymore or at least cannot insure your property against flood but have no choice because you cant sell up and leave your essentially trapped in a downward spiral .
__________________

__________________
Desktop-AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+-2GB Elixer DDR2 800 250gb+500gb+500gb+120gb
Laptop-Apple Macbook Pro 13" Intel core i5(2.3ghz) 4gb Ram 320gb hard drive
muz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2012, 08:30 AM   #62
Site Team
 
root's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 7,999
Default Re: The "Non-Political" Political Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by muz View Post
However what happens when the cost of insurance rises in response to the prevalent risk of flooding and people can no longer afford to insure their property ?
This happened in Oxford (UK)
the flood risk areas were re-defined, this put a large section of the Jericho area of the city, (which had not flooded in years) into a recognised flood risk zone.

clearly it hadn't even flooded recently, but a paperwork exercise made it look bad and so residents had to pay.

(actually, the worst part is, if you look at a map you'll see that Oxford is reasonable uphill the only reason that Oxford actually floods is that the river is managed. gates are closed and hold back water, which stops towns and cities further down river flooding.
I.e Oxford can flood, then Wallingford can flood, then reading, then slough etc before anyone in London will be allowed to get wet toes.

the sad fact is. with house insurance, just as with any other insurance, if you can't afford it, you get the choice to move to where you can afford it, or run the risk of getting caught out.


however, I don't think that it is necessarily fair that homes are re-defined as flood risk, especially when the risk may have altered since they first bought their property.

Basically, when you buy your property you should have a survey done, if they survey says that your house was built on a flood plain then you either get to walk away. or proceed in the knowledge that your stuff may get washed away, possibly frequently.
-moreover the price you pay will have already had this factored into it, houses built on flood plains are less desirable and hence already command a lower premium than the same house would else where.

However, where I do have sympathy, is in situations like I said above when flood boundaries are revised, such revisions are normally a result of further encroachment onto flood plains,

Basically, you see a flood plain, a large field that can be flooded and turn to marsh when there is excessive rain.
you build your house next to, but outside of the flood plain. smart move, your house should not get flooded.
the trouble is when the not so smart developer decides that building on a flood plain is a great idea. they build houses, and cover the area in tarmac, now there is no land to soak up the water, so rather than the water draining into the land, it now sits on top. and because the soaking up that previously happened help more water than can feasible sit on top, the flood waters now extend further than they previously would have. - e.g. your sensible build house is now inside the flood plain.


the long and short of it is it's a complicated matter.
but I can simplify it with the following ideas:
if you buy a house on a flood plain, this is your fault, you should be in charge of getting insurance.
And whilst I have sympathy with the case: if you cannot see signs that the flood plain may change, and either object to development, or get out whilst you can still command a good price for your property, then this too is your fault. you should be in charge of getting insurance.


However, flood control measures, that protect multiple individuals are not an individual responsibility, just the same as the police officers whom protect multiple individuals are not an individual responsibility. they are municipal services and as such should be provided by the state, funded by taxation.
__________________

__________________
I didn’t fight my way to the top of the food chain to be a vegetarian…
Im sick of people saying 'dont waste paper'. If trees wanted to live, they'd all carry guns.
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; The inherent vice of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
root is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2012, 09:27 PM   #63
In Runtime
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: US
Posts: 433
Default Re: The "Non-Political" Political Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hameister View Post
I see.....so, even though this woman made a foolish decision, by building her house in a flood prone area, you believe that the federal government should pay her to relocate.

Then, it follows that this would not apply to just this one woman. This would have to apply to anyone who has built a house in an area that is prone to natural disaster.

So, you'd have the government pay all those people in California who have rebuilt numerous times, only to have their house wash away in the next mud slide. Or, the folks who's houses have been destroyed, and rebuilt numerous times as a result of fire, earthquake, etc.

Since the government would have to pay all these expenses with taxpayers money, do you think that the government should just pay for these relocations as an entitlement, (for free), or would these people have to pay the government back over a period of time?
Being that the government is so willing to help out in other countries with all sorts of aid and assistance, then why not put a priority on our own citizens? Anyways there should be a criteria for our citizens to qualify for assistance, i.e. income levels and their should be an interest rate on the loans. Granted it is foolish for people to live in flood prone areas, but
as I said the first priority for government is to secure the welfare of its citizens which could repay itself over time (through taxes and other ways).
Tech Explorer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2012, 10:31 PM   #64
MMM
Daemon Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: !!
Posts: 699
Default Re: The "Non-Political" Political Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hameister View Post
I see.....so, even though this woman made a foolish decision, by building her house in a flood prone area, you believe that the federal government should pay her to relocate.

Then, it follows that this would not apply to just this one woman. This would have to apply to anyone who has built a house in an area that is prone to natural disaster.

So, you'd have the government pay all those people in California who have rebuilt numerous times, only to have their house wash away in the next mud slide. Or, the folks who's houses have been destroyed, and rebuilt numerous times as a result of fire, earthquake, etc.

Since the government would have to pay all these expenses with taxpayers money, do you think that the government should just pay for these relocations as an entitlement, (for free), or would these people have to pay the government back over a period of time?
The Government should take some responsibility as relevant authorities approved for people to build dwellings in high risk areas....

This is a problem over hear in Australia where we have very high risk bush fire areas, the state of Victoria in Australia held a Judicial inquiry last year when we were unfortunate in the loss of lives..... outcome was in certain areas if people did not wish to rebuild the government will compensate by buying the properties not to be built on again..... of course this puts financial burden on Government & our taxes.

PS: I only believe the Government should compensate people only in Extreme cases where government incompetence approved the building of dwellings in areas that should not be built in.( this can be another topic for debate)
MMM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2012, 05:57 AM   #65
Daemon Poster
 
Hameister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 887
Default Re: The "Non-Political" Political Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tech Explorer View Post
Being that the government is so willing to help out in other countries with all sorts of aid and assistance, then why not put a priority on our own citizens? Anyways there should be a criteria for our citizens to qualify for assistance, i.e. income levels and their should be an interest rate on the loans. Granted it is foolish for people to live in flood prone areas, but
as I said the first priority for government is to secure the welfare of its citizens which could repay itself over time (through taxes and other ways).

Quote:
Originally Posted by MMM View Post
The Government should take some responsibility as relevant authorities approved for people to build dwellings in high risk areas....

This is a problem over hear in Australia where we have very high risk bush fire areas, the state of Victoria in Australia held a Judicial inquiry last year when we were unfortunate in the loss of lives..... outcome was in certain areas if people did not wish to rebuild the government will compensate by buying the properties not to be built on again..... of course this puts financial burden on Government & our taxes.

PS: I only believe the Government should compensate people only in Extreme cases where government incompetence approved the building of dwellings in areas that should not be built in.( this can be another topic for debate)

Well, I agree, but only in part.

I agree that in times of natural disaster, yes, I expect the government to step in with the army corp of engineers, federal aid through FEMA, and any other resource that can accomplish what no individual citizen, or group of citizens can possibly handle on their own. Hurricane Sandy is a prime example.

However, where we disagree, are those issues for which I believe individuals must take responsibility. I do not want my taxes paying to relocate people who foolishly built a house on the edge of a cliff, where it was only a matter of time before it would slide down the mountain. I do not want my taxes paying for people who wanted a beautiful ocean view, so they built their house on a beach, where it was only a matter of time before a storm surge washed it away.

The fact that a local building department issued a permit to build, does not create liability on the part of the government regarding it's location. The building department cannot, and should not, tell anyone "where" to build, only "how" to build. The building dept. is interested in the building meeting all current code requirements for sound construction, period. Obviously if you wanted to build on protected wetlands, or something similar, the building dept. would not issue a permit. But, absent that kind of restriction, they really don't care where you build. People are still building on major faults, where earthquakes are a certainty.

If the day comes that permits are issued based on location, and a permit is issued for a dangerous, or unacceptable location, then yes, the municipality that issued that permit has certainly created liability for itself.

Governments in countries all over the world, are deeply in debt, some even near collapse, primarily because of entitlement programs. I firmly believe that people need to provide for themselves, and their families, and expect nothing from the government. That firm belief system, has worked for me, and every member of my family, as it will for my grandchildren. We need to return to a fundamental concept of personal responsibility.

President Kennedy said it best, when he said...."Ask not what your country can do for you, but rather what you can do for your country." I believed that then, and I still believe it today.
__________________
HAF 932 Advanced / Corsair AX1200 / Asus Rampage IV Extreme / i7-3930K / H100 Cooling 4x120mm
16GB Corsair DDR3 / GTX 580x2 SLI + GTX 460 PhysX / SSDs Mushkin 240GB, Crucial 256GB, Crucial 512GB
Hameister is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2012, 08:25 AM   #66
MMM
Daemon Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: !!
Posts: 699
Default Re: The "Non-Political" Political Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hameister View Post
Governments in countries all over the world, are deeply in debt, some even near collapse, primarily because of entitlement programs. I firmly believe that people need to provide for themselves, and their families, and expect nothing from the government. That firm belief system, has worked for me, and every member of my family, as it will for my grandchildren. We need to return to a fundamental concept of personal responsibility.
It is very well to say people need to provide for them selves and expect nothing from the government and I also believe in this principle to a degree.

I came from a very poor background and have done well for my self (fortunately), but there are many people who are not fortunate as us and will rely on government assistance.
I do not mind paying taxes to help the less fortunate people, call me a softy but I will help my fellow human beings.... believe me I'm not religious person but I know what is like to be hungry and going with out the basic necessities of life through no fault of my own.

Just remember this..... The rich get richer & the poor get poorer!!!
MMM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2012, 08:53 AM   #67
Daemon Poster
 
Hameister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 887
Default Re: The "Non-Political" Political Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by MMM View Post
It is very well to say people need to provide for them selves and expect nothing from the government and I also believe in this principle to a degree.

I came from a very poor background and have done well for my self (fortunately), but there are many people who are not fortunate as us and will rely on government assistance.
I do not mind paying taxes to help the less fortunate people, call me a softy but I will help my fellow human beings.... believe me I'm not religious person but I know what is like to be hungry and going with out the basic necessities of life through no fault of my own.

Just remember this..... The rich get richer & the poor get poorer!!!
There isn't a single thing you've said in your quote above with which I disagree! What I don't understand, is why you said it???

We're not talking about people who are living in poverty. We're not discussing people who are hungry, and are in need of assistance.

We're talking about government through federal income taxes, paying to relocate, and/or, re-establish people who have made foolish decisions, in building houses, in extremely high risk environments. How do your comments relate to that?
__________________

__________________
HAF 932 Advanced / Corsair AX1200 / Asus Rampage IV Extreme / i7-3930K / H100 Cooling 4x120mm
16GB Corsair DDR3 / GTX 580x2 SLI + GTX 460 PhysX / SSDs Mushkin 240GB, Crucial 256GB, Crucial 512GB
Hameister is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:47 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0