Why do we subsidize flood insurance?

[Cicada]

Some homes are flooded over and over and owners keep getting flood insurance from taxpayers at unrealistically low prices. Maybe people should pay the real cost of flood insurance or live somewhere else. Or live in homes built to survive floods even when the ground floor floods. Now some people are trapped, owing more than they can get for their home subject to real flood insurance costs. So let's buy them out. That will cost us less than rebuilding their house over and over. Global warming is going to bankrupt us if we keep subsidizing flood insurance. With time Floridians will learn to love the Great Plains.

Texans had bumper stickers urging Yankees to freeze to death if their high oil prices got too expensive. Maybe we should let them drown if they don't move to higher ground.

[SHRED]

1. Where is their Libertarian spirit?

[workinclasszero]

8. There's a whole bunch of new

socialist republicans in Texas right now.

[Xipe Totec]

2. You know, when one judges an entire class of people, based on some common attribute...

one can no longer claim to be objective.

[madokie]

3. .

[leftofcool]

4. Well, then why do we subsidize food for children with SNAP?

Why do we subsidize health care for Veterans? I pay quite a bit in tax money and I don't mind a bit subsidizing flood insurance for my fellow Americans even if they are Texans. I could be next.

[Purveyor]

5. This indeed! Nt

[Cicada]

12. Because children can not choose not to eat

But housing is just as affordable outside a flood zone. Or in Dallas.

[leftofcool]

13. That is not true

Houses in flood zones are much cheaper to purchase. That is why so many poorer people buy homes in flood zones.

[Cicada]

18. If owners had to pay real insurance costs then prices would be even lower

Maybe you are right - people pay less for flood zone houses because they know there will be future flood costs. If we added to those future flood costs the real costs of flood insurance wouldn't the purchase price fall enough to pay for that?

People think they save money buying a house because they can deduct the cost of home mortgage interest on their tax returns. But in reality the cost of the home is higher because of that tax break. If that tax break has a current full value of $75,000, I bet after repeal of that tax break the house would sell for $75,000 less.

So making people pay the real cost of living in a flood zone will maybe be zero for new buyers. The cost will be borne by current owners who already have gotten huge subsidies from taxpayers, in many cases.

If we subsidize flood losses people will buy too many flood losses.

[leftstreet]

6. I'm tired of subsidizing McDonald's and Walmart n/t

[workinclasszero]

9. Bigtime

And the billionaire NFL owners, MLB and NBA too!

[beachbum bob]

7. Im more pissed off with federal aid for a state that the majority of their conservative congressmen/

senators voted against aid for Hurricane Sandy relief....

[procon]

10. The states and local municipalities regulate zoning standards.

With the majority of states in the hands of climate denying, and corporate welfare loving Republicans, don't expect any changes to mitigate natural disaster risks.

With houses costing a million or more, where is all this money that you will need to "buy them out" going to com from?

[Cicada]

14. Buy out money comes from not having to rebuild over and over

Housing in Texas is relatively cheap. Think $225,000, not one million.It costs less to buy the house once than rebuild it three times. If we don't save money buying it, getting it out of the subsidized flood insurance program, then we can choose not to buy it. And we only need to pay them what they owe, so they can walk away debt free, if they prefer that to staying while paying the real cost of flood insurance.

[procon]

15. So you would have to pass laws to force insurance companies to pay off

properties tagged as imminent domain at not more than the mortgage debt? Who would want to buy a policy that only paid off the mortgage and left the homeowners without any equity or the money they would need to buy another home? Insurance usually doesn't usually pay out like that. Also, policies don't cover all types of damages, then what?

No, your idea has too flaws to be credible.

[Cicada]

20. We are the insurance company - FEMA sells the subsidized insurance policies.

The National Flood Insurance Program offers subsidized flood insurance in more than 20,000 communities. Because no sane Insurance Company would sell for far less than the true cost. I propose that we raise prices to the real cost after we pay off once at the subsidized price. Those owners who are trapped and can not sell out and move can be bought out because they are otherwise screwed. That buy out is free money for them. If they don't like it they don't have to take it. But after we rebuild their house once after they have paid artificially low insurance premiums then they should pay the real cost of living where they do. You want to rebuild twice before we kick them off? Ok, twice. But global warming is coming and it is suicidal to ignore that. People need to move to higher ground.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

11. So where would they go?

Let's say flood insurance no longer covers rebuilding on a flood plain or a place that has flooded previously. The homeowner now has to find an entirely new house somewhere else. What if it's Houston, which is huge and has thousands of flooded houses. Even if the homeowners had flood insurance (and most of them did not), if they couldn't repair or rebuild their house on the lot they own, where would they go? Could those thousands of people even find houses or places to build new ones in the Houston area, which is already sprawling? Will they have to move away entirely, leaving their jobs, which might not be replaceable elsewhere? There isn't a simple solution. Maybe it seems foolish to rebuild in an area prone to flooding, but what other solutions are there that would actually work for thousands of people at once?

[Cicada]

16. A solution that would work is to make them pay the true cost.

If my income will not pay for housing in San Francisco then I can move to Lubbock Texas where the unemployment rate is 3.6% and I can buy a house for $150,000. Or those in Houston unable to afford real flood insurance can move to a less expensive home in Houston where the flood insurance is lower because the house is worth less. Also, once home owners in Houston are forced to pay the real cost of flood insurance the cost of homes will probably fall because fewer people will be able to pay the old price with the new flood insurance costs. And if home prices don't fall because they already sell for no more than reconstruction costs the employers in Texas will be forced to pay higher wages in order to get workers. That may slow the growth rate of Houston some but so what? New jobs can go inland instead.

[bettyellen]

22. The problem is sprawl, everyone wanting so much space and driving everywhere I so wasteful...

If you want space, then you have a longer commute- and more pollution. If they paid taxes maybe they could pay for some transportation infrastructure. It's like they want it all, and don't want to pay for it. Something has to give.

[TomSlick]

17. All of Houston and New Orleans are subject to flood given the right storm.

The economy of this country depends on these cities - and there being folks there to work.

It seems just wrong for the country to depend upon people living in coastal cities but refusing them subsidized flood insurance.

[Cicada]

21. A business does more for our economy above water than submerged.

The Koch Brothers make huge profits from their coastal business operations. Why can't they pay their coastal workers enough so they can afford the real cost of living at the coast? Why do I have to be the one subsidizing the living costs of Koch employees? And if it just costs too much for their employees to live there given their value to the Koch, then that business is not really helping out the economy. It should move to some place where profits can be made or it should shut down.

Global warming is coming. We can't just pretend it's not real. We must move to higher ground.

[mopinko]

19. i could get behind giving them only so many bites at the apple.

rebuild once, fine, but after that, it floods again, you have to move.
as this shit gets worse, and more common, we are gonna go bankrupt helping people risk their lives.
we have to face the fact that a lot of this planet is gonna become uninhabitable.