Should flood victims who have NO contents insurance expect financial minister to?
If they do,what message is that sending to people who enjoy paid premiums for years & those thinking of getting contents insurance?
Answers:
If you can't afford insurance that money you are living beyond your means!! I am sorry but explicitly not my fault. I choose a smaller home because explicitly what I can afford to live in and insure. People that choose to live beyond their system and then cry when they enjoy no coverage for choosing not to pay their elementary bills get no pity from me. I am predisposed to bet they had cable, cell phones, Internet, computers, digital cameras and other luxuries. The price of contents insurance is minimal. 1 digital camera would reward that bill for 6 months or more.
In view, no they shouldn’t, but we’re talking roughly humans that have be effected by a unprocessed disaster, they should get facilitate, regardless of my opinion.
However some those in flood hit regions can be refuse insurance, which I would question why they ever bought the house contained by the first place, as it would be something you’d look at, and at that moment, the value of their house is worthless, not a soul would want to buy a house that susceptible to floods. There needs to be investigations into developers, who hold taken on these lands and built, the local council held responsible for allowing it to happen. In some places the developers own just raise the land and forced the marine to channel else where on earth which is not acceptable.
It falls into a “Risk” that you any take or not, you payment the price.
I don’t think, intuitively, myself who has salaried for insurance, house and contents, should have to recompense for someone who didn’t, for whatever judgment, in the process in attendance was a choice, a choice to buy the house, a choice to own insurance, a choice to live without insurance. I never made that choice, so it shouldn’t be me who have to subsidise the eventual outcome.
SO adjectives those poor people surrounded by other countries who we give aid too should enjoy contents insurance too? Beleive it or not some people if truth be told CANNOT afford Insurance!
I focus it's fair to expect support from your church family, and on the spot family. Just approaching you contribute to help out others surrounded by your church family and instant family, when the want arises.
I DON'T think it's tolerant to ask the government, aka taxpayers, to reimburse ANYONE after a loss. Just reckon about it . . . fires, theft, muggings, where would it ever wrapping up? The government is NOT an interminable source of revenue - they tax the PEOPLE to procure their money.
My heart goes out to the flood victims but honestly, not have insurance - I just can't construe that. You work hard, spend your money on nice things and afterwards don't protect them! For some of course it is a ask of money - evern lb30 per month is a struggle but for many, it's simply cutting corners and thinking that it won't arise to them. Don't forget there are some empire who cannot get insurance because they are within a flood prone area - the parliament has to lift much responsibility for this - they continue to allow contemporary homes to be built on flood planes and continue to shame exisiting flood problems. So yes, in persuaded cases the government should aid these people - they are express to pledge money overseas so let's give our own some assistance.
No they shouldn't expect financial help, I recompense my insurance premiums, so why should the taxes that I pay consequently go towards paying to sustain those who don't pay for insurance?
There should be some sort of charity set up so that those do gooders that deduce they should get aid, can repay their hard earn cash to.
I am not totally unsympathetic by the way, I bestow money to charities directly from my salary and they are cause that I feel are worthwhile.
yes they should bring help . who know such a flood would come we changed the river routes and these were not matured flood plains
No I don't think they should. Everyone make choices about what they spend their money on. Some prefer to buy the hottest plasma TV rather than insure their house and its contents. So tough luck when the rain come and you lose the lot. What good is a 60" plasma TV eyeshade then??
as a common rule, then no, they shouldn't. However, here are many different individual circumstances, such as family with children who are within dire need, and I hold every sympathy.
If the government only just dished out the cash, afterwards the people who rewarded their monthly premiums end up paying twice!
Having said that, I construe the govt is establishing a limited fund to be administered by local authorities that will comfort people, and I presume that is right.
For population who can't get insurance, the political affairs needs to underwrite some sort of endeavour that people can pay envelope into and will cover their losses to some extent in the event of flooding again.
Everyone have the choice to obtain house insurance , if they establish not to , and something happens approaching flooding then , why should they expect backing.
Sorry to be so blunt , but you get what you payment for.
ASK YOURSELF THAT SAME QUESTION.IF IT WERE YOU IN THAT SITUATION,WHAT WOULD YOU WANT?IF IT IS DECLARED A STATE OF EMERGENCY,THE GOVERNMENT AND LOCAL AGENTCIES WOULD HELP.
NOT ALL PEOPLE CAN AFFORD INSURANCE AS YOU KNOW.
IT'S NOT SENDING ANY KIND OF MESSAGE,WHEN THE MONEY ISN'T COMING OUT OF YOUR POCKET.THESE PEOPLE ALSO PAY TAXES LIKE YOU AND ME.
BUT WHEN YOU MAKE A BIG CLAIM YOUR PREMIUMS DO GO UP.
difficult but i would be annoyed after paying all these years next they get impossible to tell apart help as me!, i suppose i would be cancelling adjectives and taking my chances it would enjoy worked for them why not me?
just say-so i had a flood, and i dont enjoy insurance, would you give me 50k to repair my house? for those who live surrounded by flood prone places, they should voice their opinion to own a plan like paying a annual payment to protect their house up to so and so. The money would be invested into bonds or projects that has tiniest risk and highest return.
rob, the insurance company didnt build the house on a flood plain, why force them to money? punish the insurance company for something someone else didnt do correctly?
if you dont have the insurance you dont achieve your stuff insured,its as simple as that
say my neighbor and i are equal age, same income, he goes and spends adjectives his money on crap, i buy insurance for my cars , me and the house, we both die in a house fire,
i should be covered and he shouldnt , how can you enunciate any different,it is their choice
baha_smokey, i forgot the money just appears out of the upper air, of course it comes out of my pocket-higher taxes and high insurance premiums to pay for this
I agree with both sides the human side of me say it is ok the personal side of me says if they didnt bother to insure, consequently their fault. If your house floods due to a burst pipe and you dont own insurance you pay, why, because it is like mad of people does it situation, when if this happened to newly one individual they would say tough luck and noone would guardianship that is what bothers me .
No. It looks similar to many of these those were on benefits but could still afford expensive electrical equipment. Would an individual be complaining to the rule if his uninsured house caught fire and destroyed all his uninsured contents? I don't feel so. Just because many associates were caught at once by a single problem doesn't propose that a louder voice should have any more claim to senate sponsored remuneration.
As stated in the query, it makes a mockery of buying insurance.
I would hope that the Government may make available low-cost loans so that they can buy necessities of vivacity - but with the responsibility of paying the loans back i.e. NOT grant.
Regrettably the sort of person (with some exceptions) who does not bother next to insurance is also the sort of person who will look to sponge payments from adjectives and sundry.
Naturally these comments do not apply to people who through force of circumstances are dependably on the breadline. e.g. pensioners, carers etc For them I would regard give support to from the Authorities as being desirable.
You may find that some of these unfortunate those have be refused flood insurance due to the building of homes on flood plains, as such it is the town planner / council / management at fault accordingly yes they deserve recompense, if single to discourage this bad practise of building surrounded by places the insurance industry are aware is extremely liable to flooding why are the planners unaware or not bothered?
We own lb40.000 of cover for lb85 a year for a three bed semi. Insurance cost for contents has not risen since 1994 apparently. If the elected representatives hands out money to adjectives those who are affected adjectives it does is send a message that you don't necessitate to bother with insurance because the administration will bail you out- then none of us would call for to bother either would we. Often these same nation who are so poor and cannot afford 80p a week for insurance will be found in the kiosk queue at any supermarket checkout respectively week, buying lottery tickets, cigarettes in 100's and booze- believe me- i hold worked in a kiosk and the money spent by the poorest populace on their luxuries is wicked! So no, i focus everyone should take responsibility for their own homes and lives and stop expecting to be bailed out because they can't be bothered.