bugaboo
|
I reckon there should be a whip round for our own for once; we're quick enough to give to other countries in need..
I'd be devastated if I lost everything in river and sewage water..
And some insurance companies have refused to cover people after all the other previous floods.
I'd rather taxes go to this than the corrupt EU! |
|
Diane P
 |
Absolutely not...it's enabling.
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 have done without other things so that I can have Homeowner's Insurance so we need to show others the importance of priorities in Life in general.
It's not my responsibility to reap the consequences of another's irresponsible behavior--that's the risk they took. |
|
Shambles
 |
No why should those of us who have the sense to take out insurance also pay out for those that don't. Would this send out a message to say save your money the public will see us ok |
|
poppyday..
|
no... we have to take responsibility for ourselves and possessions. |
|
Hat-A-Tat-Tat!!
 |
absolutely yes...i cant think of anything worse happening to your home...those poor people. silly not having insurance - but they all need help...some families have lost everything they ever owned...heartbreaking & i am glad the government have also stepped in.
for once, we should help people in our own country..we certainly send enough money overseas! |
|
Ridgmonthome
 |
Those people on low income should be helped first, then the others who could have afforded to have household cover next. After everyone in this country has been helped, any money left over out of taxes can be used to help others. |
|
johnmcginley1962
|
No.
Its a risk they took having no insurance, so why the hell should we tax payers fork out for them. |
|
A Yellow Walrus Writes...
|
It's better spent on the people of the country who need re-housed than needless wars. The now-homeless pay tax too. Tax has it's purposes - but you can't please all the people all the time. There has probably been a time in everyone's life where they have had their inward share of it, big or small. Greed crumbles democracy. |
|
Rad
|
definately not |
|
nhf30
|
Sure. why not? we pay for everything else lol. |
|
sparkle555_2000
|
No. They had a chance to buy insurance, and they chose not to do so, so it wouldn't be fair on everyone else if they received compensation anyway. |
|
Kaz
|
Personally i don't think they should, |
|
Justin H
|
It's basically the same as here in the US. If you live in a flood prone area and fail to get flood insurance (or it's not available), the you shouldn't look to the government when you get flooded out. On the other hand, if you live in an area where flooding is rare and this is the result of freak weather or some other out of the ordinary weather then I think it's fine to look for emergency assistance from the government.
Also, it's one thing if you're talking about government loans or just cash handouts. |
|
tubbyswife
|
Definitely not. if i have to pay for house insurance, why dont others? |
|
MJ3000
|
No way. They chose to take the risk. We pay through the nose just in case something happens. Why should I also pay for someone who didn't pay a dime. This is the time they need to pray their family and friends, not tax-payers, will help them for a short while while they get back on their feet. |
|
Mark C
|
Technically no, but it's a natural disaster, and although you can't compare with a lot of global disasters that our government contributes to the tune of billions, it does make a change to contribute at home where needed. |
|
kalekendel
 |
no not fair, contact your local consumer advocates groups if there is one |
|
neil desperandum
|
No. I bet a lot of those who claim they can't afford insurance can afford: beer, gambling, cigarettes etc. |
|
Sparky
|
If I decided I can't afford insurance, or opted not to have it and something like this happened, I wouldn't expect someone to come up with the money to put things right. I would first of all kick myself for being so stupid, then take out insurance whether I could afford it or not. |
|
Anna
|
Generally speaking, no. But it is important to be aware that after the floods of recent years, many 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 affected by flooding. Therefore, alot of the people affected by the floods did have house insurance, they just can't get any help!!! Which I think is an absolute disgrace, and in these situations, yes, I think the taxpayer should foot the bill. |
|
honeypot
 |
NO - they should have bought insurance like the rest of us. The £14M 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 |
|
| |
|
Homepage 
Financial
Forum 
Insurance 
No Spam
Adult 
Gambling
Unfinished
Deception
Plagiarism
Not English
