Should flood victims be compensated by the taxpayer?

Question

I heard it reported that Gordon Brown has said that flood victims will be "compensated in full". Does this mean that taxpayers will foot the bill for compensating people who didn't have standard house insurance?

Answer 1

No tax payers shouldn't foot the bill as we pay for everything and thats what buildings and contents insurance is for !!!!

i think he ment that taxpayers would foot the bill for local councils to make improvements so this doesn't happen again.

Think Councils and water companies should have been fined for not putting measures into place when knew this would happen !!

Answer 2

It is scandalous that any publicly raised revenue is used to compensate flood victims.
All of these people had the opportunity to be insured.Some took the gamble and lost.C'est la vie.
This does not mean that I have no compassion for victims.But failing to insure oneself should not be a public burden,of course this would also encourage others in risk areas to choose not to insure themselves.

All this said,there are many who are concerned for the wellbeing of victims.So then the concerned people will of course donate privately to a fund for these victims.

We should not allow Brown to use our money as leverage for political gain.

We also need to consider other issues.Should council tax be squandered by the million on diversity departments and immigrant centres whilst our towns and villages have inadequate flood defence?

Answer 3

I think flood victims should compensate the rest of US tax payers. If you are dumb enough to live in a flood area without the proper insurance you deserve what you get.

Answer 4

I dont know but I hope that this is not true, if individual are so cheap and mindless not to have home insurance then they get all they deserve but I suppose now that the drug dealers and crooks in the South have been effected the tax payer especially in the North will be hit once again by the rich to pay to the rich off.

Answer 5

It does not necessarily mean that taxpayers are paying for flood victims. Standard Insurance, by the way does not include flood insurance and FEMA is set up, or was to aid those who are hit by massive disasters. The financing is usually in the form of low-interst, government insured loans, rather than out and out grants. Part of the duty of government is to aid those affected by disaster. This may involve taxpayers money, but it is not a direct take from one person to give to another. The flood victims are taxpayers too.

Answer 6

there are certain government funds which re set aside for those type of occasions sometimes its more practical for government bodies and representatives to simply bail people out rather than affecting the insurance/economic development of an area furthermore all monetary funds in government possession are supplied by the taxpayer so yes the taxpayer pays , but hey whats new

Answer 7

compensation should come from the insurance company's,
if there is a deficit then the government should step into the breach, we waste enough pretending we care about the rest of the world,but when it comes to looking after our own the government policy is to little to late, Britain first if theirs any left then be charitable.

Answer 8

I entirely support any UK.gov move to compensate flood victims who have insufficient insurance cover to deal with the cost of flood damage to their property and homes.

The UK.gov have pleged £800 million for flood relief.

Why are we spending £13 billion on workshy immigrants?

The £13 billion belongs to the flood victims and the British people, not to foreigners with begging bowls.

Answer 9

i think they should be compensated partly, but not by taxpayers. It's not our fault that people didn't have homeowners or rental insurance .we (citizens) shouldn't flip the bill, for the refugees or the governments ignorance.

Answer 10

This is all I could find in regards to the compensation package...http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=466865&in_page_id=1770