If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNBC)   With flood insurance subsidies set to expire, premiums set to rise. Won't SOMEONE think of the millionaires who have to rebuild their coastal homes once a decade?   (cnbc.com) divider line 83
    More: Interesting, flood insurance, insurance agents, insurance policy  
•       •       •

1023 clicks; posted to Business » on 24 Sep 2013 at 5:56 PM (50 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



83 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-24 06:06:41 PM
grumpycatgood.jpg.gif.exe.txt.tar.bz.tiff
 
2013-09-24 06:08:15 PM
Because poor people don't live near water.
 
2013-09-24 06:11:56 PM

GoldSpider: Because poor people don't live near water.


They don't in Malibu, that's for sure.

ranchokinkaid.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-09-24 06:14:37 PM

mcreadyblue: They don't in Malibu, that's for sure.


Damn it Rockford have some pride man.
 
2013-09-24 06:17:57 PM
Submitter lives in a middle class home in the middle of the deserts of Colorado, safe from any flooding.

Only the very rich live along rivers, creeks, lakes, ponds, and puddles.  Thats why when you think rich, you think Mississippi, Maine, Missouri, and Lousiana.
 
2013-09-24 06:20:21 PM
But ... socialism isn't socialism when the rich benefit!
 
2013-09-24 06:26:34 PM
You mean those mega millionaires in an Ohio river vally?
 
2013-09-24 06:35:01 PM
Yeah, those fatcats living in the Rockaways, Staten Island and the Jersey Shore really had it coming.
 
2013-09-24 06:52:36 PM

GoldSpider: Because poor people don't live near water.


That doesn't mean it's a good idea to subsidize their doing so.
 
2013-09-24 07:08:56 PM

itcamefromschenectady: GoldSpider: Because poor people don't live near water.

That doesn't mean it's a good idea to subsidize their doing so.


Yes, it is. You do know about these things called 'sea ports'. Goods and services are shipped over seas for export and import. Those good and services need workers. Which tend to live near the water---(see: Sea Ports).
And not only dock workers, etc. But people in the oil industries and shipping industries and all the hundreds of things that needed to support them---supermarkets, drug stores, police, fire, entertainment areas, clothing, shopping, schools.


Those people don't live in million dollar homes, but in rather modest homes. There would be little reason for them to take that risk of purchasing a home in that area with out the subsidies. Not only would the town collapse the export import industry and import industry would have to raise the cost of goods by magnitudes to attract workers---so that 12 dollar T-Shirt pack could end up costing you 30 bucks. It's not a vacuum and someone will have to pay the price as it's passed down the line. Either at the Pump, Supermarket, or Clothing store.
 
2013-09-24 07:10:29 PM

Randomly: Submitter lives in a middle class home in the middle of the deserts of Colorado, safe from any flooding.

Only the very rich live along rivers, creeks, lakes, ponds, and puddles.  Thats why when you think rich, you think Mississippi, Maine, Missouri, and Lousiana.


My mom lives roughly 1/2 mile from a river with a park, an interstate, a busy street, a strip mall, another street, and a house in between her and the river.  Yet somehow that qualifies as a flood plain.  The only time her basement's ever flooded it was the damn city's fault because one of their lift stations failed.
 
2013-09-24 07:12:45 PM
GoldSpider: Because poor people don't live near water.

They do, but they usually don't carry Federal flood insurance.

On the other hand, the NFIP was subsidized to a ridiculous degree, and was a massive money-losing proposition.

The FEMA folks - and others - have been calling for a complete elimination of NFIP for decades. They even proposed a "get flooded, get paid off, have to build outside of a flood plain the next time you idiot" plan to slowly get people to stop building in flood plains.
 
2013-09-24 07:21:43 PM
optikeye:
Those people don't live in million dollar homes, but in rather modest homes. There would be little reason for them to take that risk of purchasing a home in that area with out the subsidies.

...which is why they should live, you know, a few miles inland and more than ten feet above the high tide line.

Like they almost always do.

No, those poor dockworkers don't live a block from their jobs.

Randomly:
My mom lives roughly 1/2 mile from a river with a park, an interstate, a busy street, a strip mall, another street, and a house in between her and the river. Yet somehow that qualifies as a flood plain.

Something you might note about your own description. Those are all things that will not stop a flood at all.

That's the thing about flood PLAINS. They can be flat, and water spreads out to fill them as much as possible.
 
2013-09-24 07:36:23 PM

Randomly: Submitter lives in a middle class home in the middle of the deserts of Colorado, safe from any flooding.

Only the very rich live along rivers, creeks, lakes, ponds, and puddles.  Thats why when you think rich, you think Mississippi, Maine, Missouri, and Lousiana.


Live anywhere you please, just don't ask taxpayers to mitigate your risk by subsidizing your insurance.
 
2013-09-24 07:38:35 PM

jjorsett: Randomly: Submitter lives in a middle class home in the middle of the deserts of Colorado, safe from any flooding.

Only the very rich live along rivers, creeks, lakes, ponds, and puddles.  Thats why when you think rich, you think Mississippi, Maine, Missouri, and Lousiana.

Live anywhere you please, just don't ask taxpayers to mitigate your risk by subsidizing your insurance.


Meanwhile states like Colorado and Texas keep saying things like this then beg the federal government for emergency relief.

Threads like this are the reason I'm ok with letting people in red states die without federal aid to help them.
 
2013-09-24 07:39:11 PM
The government would rather subsidize healthcare for government millionaires. The poor people that live inland that get flooded are going to be hurt the most. You know, the hundredaires
 
2013-09-24 07:39:42 PM
Honestly i have always felt the insurance companies should be mandated by law to cover flood damage and get the Government out of the insurance business.
 
2013-09-24 07:40:05 PM

jjorsett: Live anywhere you please, just don't ask taxpayers to mitigate your risk by subsidizing your insurance.


Does that apply to the big money people too??
 
2013-09-24 07:50:39 PM
In the world of insurance, high premiums mean that the insurance companies know, without a doubt, that they will be spending money on you in the near future.  If you need the government to subsidize your flood insurance, MOVE!!!

Though the smarter path would be to not move near an area prone to flooding.
 
2013-09-24 07:52:32 PM

cirby: ...which is why they should live, you know, a few miles inland and more than ten feet above the high tide line.

Like they almost always do.

No, those poor dockworkers don't live a block from their jobs.


You're Trolling.
You do know Hurricanes damage and flooding can extend 10 or hundreds of miles from the coast? Not only there are river systems that get overrun with rains from Hurricanes and cause flooding miles and miles from the coast.

Davenport Iowa, is no where near the coast. But is a shipping area on a river. This was just from 'unusal weather' up stream. You don't need to live near the high tide line.
 
2013-09-24 08:28:27 PM
Won't SOMEONE think of the millionaires who have to rebuild their coastal homes once a decade?

It sounds like some *is* thinking of them. And it's about time, too.
 
2013-09-24 08:35:20 PM
If the rest of us might ever have to help them, nobody should ever live by water, or near a volcano, or where the earth shakes often - or anywhere risk is high.
Of course, remaining cavemen forever, and never building civilization will save us all kinds of headaches, too, so it will be good all around.
 
2013-09-24 08:37:00 PM

grimlock1972: Honestly i have always felt the insurance companies should be mandated by law to cover flood damage and get the Government out of the insurance business.


The whole reason government is in the business of flood insurance is that private insurance refused to cover it.
 
2013-09-24 08:40:59 PM

optikeye: itcamefromschenectady: GoldSpider: Because poor people don't live near water.

That doesn't mean it's a good idea to subsidize their doing so.

Yes, it is. You do know about these things called 'sea ports'. Goods and services are shipped over seas for export and import. Those good and services need workers. Which tend to live near the water---(see: Sea Ports).

optikeye: itcamefromschenectady: GoldSpider: Because poor people don't live near water.

That doesn't mean it's a good idea to subsidize their doing so.

Yes, it is. You do know about these things called 'sea ports'. Goods and services are shipped over seas for export and import. Those good and services need workers. Which tend to live near the water---(see: Sea Ports).
And not only dock workers, etc. But people in the oil industries and shipping industries and all the hundreds of things that needed to support them---supermarkets, drug stores, police, fire, entertainment areas, clothing, shopping, schools.


Those people don't live in million dollar homes, but in rather modest homes. There would be little reason for them to take that risk of purchasing a home in that area with out the subsidies. Not only would the town collapse the export import industry and import industry would have to raise the cost of goods by magnitudes to attract workers---so that 12 dollar T-Shirt pack could end up costing you 30 bucks. It's not a vacuum and someone will have to pay the price as it's passed down the line. Either at the Pump, Supermarket, or Clothing store.


Be reasonable - or not, this is Fark. Working at a port doesn't mean you have to own a house on a flood-plain. I live only a few miles from a port on a large river, but my apartment is well above sea level (about 250 ft). I checked a FEMA flood map just to make sure I'm not in danger according to the government.

URL:  https://msc.fema.gov/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/mapstore/homepage/MapS e arch.html
 
2013-09-24 08:45:21 PM

Warlordtrooper: Meanwhile states like Colorado and Texas keep saying things like this then beg the federal government for emergency relief.


If you live in a wildfire prone area of the American west, your home should be built with fire resistant materials on the exterior (concrete/slate roof, brick/stone/stucco finish, metal studs or concrete blocks) and you should have a 10' fire break around the perimeter.

Likewise, if you live in a flood plain, your home should be on a raised foundation that is above the 250 year flood line.  If you're also in a hurricane prone area, then you should have appropriate bracing and foundations.

If it increases the cost of manufacturing a home, then suck it up.  That's the cost of building in those areas.  The past century of having lax building codes and then rebuilding after a disaster has been an exercise in stupidity.
 
2013-09-24 08:46:29 PM

jso2897: If the rest of us might ever have to help them, nobody should ever live by water, or near a volcano, or where the earth shakes often - or anywhere risk is high.
Of course, remaining cavemen forever, and never building civilization will save us all kinds of headaches, too, so it will be good all around.


Saying we shouldn't subsidize something is different from saying it should be prevented altogether.

If we subsidize healthcare, it's perverse to also subsidize cigarettes and cheeseburgers. That doesn't mean we should outlaw them.
 
2013-09-24 08:50:21 PM

itcamefromschenectady: Be reasonable - or not, this is Fark. Working at a port doesn't mean you have to own a house on a flood-plain. I live only a few miles from a port on a large river, but my apartment is well above sea level (about 250 ft). I checked a FEMA flood map just to make sure I'm not in danger according to the government.


Well bless your heart.
 
2013-09-24 08:54:17 PM

Dinjiin: Warlordtrooper: Meanwhile states like Colorado and Texas keep saying things like this then beg the federal government for emergency relief.

If you live in a wildfire prone area of the American west, your home should be built with fire resistant materials on the exterior (concrete/slate roof, brick/stone/stucco finish, metal studs or concrete blocks) and you should have a 10' fire break around the perimeter.

Likewise, if you live in a flood plain, your home should be on a raised foundation that is above the 250 year flood line.  If you're also in a hurricane prone area, then you should have appropriate bracing and foundations.

If it increases the cost of manufacturing a home, then suck it up.  That's the cost of building in those areas.  The past century of having lax building codes and then rebuilding after a disaster has been an exercise in stupidity.


I tend to agree with this.  I guess if at least they are going to be rebuilding areas hit by whatever storm or fire, etc., then this time make them better.
 
2013-09-24 09:03:50 PM

12349876: grimlock1972: Honestly i have always felt the insurance companies should be mandated by law to cover flood damage and get the Government out of the insurance business.

The whole reason government is in the business of flood insurance is that private insurance refused to cover it.


and that should not be allowed.
 
2013-09-24 09:04:13 PM
Why don't they just move to where the water isn't?
 
2013-09-24 09:05:45 PM

optikeye: cirby: ...which is why they should live, you know, a few miles inland and more than ten feet above the high tide line.

Like they almost always do.

No, those poor dockworkers don't live a block from their jobs.

You're Trolling.
You do know Hurricanes damage and flooding can extend 10 or hundreds of miles from the coast? Not only there are river systems that get overrun with rains from Hurricanes and cause flooding miles and miles from the coast.

Davenport Iowa, is no where near the coast. But is a shipping area on a river. This was just from 'unusal weather' up stream. You don't need to live near the high tide line.


If you don't live in a vulnerable area, you can get flooded anyway, but that doesn't seem to have anything to do with flood insurance subsidies making it viable for people to live near ports. If you're not in a designated flood-prone area, then you aren't going to get driven out by the lack of a subsidy for insurance. Either because insurance is unavailable no matter what, or because it's cheap no matter what.
 
2013-09-24 09:15:17 PM
In 2010, 123.3 million people, or 39 percent of the nation's population lived in counties directly on the shoreline.

So, according to Fark Independents, 123.3 million Americans can go fark themselves.
 
2013-09-24 09:21:00 PM
You get thirsty if you move where the water isn't.
 
2013-09-24 09:24:13 PM

Great Janitor: In the world of insurance, high premiums mean that the insurance companies know, without a doubt, that they will be spending money on you in the near future.  If you need the government to subsidize your flood insurance, MOVE!!!

Though the smarter path would be to not move near an area prone to flooding.


While I'd prefer people just not build in flood planes, I'd be content with requiring the flood insurance for any dwelling within that zone - they already require homeowner's insurance pretty much everywhere as far as I know (I could be wrong), so expanding the insurance base for flood insurance seems like the most logical answer for A. bringing down the premiums and B. getting everyone protected...

/shrug
 
2013-09-24 09:38:54 PM

optikeye: itcamefromschenectady: Be reasonable - or not, this is Fark. Working at a port doesn't mean you have to own a house on a flood-plain. I live only a few miles from a port on a large river, but my apartment is well above sea level (about 250 ft). I checked a FEMA flood map just to make sure I'm not in danger according to the government.

Well bless your heart.

Plant Rights Activist: Why don't they just move to where the water isn't?

If we can subsidize people staying in flood zones, why can't we subsidize them moving out of flood zones? Wouldn't that make more sense? Also, are you aware you're changing the subject?
 
2013-09-24 09:40:39 PM

tricycleracer: In 2010, 123.3 million people, or 39 percent of the nation's population lived in counties directly on the shoreline.

So, according to Fark Independents, 123.3 million Americans can go fark themselves.


No, I'm sure plenty of land in those counties won't flood very often. The southern half of CT doesn't completely flood with every strong storm, and Long Island doesn't disappear with every hurricane. There are probably hills elsewhere near the coast.
 
2013-09-24 09:43:50 PM
It's only been common knowledge that you don't build in the flood plain for oh say since the Egyptians first started stacking stones
 
2013-09-24 09:45:08 PM
Awww subby's jealous of people that accomplish more in life than working in retail :( :( :( :(
 
2013-09-24 09:47:02 PM

tricycleracer: In 2010, 123.3 million people, or 39 percent of the nation's population lived in counties directly on the shoreline.

So, according to Fark Independents, 123.3 million Americans can go fark themselves.


I live in a city with a boundary directly on a shoreline. So I'm one of those 123 million Americans. But I don't understand what you mean about Fark Independents.
 
2013-09-24 09:47:16 PM

kittyhas1000legs: No, I'm sure plenty of land in those counties won't flood very often.


It only takes one to destroy your home.
 
2013-09-24 09:48:55 PM
Let them drown
 
2013-09-24 09:53:32 PM

tricycleracer: In 2010, 123.3 million people, or 39 percent of the nation's population lived in counties directly on the shoreline. So, according to Fark Independents, 123.3 million Americans can go fark themselves.


You'd have a point if ocean adjacent counties were all low-lying areas with elevations under 30 feet ASL. But that isn't the case and your assertion is retarded.

As an extreme example, Pierce County, WA has an ocean border.  It also has a peak elevation of 14,411 ft (4,392 m).  If such an elevation is prone to ocean flooding, please contact Noah for assistance.
 
2013-09-24 09:54:12 PM

ladyfortuna: Great Janitor: In the world of insurance, high premiums mean that the insurance companies know, without a doubt, that they will be spending money on you in the near future.  If you need the government to subsidize your flood insurance, MOVE!!!

Though the smarter path would be to not move near an area prone to flooding.

While I'd prefer people just not build in flood planes, I'd be content with requiring the flood insurance for any dwelling within that zone - they already require homeowner's insurance pretty much everywhere as far as I know (I could be wrong), so expanding the insurance base for flood insurance seems like the most logical answer for A. bringing down the premiums and B. getting everyone protected...

/shrug


They do require flood insurance in high risk areas. See:
http://www.floodsmart.gov/floodsmart/pages/about/when_insurance_is_re q uired.jsp

But wouldn't it make more sense to subsidize people moving out of high risk areas than subsidizing them to stay there?
 
2013-09-24 09:57:50 PM

GoldSpider: kittyhas1000legs: No, I'm sure plenty of land in those counties won't flood very often.

It only takes one to destroy your home.


Yabbut I have to wonder - why wouldn't the unsubsidized insurance rates be reasonable if it doesn't flood very often?
 
2013-09-24 09:59:15 PM

Smeggy Smurf: It's only been common knowledge that you don't build in the flood plain for oh say since the Egyptians first started stacking stones


Even the Egyptians are forgetting that rule.  Farther up the Nile where the economy is more dire and corruption is more common, Egyptian laws that are meant to discourage converting farmland into other types of property are being ignored.  It has gotten bad enough that people are starting to worry [more] about Egypt's food situation.  Remember that skyrocketing food prices were one of the instigators of the Arab Spring movement.
 
2013-09-24 10:05:06 PM

rugman11: Randomly: Submitter lives in a middle class home in the middle of the deserts of Colorado, safe from any flooding.

Only the very rich live along rivers, creeks, lakes, ponds, and puddles.  Thats why when you think rich, you think Mississippi, Maine, Missouri, and Lousiana.

My mom lives roughly 1/2 mile from a river with a park, an interstate, a busy street, a strip mall, another street, and a house in between her and the river.  Yet somehow that qualifies as a flood plain.  The only time her basement's ever flooded it was the damn city's fault because one of their lift stations failed.




Hmmm...so a lift plant is the only thing keeping your moms house from flooding and you don't understand why she lives in a flood plain?

Have you considered running for Congress?
 
2013-09-24 10:05:14 PM
Optikeye:
You do know Hurricanes damage and flooding can extend 10 or hundreds of miles from the coast? Not only there are river systems that get overrun with rains from Hurricanes and cause flooding miles and miles from the coast.

...except that the real flood damage from hurricanes happens in... you guessed it... flood plains. Which everyone knows about. Most of the houses that are subject to "flood damage" in hurricanes have had wind damage and are directly damaged by rain. That's a whole different situation (and type of insurance) than the fools who build nice homes right on the river or on a Jersey beach.

We've had most of the major and minor flood plains surveyed to within inches for several decades now.

People should not build things on flood plains that can't handle being submerged every few decades. The most common thing should be to convert major flood plains to parks and "green spaces". It's been done quite a few times already.

If Federally-subsidized flood insurance didn't exist at all, people wouldn't build build things near rivers and coasts - or if they did, their insurance would come from the private sector, at a high cost. Or they'd build in flood-resistant fashions, like a lot of those pretty hotels in many places with very tall - and empty - first and second floors.

In any case, there is no reason for all of the rest of the people to help fund the lifestyle of those folks who want to build right on coastlines because of the pretty view. If they want to, they can pay rates comparable to the probable damage.
 
2013-09-24 10:16:18 PM

Pick: You get thirsty if you move where the water isn't.


Warlordtrooper: jjorsett: Randomly: Submitter lives in a middle class home in the middle of the deserts of Colorado, safe from any flooding.

Only the very rich live along rivers, creeks, lakes, ponds, and puddles.  Thats why when you think rich, you think Mississippi, Maine, Missouri, and Lousiana.

Live anywhere you please, just don't ask taxpayers to mitigate your risk by subsidizing your insurance.

Meanwhile states like Colorado and Texas keep saying things like this then beg the federal government for emergency relief.

Threads like this are the reason I'm ok with letting people in red states die without federal aid to help them.


I'm not ok with letting anyone die without federal aid. That's why the federal government should not do things that make people worse off by increasing their risk of needing aid, like insurance subsidies.
 
2013-09-24 10:20:51 PM
tricycleracer:
In 2010, 123.3 million people, or 39 percent of the nation's population lived in counties directly on the shoreline.
So, according to Fark Independents, 123.3 million Americans can go fark themselves.


Others have mentioned it, but I want to point out your mistake with a little more detail.

A huge proportion of those "counties directly on the shoreline" extend for tens of miles inland - and often hundreds of feet in elevation.

Los Angeles, for example. Out of the twelve million or so people in the LA metro area - one-tenth of that "exposed" US population - less than one percent live close enough to the lowest-lying areas of the coast to be exposed to a reasonable chance of flooding if a hurricane (or tsunami) ever manages to hit the area.

Don't forget San Francisco while you're at it. Not a lot of hurricane-induced flooding going on there to begin with.

Pretty much every place you could think of as a real "flood risk" is an area that has been flooded in the last hundred years. Like Boulder, Colorado. A lot of those nice expensive homes that just got washed down the mountain were built on plots that the last major flooding scraped clean. So why should I pay more taxes to let those morons do it AGAIN?
 
2013-09-24 10:28:49 PM
I live about 35 ft above the nearest creek.  Hope that's enough.  When it floods there are frequently hot water heaters and refrigerators shooting down it.  Reminds you that you live in Georgia.
 
Displayed 50 of 83 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report