Quote:
Originally Posted by burn_this_city
I was hopeful that after the flood the inner city folks would lay off banging this drum for a while. I'm sure this comes across as crass, but if people in growth areas should rightfully pay for the full development cost, than shouldn't the folks living on flood plains in turn pay the full cost of remediation? It's only fair isn't it? Why should someone who lives well above the flood areas be forced to pay for other people's choices? Frankly I'm tired of this debate, at some point in time, everyone is subsidized by the overall tax base, whether it be healthcare, unemployment, infrastructure ect.
|
Regarding the flood plain, I agree. People should pay for their flood insurance ("disaster assistance" is basically taxpayer-funded flood insurance) AND people should pay for their suburban houses.
It's important to draw a distinction though between socialism (helping low-income people) and pork. The subsidy on greenfield single-family homes isn't a socialist policy, it's just pork for a specific segment of the population and the economy that is paid for by society as a whole. And not only is it an arbitrary wealth transfer, it actually creates a wealth loss too.