View Single Post
Old 11-15-2023, 11:47 AM   #26
John Mercier
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2021
Posts: 3,007
Thanks: 2
Thanked 529 Times in 435 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffk View Post
This is a great explanation of the budget side of things.

But much of this increase is not due to local issues and not subject to local control. People are upset that expenses are not being controlled locally but out of control Federal spending has driven equally out of control inflation over the last couple years. That has driven labor costs and material costs up. It takes time for these costs to ripple through the system and HERE THEY NOW ARE.

Sure you could go to a meeting and vote down the school increases but that simply places the town in an uncompetitive position compared to other districts who recognize the realities of the economy and raise salaries. It would also force delays in needed physical plant repairs and maintenance and THAT always is bad.

Further, while the town recognizes a increase in property valuation, it is not distributed equally. Lake property values have exploded and off lake property not nearly as much. This shifts more of the tax burden to lake property owners. You can complain about it but the origin of the current system is the thought that someone who owns an expensive house can better afford to pay more taxes than someone who has a cheaper house, which is USUALLY TRUE. Suggestions that people that HOLD property should be shielded from tax increases and the burden shifted to people who BUY expensive properties has been tried in California. It was a disaster. Since the people that HOLD property (the majority of people) are protected they felt free to vote costly increases in. The cost of property AND the taxes on the new owners soared and made it impossible to find reasonably priced housing.

There is also talk about sales taxes and income taxes to "balance" things out. However, that just explodes spending as the state finds itself with a money spigot that they can hand out. Overall, the total NH tax burden is VERY low AND the spending, as much as it can be, is controlled locally, where voters have the most voice and influence.

If you really want to have a long term impact on costs, vote people into the federal government who don't think it is OK to spend more than the government takes in in taxes. THAT is the cause of inflation AND is a significant contributor to the increase in local budgets.
The federal budget can not be cut... so that would mean higher taxes.
The loss of the one time grants is most likely the end of a federal spending program... other cuts would impact the State budget directly, and result in the transfer of higher costs locally.

The labor issue was forecast for us by Ronald Reagan. The fact that people either didn't pay attention in school, or thought that day would never come, well, we are here.

NH made it worse by promoting the aging of the State.

The fix is an influx of younger workers... something that we don't have the option on.

So something that causes seniors to give up their homes, is the market solution. It isn't soft and friendly, but the markets never are.
John Mercier is offline   Reply With Quote