Should the taxpayer subsidise the negligence of Hull residents who couldn't be bothered near house insurance?
A number of Hull residents appear to be whinging that they are destitute, because they didn't have buildings and contents insurance (then got flooded).
I would resent the senate granting aid (out of my taxes) to help such selfish empire.
Answers:
depending on the circumstances, an old female of 80 with no insurance, I would want her to have give support to, i would sooner her have food and heating if it intended not having insurance.
All the others could pretty must whistle for it, unless there be very very biddable financial reason why they didn't have it.
gag - after having an extra think on this one, I suppose that if their insurance does not cover flood damage,(acts of god and all that) afterwards they should get Government aid, after all we do distribute alot of aid money out of the country.
I agree that they should not get help out. I am on a low income but still know that I have to insure myself against things like this.
They didn't repay so they should face the consequences. If they get money it will cost us adjectives more in taxes.
It should be made compulsary to bring home insurance. I pay enough for mine even though the possibility of getting flooded is very remote, but accidents do transpire and if you own a property then just as similar to when you own a car, it should be the law to insure it.
No they shouldn't !
What roughly speaking pensioners who can barely afford food?
Um, Are there not taxpayers within Hull who deserve the same help as the rest of the country.
They are calling themselves the 'forgotten town' as if likening their problems to that of those involved within the New Orleans disaster.
Idiots.
House insurance isn't expensive, you should make sure a property is insurable before making your purchase.
I could stockpile myself lb33 a month by not having house insurance but is it really worth it?
Tough sh!t people.
NO!
If you dont bother to insure your house then you suffer the consequences.
Home and contents should be complusary similar to car insurance. Source(s): my personal view
yep i hear you and altho i do be aware of sorry for them and the floods are awful - but surely when they had their surveys and things done, it showed they were on a flood plain - so tough luck if they be stupid enough not to insure their house and possesions.
so NO, they should be helped at adjectives. i wish people would pinch responsibility for themselves instead of relying on others all the time.
Hull needed a flawless wash!
Any way the greedy house builders should money for building houses in stupid places.
i went to hull once but it be closed
any ways way not help them out? simply because they are stupid does that mean they shouldn't get help out? they pay taxes like everybody else. you come across very mean spirited.
Difficult; maybe they purely could not afford insurance, I have seen / read some where on earth that there is an EU fund to help victims of flooding (I conceivably wrong) but I have not seen it mentioned as anyone applied for. It needs an MP or someone similar to apply and start the ball rolling.
NO! - but how about a few quid from the lottery fund. It would construct more sense than all these foreign splash outs and the Olyumpics.
No House insurance is a risk you take its not the charge payers problem. If the gov does pay out perhaps we should adjectives cancel our house insurance and expect a gov payout if we get flooded.
I read that frequent of the people who suffered in the floods, have been refused flood insurance by multiple companies. Not their fault in that skin. The fault of the greedy insurance companies who only want a not dangerous bet. It's all a post code lottery.
I agree with Sandy S. A lot of the relatives were refused insurance by the insurance industry because, as we adjectives know, they are greedy and don't want to pay out. If the people could achieve insured but didn't because they were too tight to pay later no, the taxpayer shouldn't pay. Anyway, I'd rather my taxes go to help people within need rather than, voice, a nuclear arsenal that we'll never need, or a war that nobody wishes or (controversially) housing and food for illegal immigrants.
however another I'm ok couldn't give a sh it about anyone else post.
No wonder England's contained by the crap state it is.
Nobody cares about anyone.
i totally agree with scorpianbabe here god some of the society on here are so heartless some of these people be refused insurance , what about society on low incomes , pensioners i would gladly donate to the fund , it was not thier culpability this happened and deserve all the give a hand they can get
I clear a monthly sum to give me protection, I cannot afford to pay annually. The trouble is
some society think nothing approaching this will happen
to them. I don't mind helping if a fund was set up, but I would close to to think they would change
their attitude and take insured. You never know
it could happen again.
ah but you could say the same roughly the tornado in london , last year?
i ponder yes they should get help, but unmistakably that extends to their house..not e.g. i had a 50" plasma telly that got destabilized.i can't believe anyone would buy a house or car and not insure it.
i think they should spawn it compulsary to have insurance when buying a house, i'm pretty sure morgages include it now?
you would resent deeply of things regarding taxes then if thats the suitcase.. but then again i've never claimed dole, i don't resent people who do that are trying to find work.. ones who in recent times get knocked up and bring back free houses do get my goat moreso.
in general no as this would provoke everyone else to save on insurance in the expectation that the rule (taxpayers = us) will bail them out. But there are doubtless some cases that deserve some compassionate treatment.........though it should be made clear that it is a one-off, no help within future problems etc.
All my household and friends live in Hull, and yes some have be effected badly by the floods. Most are insured but some are not. Not because they are thoughtless as you decided to describe them but due to financial reasons.Even those who are insured some will not receive a penny as they are not covered for flood damage.
It's ok for you to say that everyone should be insured and yes I individually always have be insured myself. But to deny people help who are already struggling to provide for their family in my opinion is wrong. I will with pleasure allow some of my taxes to go towards helping the flood victims. In fact I hold already donated money to the fund that is set up to help these so call 'selfish' people.
Edit* Most of these people you are calling insensitive are council tenants or are renting because they can't afford to buy their own home. Does contents cover include flood damage?
*michelle G* Thanks :)
Ah, the spirit of human philanthropy. I'm glad I don't live in England anymore, where have ALL that good old fashioned true blue support thy neighbour attitude gone to.
A small story for you - which is true:
My mum lives in a small town (not in England) and a friend of hers is contained by her 80's and lives by the river in the house she grew up in, over times gone by 6 years her house has been flooded 3 times, the second time the insurance companies said it was too high risk and will not insure her. She cannot afford to move, so adjectives the townspeople donated and fundraised so her carpets and furniture could be replaced.
May this be a lesson to you all.
no
I thought that house insurance didn't cover flood injure anyway as it is classed as 'an act of god' (whoever she is)
Related Questions:
I would resent the senate granting aid (out of my taxes) to help such selfish empire.
Answers:
depending on the circumstances, an old female of 80 with no insurance, I would want her to have give support to, i would sooner her have food and heating if it intended not having insurance.
All the others could pretty must whistle for it, unless there be very very biddable financial reason why they didn't have it.
gag - after having an extra think on this one, I suppose that if their insurance does not cover flood damage,(acts of god and all that) afterwards they should get Government aid, after all we do distribute alot of aid money out of the country.
I agree that they should not get help out. I am on a low income but still know that I have to insure myself against things like this.
They didn't repay so they should face the consequences. If they get money it will cost us adjectives more in taxes.
It should be made compulsary to bring home insurance. I pay enough for mine even though the possibility of getting flooded is very remote, but accidents do transpire and if you own a property then just as similar to when you own a car, it should be the law to insure it.
No they shouldn't !
What roughly speaking pensioners who can barely afford food?
Um, Are there not taxpayers within Hull who deserve the same help as the rest of the country.
They are calling themselves the 'forgotten town' as if likening their problems to that of those involved within the New Orleans disaster.
Idiots.
House insurance isn't expensive, you should make sure a property is insurable before making your purchase.
I could stockpile myself lb33 a month by not having house insurance but is it really worth it?
Tough sh!t people.
NO!
If you dont bother to insure your house then you suffer the consequences.
Home and contents should be complusary similar to car insurance. Source(s): my personal view
yep i hear you and altho i do be aware of sorry for them and the floods are awful - but surely when they had their surveys and things done, it showed they were on a flood plain - so tough luck if they be stupid enough not to insure their house and possesions.
so NO, they should be helped at adjectives. i wish people would pinch responsibility for themselves instead of relying on others all the time.
Hull needed a flawless wash!
Any way the greedy house builders should money for building houses in stupid places.
i went to hull once but it be closed
any ways way not help them out? simply because they are stupid does that mean they shouldn't get help out? they pay taxes like everybody else. you come across very mean spirited.
Difficult; maybe they purely could not afford insurance, I have seen / read some where on earth that there is an EU fund to help victims of flooding (I conceivably wrong) but I have not seen it mentioned as anyone applied for. It needs an MP or someone similar to apply and start the ball rolling.
NO! - but how about a few quid from the lottery fund. It would construct more sense than all these foreign splash outs and the Olyumpics.
No House insurance is a risk you take its not the charge payers problem. If the gov does pay out perhaps we should adjectives cancel our house insurance and expect a gov payout if we get flooded.
I read that frequent of the people who suffered in the floods, have been refused flood insurance by multiple companies. Not their fault in that skin. The fault of the greedy insurance companies who only want a not dangerous bet. It's all a post code lottery.
I agree with Sandy S. A lot of the relatives were refused insurance by the insurance industry because, as we adjectives know, they are greedy and don't want to pay out. If the people could achieve insured but didn't because they were too tight to pay later no, the taxpayer shouldn't pay. Anyway, I'd rather my taxes go to help people within need rather than, voice, a nuclear arsenal that we'll never need, or a war that nobody wishes or (controversially) housing and food for illegal immigrants.
however another I'm ok couldn't give a sh it about anyone else post.
No wonder England's contained by the crap state it is.
Nobody cares about anyone.
i totally agree with scorpianbabe here god some of the society on here are so heartless some of these people be refused insurance , what about society on low incomes , pensioners i would gladly donate to the fund , it was not thier culpability this happened and deserve all the give a hand they can get
I clear a monthly sum to give me protection, I cannot afford to pay annually. The trouble is
some society think nothing approaching this will happen
to them. I don't mind helping if a fund was set up, but I would close to to think they would change
their attitude and take insured. You never know
it could happen again.
ah but you could say the same roughly the tornado in london , last year?
i ponder yes they should get help, but unmistakably that extends to their house..not e.g. i had a 50" plasma telly that got destabilized.i can't believe anyone would buy a house or car and not insure it.
i think they should spawn it compulsary to have insurance when buying a house, i'm pretty sure morgages include it now?
you would resent deeply of things regarding taxes then if thats the suitcase.. but then again i've never claimed dole, i don't resent people who do that are trying to find work.. ones who in recent times get knocked up and bring back free houses do get my goat moreso.
in general no as this would provoke everyone else to save on insurance in the expectation that the rule (taxpayers = us) will bail them out. But there are doubtless some cases that deserve some compassionate treatment.........though it should be made clear that it is a one-off, no help within future problems etc.
All my household and friends live in Hull, and yes some have be effected badly by the floods. Most are insured but some are not. Not because they are thoughtless as you decided to describe them but due to financial reasons.Even those who are insured some will not receive a penny as they are not covered for flood damage.
It's ok for you to say that everyone should be insured and yes I individually always have be insured myself. But to deny people help who are already struggling to provide for their family in my opinion is wrong. I will with pleasure allow some of my taxes to go towards helping the flood victims. In fact I hold already donated money to the fund that is set up to help these so call 'selfish' people.
Edit* Most of these people you are calling insensitive are council tenants or are renting because they can't afford to buy their own home. Does contents cover include flood damage?
*michelle G* Thanks :)
Ah, the spirit of human philanthropy. I'm glad I don't live in England anymore, where have ALL that good old fashioned true blue support thy neighbour attitude gone to.
A small story for you - which is true:
My mum lives in a small town (not in England) and a friend of hers is contained by her 80's and lives by the river in the house she grew up in, over times gone by 6 years her house has been flooded 3 times, the second time the insurance companies said it was too high risk and will not insure her. She cannot afford to move, so adjectives the townspeople donated and fundraised so her carpets and furniture could be replaced.
May this be a lesson to you all.
no
I thought that house insurance didn't cover flood injure anyway as it is classed as 'an act of god' (whoever she is)
Related Questions:
- If I hold no insurance and a hurricane destroys my house, who is responsible?
- Poll: What is your mortgage reimbursement and Insurance cost for your 2+ bedroom / 2 tub HOUSE and what region?
- Comparative house insurance document?
- If I enjoy comprehensive insurance for my home, would it probable cover a snow plow unsafe the house?
- House insurance after fire?