Do you presume that the taxpayer should foot the bill for those who didn't achieve house insurance?
in the recent floods here in the U.K.
Answers:
No.
Its a risk they took have no insurance, so why the hell should we tax payers fork out for them.
no... we own to take responsibility for ourselves and possessions.
No why should those of us who have the sense to lift out insurance also pay out for those that don't. Would this send out a message to voice save your money the public will see us ok
It's unsophisticatedly the same as here in the US. If you live surrounded by a flood prone area and fail to find flood insurance (or it's not available), the you shouldn't look to the government when you get flooded out. On the other foot, if you live in an area where on earth flooding is rare and this is the result of freak weather or some other out of the ordinary weather afterwards I think it's fine to look for emergency assistance from the government.
Also, it's one item if you're talking about system loans or just cash handouts.
NO - they should have bought insurance close to the rest of us. The lb14M should be used to repair roads etc not on people who expect others to bail them out and spend the money on booze and fags instead
Definitely not. if i own to pay for house insurance, why dont others?
absolutely yes...i cant feel of anything worse happening to your home...those poor people. silly not have insurance - but they all need give a hand...some families have lost everything they ever owned...heartbreaking & i am glad the rule have also stepped in.
for once, we should relief people in our own country..we for sure send enough money overseas!
No way. They chose to pinch the risk. We pay through the nose in recent times in case something happen. Why should I also pay for someone who didn't pay a dime. This is the time they necessitate to pray their family and friends, not tax-payers, will help them for a short while while they carry back on their feet.
Generally speaking, no. But it is important to be aware that after the floods of recent years, copious insurance companies will not provide cover for floods, as it costs them too much money! This is particularly true in the areas which are most frequently artificial by flooding. Therefore, alot of the people affected by the floods did enjoy house insurance, they just can't get any abet! Which I think is an absolute disgrace, and within these situations, yes, I think the taxpayer should foot the bill.
Technically no, but it's a natural disaster, and although you can't compare next to a lot of global disasters that our affairs of state contributes to the tune of billions, it does make a change to contribute at home where on earth needed.
I reckon near should be a whip round for our own for once; we're quick ample to give to other countries in requirement..
I'd be devastated if I lost everything in river and sewage water..
And some insurance companies enjoy refused to cover people after adjectives the other previous floods.
I'd rather taxes go to this than the corrupt EU!
It's better spent on the people of the country who need re-housed than gratuitous wars. The now-homeless pay due too. Tax has it's purposes - but you can't please all the citizens all the time. There has probably be a time in everyone's life where on earth they have had their inward share of it, big or small. Greed crumbles democracy.
No. They had a chance to buy insurance, and they chose not to do so, so it wouldn't be rational on everyone else if they received compensation anyway.
Absolutely not...it's enable.
You teach your children they reap the consequences for their behavior and society should be demonstrating this to its members. That's Life.
I'm sure I enjoy done without other things so that I can have Homeowner's Insurance so we necessitate to show others the importance of priorities in Life surrounded by general.
It's not my responsibility to reap the consequences of another's irresponsible behavior--that's the risk they took.
No. I bet greatly of those who claim they can't afford insurance can afford: beer, gambling, cigarettes etc.
Sure. why not? we pay for everything else lol.
no not fair, contact your local consumer advocates groups if at hand is one
If I decided I can't afford insurance, or opt not to have it and something like this happen, I wouldn't expect someone to come up with the money to put things right. I would first of all see myself for being so stupid, then appropriate out insurance whether I could afford it or not.
Those populace on low income should be helped first, then the others who could hold afforded to have household cover next. After everyone surrounded by this country has been help, any money left over out of taxes can be used to help others.
Personally i don't think they should,
definately not
Related Questions:
Answers:
No.
Its a risk they took have no insurance, so why the hell should we tax payers fork out for them.
no... we own to take responsibility for ourselves and possessions.
No why should those of us who have the sense to lift out insurance also pay out for those that don't. Would this send out a message to voice save your money the public will see us ok
It's unsophisticatedly the same as here in the US. If you live surrounded by a flood prone area and fail to find flood insurance (or it's not available), the you shouldn't look to the government when you get flooded out. On the other foot, if you live in an area where on earth flooding is rare and this is the result of freak weather or some other out of the ordinary weather afterwards I think it's fine to look for emergency assistance from the government.
Also, it's one item if you're talking about system loans or just cash handouts.
NO - they should have bought insurance close to the rest of us. The lb14M should be used to repair roads etc not on people who expect others to bail them out and spend the money on booze and fags instead
Definitely not. if i own to pay for house insurance, why dont others?
absolutely yes...i cant feel of anything worse happening to your home...those poor people. silly not have insurance - but they all need give a hand...some families have lost everything they ever owned...heartbreaking & i am glad the rule have also stepped in.
for once, we should relief people in our own country..we for sure send enough money overseas!
No way. They chose to pinch the risk. We pay through the nose in recent times in case something happen. Why should I also pay for someone who didn't pay a dime. This is the time they necessitate to pray their family and friends, not tax-payers, will help them for a short while while they carry back on their feet.
Generally speaking, no. But it is important to be aware that after the floods of recent years, copious insurance companies will not provide cover for floods, as it costs them too much money! This is particularly true in the areas which are most frequently artificial by flooding. Therefore, alot of the people affected by the floods did enjoy house insurance, they just can't get any abet! Which I think is an absolute disgrace, and within these situations, yes, I think the taxpayer should foot the bill.
Technically no, but it's a natural disaster, and although you can't compare next to a lot of global disasters that our affairs of state contributes to the tune of billions, it does make a change to contribute at home where on earth needed.
I reckon near should be a whip round for our own for once; we're quick ample to give to other countries in requirement..
I'd be devastated if I lost everything in river and sewage water..
And some insurance companies enjoy refused to cover people after adjectives the other previous floods.
I'd rather taxes go to this than the corrupt EU!
It's better spent on the people of the country who need re-housed than gratuitous wars. The now-homeless pay due too. Tax has it's purposes - but you can't please all the citizens all the time. There has probably be a time in everyone's life where on earth they have had their inward share of it, big or small. Greed crumbles democracy.
No. They had a chance to buy insurance, and they chose not to do so, so it wouldn't be rational on everyone else if they received compensation anyway.
Absolutely not...it's enable.
You teach your children they reap the consequences for their behavior and society should be demonstrating this to its members. That's Life.
I'm sure I enjoy done without other things so that I can have Homeowner's Insurance so we necessitate to show others the importance of priorities in Life surrounded by general.
It's not my responsibility to reap the consequences of another's irresponsible behavior--that's the risk they took.
No. I bet greatly of those who claim they can't afford insurance can afford: beer, gambling, cigarettes etc.
Sure. why not? we pay for everything else lol.
no not fair, contact your local consumer advocates groups if at hand is one
If I decided I can't afford insurance, or opt not to have it and something like this happen, I wouldn't expect someone to come up with the money to put things right. I would first of all see myself for being so stupid, then appropriate out insurance whether I could afford it or not.
Those populace on low income should be helped first, then the others who could hold afforded to have household cover next. After everyone surrounded by this country has been help, any money left over out of taxes can be used to help others.
Personally i don't think they should,
definately not
Related Questions:
- House burned down, insurance question?!?
- House Insurance?
- Do robustness insurance companys look to see if u live within a house or apt when applyi pregancy?
- I call for insurance for my not so surefire house.?
- Someone from my insurance company is coming subsequent week to look at the damages to my house(from hurricane Ike)?