5 ms·

I would rather we spent tax dollars on fixable problems with much more social good per dollar. I'm tired of subsidizing flood insurance for idiots that keep bui

I would rather we spent tax dollars on fixable problems with much more social good per dollar. I'm tired of subsidizing flood insurance for idiots that keep building in areas that flood every 10 years. Subsidizing someone to have a nice home on a Miami beech is not "actual good". L

perfmode 7y ago
Take a hard look at the subsidies you are benefiting from. Be ready to give them up if you’re going to take the holier than thou route.
- vpribish 7y ago
  Tu quoque much?
- stickfigure 7y ago
  Maybe the whole country would be better if everyone was willing to give up these sorts of unsustainable subsidies? We (society as a whole) have an economic mechanism for protecting against risk - insurance. In places where insurance is too expensive or not available at all, perhaps we should consider letting nature take over.
  - smallnamespace 7y ago
    One persons's 'unsustainable subsidy' is another person's 'showing compassion for those who are less fortunate'. It's not like New Orleans is a particularly affluent area either, and people have lived there for a very long time. Take health insurance—one view could be that it forces people who are healthier to subsidize those who are less healthy. While some people are unhealthy due to factors outside of control, others are unhealthy because they do unhealthy things. Would you consider the latter an 'unsustainable subsidy'?
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - pm90 7y ago
      Wait what? You're comparing healthcare, which is a necessity, to choosing to live in a particular city. People that need healthcare don't have a choice, people _do_ have a choice to relocate to a more sustainable city though. I agree with you that NOLA isn't just the wealthy. But, that doesn't change the fact that its not a sustainable city to live in.
      - xapata 7y ago
        Don't a large number of people have health problems as a result of poor diet and lack of exercise? I think that would qualify as a choice. I know I could probably lower my cholesterol with more discipline. If I choose not to, it's reasonable for me to pay higher insurance premiums.
      - smallnamespace 7y ago
        I'm reacting to the harsh, judgmental attitude towards people in NOLA and using health care insurance to point out that the world is complicated. Some people are certainly unhealthy because of choices they made (yet there's still broad support for universal risk sharing), while some people in NOLA certainly aren't there by choice. The poverty rate there is about twice the US average, and something like 40% of Americans don't have any substantial savings. Many people aren't able to uproot themselves and move even if they wanted to without outside financial assistance, at which point I'm sure someone will be asking 'why should we pay to move people when they made a bad choice of where to live?', forgetting that these people may have lived there for generations.
        stickfigure 7y ago
        You can be poor anywhere in the US, it doesn't have to be in a flood zone. The main argument for rebuilding these areas seems to be "these people have lived there for generations". People move, and catastrophic flooding seems like a better reason than most.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - dpc59 7y ago
    I live in revelstoke, if we do that Canada cant ship goods from coast to coast from december to april (the subsidy I have in mind is the Rogers pass avalanche control program) Those subsidies exist because they benefit people.
    - adrianN 7y ago
      The usual counterargument to this is that the people who benefit should pay for it themselves. Only if the true price is available to consumers can they make informed choices. I don't fully subscribe to it myself, since I support some subsidies, but for many things it applies.
      - Cthulhu_ 7y ago
        You're assuming they're shipping luxury, optional goods, but what if they're essentials like food and medicine? I mean yes you can make the argument that if it's too expensive you shouldn't be living there, but that's not how it works (case in point: SF, where people rather live in substandard housing or the street and have a shot at a big tech or startup company than move somewhere affordable).
        weberc2 7y ago
        > I mean yes you can make the argument that if it's too expensive you shouldn't be living there, but that's not how it works It sounds like you're saying "we oughtn't change the status quo because it wouldn't be the status quo". What am I misunderstanding? (Apologies if this is obvious; still waking up)
      - Kim_Bruning 7y ago
        This seems like a good idea, until you get to interconnected systems that everyone depends on (like eg. the levees around an island, or a large harbor). Then it's STILL a good idea; in those cases everyone should pay!
    - selimthegrim 7y ago
      You might not want to give the new Alberta government any ideas.
- TallGuyShort 7y ago
  Where do I sign up? If ever there's been a holier than thou route it's thinking your ideas are so good that buying them should be mandatory.
- aristophenes 7y ago
  I'd suggest a more rational subsidy. Tornadoes, earthquakes, lightning, fire, those can be managed for but are largely unpredictable. Water is predictable, it follows gravity. We have maps already that tell us where it will go in a flood. I'd like the program to be, the government will pay you the value of the property before the flood. Then it becomes government property, basically parkland, and no one can build on it ever again. You are going to have to rebuild somewhere else. Eventually all the places that can flood will flood and then there will be no more subsidy necessary.
conductr 7y ago
It’s not really a subsidy, just poor use of tax dollars. I like my taxes being used for wise infrastructure projects. As a whole, the benefit the whole. Individually they benefit some individuals more than others. But I don’t consider that a subsidy.
nickthemagicman 7y ago
What you're missing is the Nola has the highest port tonnage in the country. The impact on GDP is estimated in the hundreds of billions. There's also billions and billions of dollars of infrastructure here. Most goods that pass through to the midwest and rest of the country come through here. Without Nola, hundreds of billions of dollars of the economy will go away. Gas prices set a record after Katrina. 14 billion is a bargain to keep this city going.
- Youden 7y ago
  For anyone else who might be confused like I was, "Nola" seems to be a nickname for New Orleans, derived from "New Orleans, Louisiana" -> "New Orleans, LA" -> "NOLA" -> "Nola".
- kobayashy 7y ago
  What if we just keep the port and relocate the rest of the city? It's not that you need hundreds of thousands people to run port facility. Damn, if you even need 500.
  - nickthemagicman 7y ago
    There's also one of, if not the, largest petrochemical manufacturing corridors as well. Tens to hundreds of billions of dollars of GDP. How about you guys just pay the money so you can keep your gas prices low, GDP up, and imported goods flowing to your house?
    - kobayashy 7y ago
      That's sounds like something that can be easily relocated to Texas.
      - selimthegrim 7y ago
        To noted non-flooding at all cities Houston and Galveston?
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
kpU8efre7r 7y ago
The planet is in constant change except on longer timescales than humans can perceive. Just because a geographic location is great for a city at one time doesn't mean it will stay that way forever. They should just pay people affected by this to move.
- hi5eyes 7y ago
  incentivize people not to be idiots and move to areas less susceptible to environmental catastrophe
- mr_overalls 7y ago
  Speaking specifically about New Orleans, it will _never_ be a good place for a city. It's a coastal city with large areas below sea level. The foreseeable future (for decades to centuries) is that sea levels will rise and Gulf hurricanes will increase in severity.
dahart 7y ago
We spend more tax dollars on the military than anything else; that’s also a sort of never-ending wall building exercise intended to prevent floods of war & immigration... maybe we’re all idiots. ;)

perfmode 7y ago

Take a hard look at the subsidies you are benefiting from. Be ready to give them up if you’re going to take the holier than thou route.

vpribish 7y ago
Tu quoque much?
stickfigure 7y ago
Maybe the whole country would be better if everyone was willing to give up these sorts of unsustainable subsidies? We (society as a whole) have an economic mechanism for protecting against risk - insurance. In places where insurance is too expensive or not available at all, perhaps we should consider letting nature take over.
- smallnamespace 7y ago
  One persons's 'unsustainable subsidy' is another person's 'showing compassion for those who are less fortunate'. It's not like New Orleans is a particularly affluent area either, and people have lived there for a very long time. Take health insurance—one view could be that it forces people who are healthier to subsidize those who are less healthy. While some people are unhealthy due to factors outside of control, others are unhealthy because they do unhealthy things. Would you consider the latter an 'unsustainable subsidy'?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - pm90 7y ago
    Wait what? You're comparing healthcare, which is a necessity, to choosing to live in a particular city. People that need healthcare don't have a choice, people _do_ have a choice to relocate to a more sustainable city though. I agree with you that NOLA isn't just the wealthy. But, that doesn't change the fact that its not a sustainable city to live in.
    - xapata 7y ago
      Don't a large number of people have health problems as a result of poor diet and lack of exercise? I think that would qualify as a choice. I know I could probably lower my cholesterol with more discipline. If I choose not to, it's reasonable for me to pay higher insurance premiums.
    - smallnamespace 7y ago
      I'm reacting to the harsh, judgmental attitude towards people in NOLA and using health care insurance to point out that the world is complicated. Some people are certainly unhealthy because of choices they made (yet there's still broad support for universal risk sharing), while some people in NOLA certainly aren't there by choice. The poverty rate there is about twice the US average, and something like 40% of Americans don't have any substantial savings. Many people aren't able to uproot themselves and move even if they wanted to without outside financial assistance, at which point I'm sure someone will be asking 'why should we pay to move people when they made a bad choice of where to live?', forgetting that these people may have lived there for generations.
      - stickfigure 7y ago
        You can be poor anywhere in the US, it doesn't have to be in a flood zone. The main argument for rebuilding these areas seems to be "these people have lived there for generations". People move, and catastrophic flooding seems like a better reason than most.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- dpc59 7y ago
  I live in revelstoke, if we do that Canada cant ship goods from coast to coast from december to april (the subsidy I have in mind is the Rogers pass avalanche control program) Those subsidies exist because they benefit people.
  - adrianN 7y ago
    The usual counterargument to this is that the people who benefit should pay for it themselves. Only if the true price is available to consumers can they make informed choices. I don't fully subscribe to it myself, since I support some subsidies, but for many things it applies.
    - Cthulhu_ 7y ago
      You're assuming they're shipping luxury, optional goods, but what if they're essentials like food and medicine? I mean yes you can make the argument that if it's too expensive you shouldn't be living there, but that's not how it works (case in point: SF, where people rather live in substandard housing or the street and have a shot at a big tech or startup company than move somewhere affordable).
      - weberc2 7y ago
        > I mean yes you can make the argument that if it's too expensive you shouldn't be living there, but that's not how it works It sounds like you're saying "we oughtn't change the status quo because it wouldn't be the status quo". What am I misunderstanding? (Apologies if this is obvious; still waking up)
    - Kim_Bruning 7y ago
      This seems like a good idea, until you get to interconnected systems that everyone depends on (like eg. the levees around an island, or a large harbor). Then it's STILL a good idea; in those cases everyone should pay!
  - selimthegrim 7y ago
    You might not want to give the new Alberta government any ideas.
TallGuyShort 7y ago
Where do I sign up? If ever there's been a holier than thou route it's thinking your ideas are so good that buying them should be mandatory.
aristophenes 7y ago
I'd suggest a more rational subsidy. Tornadoes, earthquakes, lightning, fire, those can be managed for but are largely unpredictable. Water is predictable, it follows gravity. We have maps already that tell us where it will go in a flood. I'd like the program to be, the government will pay you the value of the property before the flood. Then it becomes government property, basically parkland, and no one can build on it ever again. You are going to have to rebuild somewhere else. Eventually all the places that can flood will flood and then there will be no more subsidy necessary.

conductr 7y ago

It’s not really a subsidy, just poor use of tax dollars. I like my taxes being used for wise infrastructure projects. As a whole, the benefit the whole. Individually they benefit some individuals more than others. But I don’t consider that a subsidy.

nickthemagicman 7y ago

What you're missing is the Nola has the highest port tonnage in the country. The impact on GDP is estimated in the hundreds of billions. There's also billions and billions of dollars of infrastructure here. Most goods that pass through to the midwest and rest of the country come through here. Without Nola, hundreds of billions of dollars of the economy will go away. Gas prices set a record after Katrina. 14 billion is a bargain to keep this city going.

Youden 7y ago
For anyone else who might be confused like I was, "Nola" seems to be a nickname for New Orleans, derived from "New Orleans, Louisiana" -> "New Orleans, LA" -> "NOLA" -> "Nola".
kobayashy 7y ago
What if we just keep the port and relocate the rest of the city? It's not that you need hundreds of thousands people to run port facility. Damn, if you even need 500.
- nickthemagicman 7y ago
  There's also one of, if not the, largest petrochemical manufacturing corridors as well. Tens to hundreds of billions of dollars of GDP. How about you guys just pay the money so you can keep your gas prices low, GDP up, and imported goods flowing to your house?
  - kobayashy 7y ago
    That's sounds like something that can be easily relocated to Texas.
    - selimthegrim 7y ago
      To noted non-flooding at all cities Houston and Galveston?

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

kpU8efre7r 7y ago

The planet is in constant change except on longer timescales than humans can perceive. Just because a geographic location is great for a city at one time doesn't mean it will stay that way forever. They should just pay people affected by this to move.

hi5eyes 7y ago
incentivize people not to be idiots and move to areas less susceptible to environmental catastrophe
mr_overalls 7y ago
Speaking specifically about New Orleans, it will _never_ be a good place for a city. It's a coastal city with large areas below sea level. The foreseeable future (for decades to centuries) is that sea levels will rise and Gulf hurricanes will increase in severity.

dahart 7y ago

We spend more tax dollars on the military than anything else; that’s also a sort of never-ending wall building exercise intended to prevent floods of war & immigration... maybe we’re all idiots. ;)