Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
One guy doesn't much effect the economy, but if you have a large percentage of people in a town suddenly bankrupt, that can impact a lot more than just the ones who didn't have insurance.
So it's not just "bleeding hearts", though being nice to people that sometimes make bad decisions isn't a bad thing, I don't think there's anyone that can say they haven't made a bad decision that could have gone horribly wrong if there hadn't been someone there to help.
Good point about the mortgage requirements.
|
Well the people with a mortgage/loan should have insurance and be covered so they're fine, the people without insurance should be free and clear on their property so they're not going to be bankrupt either worst case they've still got the property to sell.
and lets flipside this and not try to put a positive spin on this disaster, but assuming most people rebuild and don't take the money from their insurance company run, Slave is about to experience a boom in its economy over the next year or two that it hasn't seen in its past nor will again in it's future. Many houses/buildings to rebuild in a short time frame, any remaining hotels are going to be packed to the rafters and most with outside money from the insurance companies.
So that being said I don't really buy the argument that not bailing those people out will have a severely detrimental effect on the economy of Slave.
The thing is, if the government is going to bail these guys out, you might as well turn the property insurance sector public, make it mandatory to have property insurance and charge it with your property taxes. Atleast then people who aren't paying in aren't taking from the system.
and damn right I've made tons of moronic decisions in almost every aspect of my life, never once has the government stepped in with money to recoup my losses. bad business partners?? nope. Deadbeat tenants?? nope. soul sucking ex-wife?? nope. Hell I had one business partner take off leaving me 10k in the hole, what did the government try and do? charge me taxes on it.
The social safety net needs to be restricted to helping those in situations where the event was unforeseeable and/or uninsurable. Yeah, the forest fire was rather unforeseeable, but the actual cause of loss, in this case fire, was neither unforeseeable nor uninsurable.
That being said I have no problem with the government blowing the proverbial wad in getting emergency supplies up there. But as for the actual rebuild, nope.