How about those property taxes?

[Captain Zipper]

I touched base on this in another thread but I'd really like some lake property owners insite on this.............

What are your feelings about the high taxes for waterfront property? Do you think they are fair? I know people that have owned lake side property for years but had to move after they retired.

What is your breaking point? What would it take to happen that you would finally ban with your neighbors and say, "Enough is enough. Too many of us are losing our homes."

It seems as though the common man is getting pushed out and the majority is just letting it happen.

Is there a better way to structure your taxes?

Thanks,

CZ

[Mr. V]

Oh, please.

You live in a state without a sales tax or an income tax.

What, do you think money grows on trees?

There's no free lunch.

So long as there are buyers for any lakefront property which is sold, it will be taxed heavily: as well it should be.

Location, location, location.

[Irish mist]

So what........you think if NH adds an income tax & a sales tax & a capital gains tax too.....that things are going to be better ? If I'm not mistaken Connecticut is the highest taxed state in the nation. How has that income tax that was imposed on your state worked out fo you folks down there.....has it cut your property taxes ?
________
Yamaha Dt125 (http://www.yamaha-tech.com/wiki/Yamaha_DT125)

[tis]

Capt. That is a good question. I have wondered about . WHat is the breaking point for everyone? Even if you CAN afford it, how many people are going to be willing to pay such high taxes, especially those who only use them a couple of months a year? However, I agree with Irish, if we add a tax, they will just spend more. Oh sure, taxes may go down for a year or two but then they will go right back up. What we need to do is tell government to stop spending! But to do that, we can't be apathetic, we all need to get out there and tell the selectmen, legislators, etc.

[Lakegeezer]

In NH, property tax is based on value, and its part of the charm and the challenge of living here. Waterfront properties have a higher value that surrounding homes, so pay a higher percentage of the town's expenses. That probably won't change. What will change however is the make up of who lives in the waterfront homes. More and more telecommuters and retirees are making the lakefront their full time residence. With this comes local voting rights and increased control over spending in their local government. The change could backfire, as it has in Southern NH, if new residents ask more from their town. More likely, they will work to keep spending down and question excesses that have been rubberstamped in the past.

[ApS]

"...What are your feelings about the high taxes for waterfront property? Do you think they are fair? I know people that have owned lake side property for years but had to move after they retired.

What is your breaking point...?"
Just a few years ago, I mentioned being content that my projected Social Security income would pay my property taxes.

There's so much bulldozing going on around here, that now I see that even Social Security (which I will be paying taxes on) won't be enough to pay for my Lakes Region "cost of admission". (The property tax with no corresponding adjustment for cost of living).

Is a "reverse-mortgage" an alternative to going broke? :confused:

[Captain Zipper]

Perhaps I didn't word my initial post very well, the point I was trying to make is that I think it's sad to see so many folks lose their waterfront homes (that have been in their families for years) to high taxes.

I was just looking for opinions as to possible fixes to the problem.

For those of you with deep pockets I guess you can't see the little guy's plight, obviously the problem hasn't always been this way or all these little guys wouldn't be getting forced out. I hate to see "nice people" lose their retirement homes because of the "view".

CZ

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Taxes/Advice/TheBestAndWorstStatesForTaxes.aspx

http://www.retirementliving.com/RLtaxes.html

http://www.nj.com/opinion/ledger/editorials/index.ssf?/news/ledger/stories/edit04282004.html

[KonaChick]

Perhaps I didn't word my initial post very well, the point I was trying to make is that I think it's sad to see so many folks lose their waterfront homes (that have been in their families for years) to high taxes.

I was just looking for opinions as to possible fixes to the problem.

For those of you with deep pockets I guess you can't see the little guy's plight, obviously the problem hasn't always been this way or all these little guys wouldn't be getting forced out. I hate to see "nice people" lose their retirement homes because of the "view".

CZ

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Taxes/Advice/TheBestAndWorstStatesForTaxes.aspx

http://www.retirementliving.com/RLtaxes.html

http://www.nj.com/opinion/ledger/editorials/index.ssf?/news/ledger/stories/edit04282004.html


I suppose we were "lucky" in a way in that when we built our mcmansion we knew that high property taxes were a reailty and planned accordingly financially. Yes it is sad to see folks losing their properties because of it. The "little guy's" plight is one playing out all over the country in one way, shape or form in many communities...it's not just limited to real estate in typically vacation destinations. As far as answers or solutions?? I suppose one has to look at the town's themselves, for they are the ultimate landlords. I have many other solutions but I'm watching the butler out the window wash the jaguar and I see he's missing a few spots, and that damned maid can't seem to make the beds correctly. It's so hard to find decent help these days. :D

[Captain Zipper]

Touche, Kona Chick. Touche!

[Irish mist]

The ONLY way to end this property tax nightmare is to end public education. Pay for your own kids for 12 years at the many private schools that would pop up.....and you would be done with it. Simple as that. If you have one kid, it's an easy ride. If you have 5 kids it will cost you ( a true user fee) but the payments will end, and you will be free from paying when your kids are out of the system.

Most towns in NH, and the nation for that matter, spend close to 80% of all collected taxes on schools & education. Think of the freedom we would have if we could get this education monkey off the tax-payers back......I know, it's not going to happen. But it's really the only solution that would work.
________
Ferrari 375 F1 History (http://www.ferrari-wiki.com/wiki/Ferrari_375_F1)

[This'nThat]

Perhaps I didn't word my initial post very well, the point I was trying to make is that I think it's sad to see so many folks lose their waterfront homes (that have been in their families for years) to high taxes.
The waterfront tax rate at the lake is a little less than 1% of value. That means a $100K house will pay $1,000 in taxes; a $1M house will be taxed at $10,000. This is a lot better than Mass (proposition 2 1/2 is designed to keep taxes under 2.5%)!

So is it the value, or is it the "high taxes"? Before everyone keeps complaining about the taxes, look at the cost of all the other things. What do you pay for your car or truck? Your boat? Your jet ski? Your day on the slopes? What does it cost for a week of groceries? Costs and prices keep going up; and the value of a lakefront home also keeps going up.

[mattmike]

I was upset that my taxes went from $8000 to $14,000 in the 4 years I owned my waterfront home. I got over it when I made a $400,000 profit on the sale. You can't have it both ways.

[ITD]

This is a lot better than Mass (proposition 2 1/2 is designed to keep taxes under 2.5%)!



Mass 2 1/2 keeps the levy from rising more than 2.5 % in one year unless approved by the voters. It doesn't mean you pay 2.5% of the value of your house per year. My Mass house tax is less than 1% of the value per year. I actually think a law like 2 1/2 would be good in NH, but don't expect the politicians to advocate for it.


I was upset that my taxes went from $8000 to $14,000 in the 4 years I owned my waterfront home. I got over it when I made a $400,000 profit on the sale. You can't have it both ways.



Bingo, thank you.

Personally, I've owned in the Lakes region for about 8 years now, I knew what I was getting into and planned for it. I don't see that lake properties are targeted per se but just worth more than properties away from the lake. My taxes have gone up, but so has the value of my property.

Time and time again I hear of properties that have huge increases in value over a short period of time. Usually these properties have been underpaying taxes for years, forcing the rest of us to pick up the slack.

[Lucky2Bhere]

A waterfront home is an investment in addition to being a great place to share with family and friends. Our property taxes are moderately higher now than when we lived in Mass. With no sales tax or income tax we're ahead. In addition our lakehouse has appreciated much more already than our Mass. suburban house did in years. Part of the reason is living in Moultonborough which has a much better tax rate than other towns. It's sad when people have to give up their properties but frequently it's a choice to pull out the cash and make other lifestyle decisions. Everyday people make decisions to downsize, keep the car longer, etc. I suspect at some point I will too. But for now I love where I live and it's increasing in value. My property tax is a lifestyle tax.

[AC2717]

The waterfront tax rate at the lake is a little less than 1% of value. That means a $100K house will pay $1,000 in taxes; a $1M house will be taxed at $10,000. This is a lot better than Mass (proposition 2 1/2 is designed to keep taxes under 2.5%)!

So is it the value, or is it the "high taxes"? Before everyone keeps complaining about the taxes, look at the cost of all the other things. What do you pay for your car or truck? Your boat? Your jet ski? Your day on the slopes? What does it cost for a week of groceries? Costs and prices keep going up; and the value of a lakefront home also keeps going up.


Where do you get your math from, in Laconia,
I am values at $155,000 for the bldg only (condo cottage) and I am paying just over $2,500 for the real estate taxes, the bldg is 400sqft!

When we bought it the taxes increased but we bought it for less than the value they are stating that it is worth does that make sense if the market value when we bought was what we basically paid for it back in September.
I am filing an abatement next year, I missed this years chance
We knew the taxes were high going into it so it was no surprise but still hurts

[vrrooom]

As usual a very interesting discussion

Register to Vote
If you want to control property taxes, each of you should consider registering to vote in your lake side town. There are few rules, prehaps none, as to residency time you need to register to vote in a NH town and absentee ballots are available in some towns.
People are not losing their "family homes" but cashing out big time on appreciated realestate
Several of my neighbors, who had old cottage property on the lake (assessed at 230K) sold this spring for almost 700K. They took the money and bought homes in non lake front communities and pocketed much of the appreciated value tax free (federal cap gains rules on homes allow 500K tax fee)
A vast majority of the taxes are paid by non residents and non consumers of town services
I have heard of numbers as high as 80% of some towns tax revenue comes from non resident - non users of services. I wonder if you were a stock holder in a company, and owned 80% of the shares, if you would allow the 20% owners to run the company?

And so we are back to number 1, which is the only way the current tax situation will change.:rolleye2:

[salukigirl]

People are not losing their "family homes" but cashing out big time on appreciated realestate


I suppose this depends on what you define as a "family home". Our property has been in the family since the 1800's. So, we may not live there year round, but our collective family history makes it feel like a family home to me.

[Captain Zipper]

Vroom, great post; very informative, as they all have.

The only part I look at differently is that these people (that sold) would rather have stayed if they had the financial means. That had to be tough.

Whenever I'm there and you just sit and look out across the lake..........................oooohhhhh man, how nice and relaxing is that!

Maybe I can get a job working for Konahchick, she's having trouble with help. Do the servant's quarters have a water view Konahchick? :laugh:

[T.H.E. Binz]

Can you people PLEASE stop saying that there is no income tax in NH. In fact, for interest, dividends, and annuity payments (i.e., folks with fixed incomes) the 5% NH tax is one of the highest in the nation.

[nj2nh]

I live in Jersey - taxes here are hellish.

However, given that a great number of the NH are retired (as we hope to be one day), the property tax really is a burden. Since there is no traditional income tax and seniors have a fixed income rather than an earned income, I would think seniors in NH must bear a greater burden than seniors in other states.

Does this make sense?

nj2nh

[Lucky2Bhere]

Are property taxes in Mass cheap? How about New Jersey or New York? Florida? Where can you have the quality of life that we have here for much cheaper? NH may seem high but where isn't it? Second or vacation homes are owned 12 months a year even if only used 2 months a year. If that waterfront cottage your grandfather built for 20K isn't worth a 600K tax base than sell it and pocket the money. But if you can afford it and it's worth the sacrifice than continue to love and enjoy it for years to come. And if you want a voice in policy move on up and vote.

[Airwaves]

ITD wrote:
Mass 2 1/2 keeps the levy from rising more than 2.5 % in one year unless approved by the voters. It doesn't mean you pay 2.5% of the value of your house per year.
To help clarify because Proposition 2 ½ is commonly misunderstood. Proposition 2 ½ limits the municipality from raising the overall tax levy by more than 2 ½ percent a year, meaning taxes can only be raised by 2 ½ percent a year based on the full cash value of all taxable property in the city or town unless voters approve an override for a specific project.

It doesn’t keep an individual homeowner’s property tax from raising more than 2 ½ percent a year.

ITD also wrote:
I actually think a law like 2 1/2 would be good in NH, but don't expect the politicians to advocate for it.
You are absolutely correct!

If you are old enough to remember, it was a citizen’s initiative petition that was approved by voters that was brought about the law.

Politicians in Mass didn't advocate for it and any politician that suggests doing away with it knows he/she would be a former state rep or senator at the next election.

[tis]

T.H.E. You forgot to mention business profits tax and business enterprise tax. No tax on workers, but on owners and professionals.

[kjbathe]

Folks need to plan for the costs. It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that waterfront property is valued higher and comes with a higher tax bill. Same with your more expensive cars, or boats, or whatever.

Are property taxes high? Yes, they are (relative to other states). But the overall tax burden in NH is still lower. And I'd rather be paying higher town property taxes over which I can exert some influence in the voting both or town meeting each year rather than translating it into sales or income taxes which, once implemented at the State level, are virtually impossible to influence.

I had to laugh at the fallout from the Massachusetts "Tax Holiday" a weekend or two ago, and the State's complaint about how much money they lost. They lost? Who's money is it? ;)

[ApS]

"...If that waterfront cottage your grandfather built for 20K isn't worth a 600K tax base than sell it and pocket the money..."
Some have decades of protecting the shoreline, wholesale removal of poison ivy, nurturing the woods, and warmly consider it "Home". (Especially when it is warm :emb: ).

I have many running board-feet of lumber that I've personally installed, and a decent forest of marketable white pine trees that I planted.

(Planted before the movie "Silent Running (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_Running)", with crazy-guy actor Bruce Dern. Hmmm...crazy-guy...oops!...). :emb:

Anyway, when one has "sweat-equity" in one's home, selling to pocket the money isn't an easy option—even as the McMansions encroach.

[Captain Zipper]

KJ, you make good points but I don't agree with this one..........

"Folks need to plan for the costs."

Now maybe I'm wrong but I don't think that people that purchased a lakeside "cabin" "10" or 50 or 100 years ago could have imagined the values (or the taxes) to go up the way they did over the past few years.

I think that there is a difference between the people that purchase now and the ones that did years ago. People that purchase now realize the tax burden that comes with it.

That would also explain the type of homes being built now as opposed to the "cabins" once built.

Thank you all for your posts, it has been enlightening.

Dana

[Dickie B from HB]

Hi Captain Zipper-

Thirty years ago California dealt with the problem that you are concerned about. During the 70's there was rapid appreciation of property values. Property taxes were going up so fast that people (especially the elderly) were forced to sell. We bought our house in 1974 for 51K. By 1979 our property taxes were scheduled to go up to $2,000 per year.

At this time, a man named Howard Jarvis got the population to rise up and vote to pass Proposition 13 that changed the State's constitution. It's effect was to reverse the property taxes to 1975 values and allow them to be raised by only 2% per year as long as you owned the property. If you sold the property, then the tax rate would be !% of the sales price for the new owner. Property owners would thus know what their taxes would be for years in advance.

The results have been dramatic. Homeowners have elected to live in their homes for decades rather than move more frequently. Rules are that you can rebuild your house without affecting the tax rate if you leave part of the original house standing. This has spawned a huge remodeling industry as homeowners elect to remodel rather than move. As a result, neighborhoods that have run down over the years have been rebuilt one house at a time. This has lifted the value of the entire area with pride of ownership on display.

Consider the alternative. If prop 13 hadn't been passed, run-a-way property taxes would have caused properties to fall into decay.

Sure California has a wide variety of other taxes (income, sales, etc), but I don't mind paying those, because if Prop13 hadn't passed I would be paying about $20,000 per year (assuming that I could still afford to own my home), whereas the property tax bill for my house this past year was $987. I can assure you that my income and sales taxes don't come anywhere near $20,000.

So this is the problem across the country with states that fund their government primarily with property tax. The choice is yours. You can leave the status quo, or you can protect your future and do something about it.

Dick B.

[Captain Zipper]

Dick,

Thanks so much for your post. Definitely a different approach; you hit the nail on the head with the type of solution I was wondering about in my initial post.

It shall be interesting to see the rubuttles.

I think I'll Google it for more info.

Do you mind if I ask what the value of your CA. house is now? You don't have to answer if you don't want to.

I am wondering how much some of the lake towns have increased their revenue from the dramatic rise in home values over the past 10 to 20 years.

Dana

[Dickie B from HB]

Hi Dana-

Home appreciation in California over the past thirty years has been beyond amazing. Although we paid $51,000 for our house in 1974, it is worth about one million now. Of course, as I wrote in my previous post, we could have never afforded to keep it had the tax system not changed.

The same thing may happen to lake front property in NH. Maybe you can afford to pay the taxes now, but unless something changes, the future may find that only the rich will be able to afford to live on the lake's edge.

Best regards,
Dick B.

[Captain Zipper]

Dick, I feel that the tide of change is already taking place at Winni. Over the last decade or more the cabins are going and the mcmansions are coming.

In talking to owners of smaller waterfront homes they are getting forced out, they can't afford the taxes. "Yes", they do get a good price for their home but they are forced out because they can't afford to keep it.

I wish I had your property tax payment on my home, let alone the value for it that you have. :eek:

Do you own a home on Winni? (Heck of a commute.)

Dana

[Long Pine]

There are a few comments above about people not being able to afford to keep their homes due to the escalation in property taxes. I am not an expert on this, but wouldn't the following be a solution to this problem?

Let's say someone bought a lakefront home for $100,000 many years ago and it has now appreciated to be worth $1,000,000 and is completely paid for. For argument's sake, let's say their taxes increased from $1,000/yr to $10,000/yr and that the homeowner does not have sufficient cash flow to afford $10,000 taxes in a year.

Couldn't the homeowner get a home equity loan or home equity line of credit (using their home equity as collateral) and use the proceeds to pay the taxes? For example, let's say they got a $200,000 home equity loan. They would then have to make payments of about $14,000/yr on the loan at 7% interest plus another $10,000/yr in property taxes for a total annual payment of $24,000. So, the $200,000 loan would cover at least 8 years of taxes/interest. In those 8 years, the home would likely have appreciated by at least another $200,000 so the homeowner would still have $1 million in home equity (and could borrow more if necessary to meet future tax obligations). This is just a way of turning a non-liquid asset into a liquid asset. I'm not a banker or accountant though, so let me know if my logic is faulty.

[Dickie B from HB]

Dana-

No, I don't own anything at the lake right now. I was born and raised in New Jersey. My folks had a cabin on the beach in Lake Shore Park. I spent all my summers there until I was in my mid twenties, then moved to Southern CAl in 1965. But, I have lots of relatives in the Gilford and Alton areas. I get back there every few years, so I see what is going on around the lake. I can tell you that what is happening there is exactly what we went throught out here thirty years ago.

Property taxes out here are no longer an issue. But we've got a lot of other problems instead.

Regards,
Dick

[dpg]

Long Pine: I hear what your saying and I suppose it MAY work, my only thought is if someone could not afford the taxes how will they swing the added expense of now borrowing even more? I do understand the theory of stretching out the payments longer though. That's how people get into trouble, can't afford a $2,000 item so they whip out the plastic. Then guess what? A month later the bill comes in any way and they mail in $100.00 a month at around 18% interest!:( That's the exact same reason the stock market had a "correction" of late - credit worries.:eek:

[AC2717]

There are a few comments above about people not being able to afford to keep their homes due to the escalation in property taxes. I am not an expert on this, but wouldn't the following be a solution to this problem?

Let's say someone bought a lakefront home for $100,000 many years ago and it has now appreciated to be worth $1,000,000 and is completely paid for. For argument's sake, let's say their taxes increased from $1,000/yr to $10,000/yr and that the homeowner does not have sufficient cash flow to afford $10,000 taxes in a year.

Couldn't the homeowner get a home equity loan or home equity line of credit (using their home equity as collateral) and use the proceeds to pay the taxes? For example, let's say they got a $200,000 home equity loan. They would then have to make payments of about $14,000/yr on the loan at 7% interest plus another $10,000/yr in property taxes for a total annual payment of $24,000. So, the $200,000 loan would cover at least 8 years of taxes/interest. In those 8 years, the home would likely have appreciated by at least another $200,000 so the homeowner would still have $1 million in home equity (and could borrow more if necessary to meet future tax obligations). This is just a way of turning a non-liquid asset into a liquid asset. I'm not a banker or accountant though, so let me know if my logic is faulty.

I do not want to start a fight here, you should not have to take out a loan just for taxes, that is crazy. When that comes to a discussion you know the government has gone too far on the taxes, Just because say I, not saying me, bought a place years ago and it appriciated to my benefit, why should the government get more for what I was able to accomplish. Yes I understand raise taxes to run the infastructure of the community, city or town or what ever, but it is getting out of hand these tax rates are.

[wifi]

Seems lots of towns with lake front property think they have an endless well of cash to spend. Take Moultonboro for example. Anything anyone wants in town goes thru. New Muncipal building, followed by new Public Safety building, followed by a new Library, the next thing will be a new highway garage, followed by more and more and more...

Government needs to scale BACK.. too many programs. Give the taxpayers a break. What all these property taxes will bring is the errant thought that if we had broad based taxes (such as income or sales), the property taxes would go away.... Think again. Ever see taxes disappear? sure they may go down for a year, but then they somehow spring right back...

/takes deep breath....
/ducks

[NonVoting Taxpayer]

New highway garage in Moultonbourgh was built about 6 years ago on Rt 109.

[wifi]

New highway garage in Moultonbourgh was built about 6 years ago on Rt 109.

That was the STATE highway garage, the town wants a new one to replace the TOWN garage on Playground Dr.

[Mr. V]

Property tax is based on the value of the taxed property.

Waterfront is taxed heavily because it is much more valuable, generally speaking, than non-waterfront.

So long as NH has no income or sales tax, property will be heavily taxed.

To your credit, NH politicians are pretty tight fisted (relatively speaking) and do not spend a lot of tax dollars on "liberal" social programs, as this reflects the conservative attitude prevalent in New Hampshire.

But government provides services which are not cheap; the money has to come from somewhere, and that "somewhere" is (currently) property taxes.

Personally, I think your state's taxation method is quaint and out of touch with the times, but oh well, I don't live there: although my family pays taxes for waterfront property.

Sure, we complain, and moan, but in the end it gets paid: it's the law.

Pay or sell, or change the law.

It really is that simple.

[Weirs guy]

Tax caps.

If I get a yearly COLA raise of say, 3.5% for arguments sake, thats all I get. If I wanted 5% because I just "need" a new car (fire truck), shed (city garage) or house (school), too bad. Why is it the local governments don't get held to the same standard? I may not be a big fan of the city of Laconia or Franklin where I'm originally from, but the tax cap is a big reason to stay in those places. Keeps the burden realistic.

[salukigirl]

In regards to the loan idea....It sounds good in theory, but shaky loan practices are what got us into this whole real estate crumble. What we have been forced to do is sell off small lots over the years to maintain the cabin and pay taxes. Many people on the board want to rant about condos going up everywhere, but please remember that some of the people on the lake still are 'little guys' who do what they have to in order to maintain a piece of family history.

I do not have information on orginal purchase price, but do have a deed from the 1880's where a family member purchased our current property from the estate of another family member for around $400. I highly doubt they foresaw and could adequetly plan for what the value is now.

Also, in the late 1800's my family owned a huge swath (like half the island) of bear island...which was supposdly won in a poker match, :eek:. The family member then turned around and sold during the same time period for a few hundred dollars! Can only image what that amount of property would fetch now!

[Irish mist]

I'm not that old......but man has NH changed, for the worse IMHO. Used to be the old-timers in town & city goverment did not need new buildings, new schools, new this, new that. They got by on less.....and that was the "philosophy" of the state. NH is starting to look & feel just like everyhere else.
________
MEXICO HOTELS (http://mexicohoteles.org)

[Long Island Baba]

All taxes are is an allocation of spending. Sure, we can argue about view tax and waterfront allocations till the cows come home, but bottom line is that spending is out of control. Perhaps the waterfront folks will unite and get a different allocation method in the next several years...then the rest of us are really in bad shape.
We can gripe about it on the forum or we can do something about it in our respective towns. I don't know about you guys, but the more I read the local papers lately all I see is regular townfolk coming out of the woodwork and questionning spending and local government action.
Meredith had something creative yesterday in the news re: a spending cap. I guess some other towns have this too from what I've read on these posts. I also know that Wolfeboro, Moultonboro and Gilford have citizen groups that are shining the flashlight around town and on spending, "secret" meetings, and the like. It looks like Sanbornton and Meredith are right on their heels. Get involved with your local folks and change what's going on. That's the problem. Town Meetings have minimal attendance, same with School.

Let's get out of our comfort zones and question things. That's what makes NH a great place. We can't have the Lakes Region turning into another southern NH mess. It certainly appears that way with the development going on. We don't NEED all this infrastructure. A few WANT it and the special interests vote them in. How about having the town live on a fixed budget for a few years and see what happens? Notice that this donor town/education funding thing isnt going away. Some towns are in for a nice little request from Concord in the very near future.

The more I see the more disgusted I get. This small charm thing gets pretty nasty when politics comes into play.

[Flylady]

Very accurate description of what happened in CA and how it got fixed. People should not be too quick to dismiss prop 13 cuz its a CA thing. It was the ability to benifit from prop 13 and raising property values that I was able to get my place in NH. Although my property taxes in NH are higher than my property taxes in CA. (I've been in my CA house for 6 yrs) One additional tax law we passed to protect our seniors is that they can elect to stay in their homes and defer their property taxes until they either sell or die, then the state will collect the back taxes. Once I retire and spend 6 months on the lake I plan to vote!
I studied the increase in tax revenue over the last 7 years in the lakes region and you can see a direct relationship to increased taxes and increased property values on the lakes, however the population increase was very minimal. Looks like many towns got hooked on that high level of revenue. Until the people vote and force the towns to stop spending it will be more of the same. :rolleye2:

[ITD]

Increased property values don't increase taxes. When a revaluation is done the tax rate is adjusted to compensate and keep the levy the same. (Of course nothing is perfect and there probably are some people affected either positively or negatively) The only way your taxes would increase due to a revaluation would be if your property was assessed incorrectly before or if your market segment appreciated faster percentage wise than the rest of the town. Taxes increase because politicians spend more money than the old levy would pay for and raise the tax rate.

[Captain Zipper]

ITD,

Okay, how often does this happen............ "Increased property values don't increase taxes. When a revaluation is done the tax rate is adjusted to compensate and keep the levy the same."

Without this happening................ "Taxes increase because politicians spend more money than the old levy would pay for and raise the tax rate."

People are paying a heck of a lot more in property taxes now than they were 10 years ago. I'm not chastising you, I'm just trying to get educated.

Bill and Flylady, thanks for posting on this topic, your comments have been very beneficial. (I say this because I notice you've both been long time members but you don't post very often. :) )

Dana

[Airwaves]

Correct me if I'm wrong. Don't some states allow all property taxpayers, residents and non-residents alke, the right to vote?

I believe in those states non-resident property taxpayers are limited in what and/or how they can vote, but they at least have a say!

NH relies on tourism and us 'flatlanders' who own property to fund their "needed services". It seems to me that we 'flatlanders' who "only own property" should have a say in some way, shape, or form. Otherwise, I'd advocate a sales and income tax for NH residents so that the rest of you pay your fair share as well.

NH municipalities rely on the taxes from seasonal homes, so if you want to be fair, go ahead and tax our homes at the fair market value, but prorate those taxes to the time the waterfront homes are used.

The President of France uses your house for two weeks, then you are taxed for those services and fees! However if that same home is vacant for the other 50 weeks a year and it is vacant, then "we" don't use municpal services like schools, water, sewer etc. so pay your own way!

The watefront towns look at us as the goose that continues to lay the golden egg, that egg is about to be fried! We demand accountability for our dollars.

As California's Proposition 13 and Massachusetts' Proposition 2 1/2 both have done, they have stopped the insane property tax increases in both states and have forced communities to actually ask voters for permission to spend more money!

Go ahead and flame away!

[wifi]

I'm not that old......but man has NH changed, for the worse IMHO. Used to be the old-timers in town & city goverment did not need new buildings, new schools, new this, new that. They got by on less.....and that was the "philosophy" of the state. NH is starting to look & feel just like everyhere else.

I am old :D and it hurts even more. You hit the nail right on the head.


.... We can't have the Lakes Region turning into another southern NH mess. It certainly appears that way with the development going on. We don't NEED all this infrastructure. A few WANT it and the special interests vote them in. How about having the town live on a fixed budget for a few years and see what happens? Notice that this donor town/education funding thing isnt going away. ........

The more I see the more disgusted I get. This small charm thing gets pretty nasty when politics comes into play.

Again.... right on IMHO

[superdawgfan]

You pay $987 in taxes on you $1MM house because you bought it in 1974. I paid $1MM for my house next door to yours in 2007 and I pay $9000 in property taxes. You and I use the exact same amount of public services--how can anyone say this is a good system? Only those who never move...
________
Honda Ruckus (http://www.cyclechaos.com/wiki/Honda_Ruckus)

[ITD]

ITD,

Okay, how often does this happen............ "Increased property values don't increase taxes. When a revaluation is done the tax rate is adjusted to compensate and keep the levy the same."




Everytime, that's why the tax rate ( rate per $1000) is adjusted, usually down, in a year where property values have gone up. It's the way it is supposed to work. It's not perfect because appraising is not an exact thing and sometimes mistakes are made or found, that's why there is an abatement and appeal process. Politicians love to blame rising property values for rising taxes, it's just not true. Taxes go up because politicians raise them to spend on their pet projects. Generally revaluation years are the years that they will raise the rate, so most people will assume that their taxes go up because of increased property value, hiding the real reason, that you have been turned upside down by the politicians and shaken until all the money falls out into their greedy hands.



People are paying a heck of a lot more in property taxes now than they were 10 years ago. I'm not chastising you, I'm just trying to get educated.



No offence taken here, it's pretty irritating when you understand what is going on, most people don't. People are paying more now than 10 years ago because the levy has been raised, your taxes have been increased by the politicians, usually with the approval of 100 or 200 voters who actually show up at town meetings and want to see the new rec center, police station, senior ctr. ect..



You pay $987 in taxes on you $1MM house because you bought it in 1974. I paid $1MM for my house next door to yours in 2007 and I pay $9000 in property taxes. You and I use the exact same amount of public services--how can anyone say this is a good system? Only those who never move...


Sdf, that's not supposed to happen with revaluations, it still does, sometimes people know people. If I were you I would bring my tax bill down to town hall and demand that your bill is lowered to $987.

edit: Oops, Sdf, missed the part where you were talking about California, nice place to visit but I wouldn't want to live there.

[Irish mist]

Well wifi, my theroy has always been that with all of the new folks moving here from all over the country things were bound to change. The Massachusetts folks who move up here by & large seem to understand the low tax philosophy of the state......people from Georgia, or Washington state, or where ever have no real feel for the history of how frugal NH used to be.

Things change I suppose.......but I don't have to like it:)
________
Subaru Sumo Specifications (http://www.toyota-wiki.com/wiki/Subaru_Sumo)

[kjbathe]

NH is starting to look & feel just like everywhere else.

That's because more of the folks from everywhere else are now here. And with them came many of the broken ideas/habits that prompted their original desire to relocate :)

[wifi]

It certainly is odd that people want to move here because they like it - then a few years later want to make it like it was in their former abode.

I guess its not polite to ask them to move back and leave us alone? :laugh:

[Pineedles]

The amount of differation (word?) of taxes on different towns makes this thread hard to comment on. Moultonboro takes on 1M propety is 10 K. :(

[Irish mist]

I believe a 1 million dollar property in Laconia is about $30,000 dollars a year !
________
ACTROS (http://www.mercedes-wiki.com/wiki/Mercedes-Benz_Actros)

[Captain Zipper]

usually with the approval of 100 or 200 voters who actually show up at town meetings

ITD,

Nice synopsis. I happen to live in a condo in Ct. and I sit on the board of directors. The owner apathy within the complex is a mirror image, albeit on a smaller scale, of town' and state' lack of public turn out to elections and political business. No owners show up to yearly meetings unless the S*%t is really hitting the fan, ie major, major fee increases.

Actually, "apathy" is the wrong word. I know with the condo owners many don't understand how the system even works; bylaws, declaration, elections, etc.. Many don't say anything for fear of looking stupid. As long as everything is okay within "their unit", then they're pretty willing to put up with all the other problems.

I go to our town budget meetings and the room is pretty empty with the town being lucky to make quorum.

Dana

[Dickie B from HB]

Superdawgfan-

Everyone in CA that voted for prop 13 knew that there would be that inequity.
Everyone that has bought a piece of property since 1979 knows that the inherent inequity of old owners vs. new owners exists. Further more, everyone knows that when the property sells, as all properties eventually do, it will be taxed at 1% of the sales price.

But the fact of the matter is that had prop 13 not been passed, home ownership in CA would cease to exist as we now know it, just as it will be in the lakes region in years to come.

So, if you buy a house now and live in it for 30 years, your new neighbors will pay more property taxes than you. That's just how it is.

Anyhow, if you've got a better plan, I'm listening.

DB

[TomC]

The amount of differation (word?) of taxes on different towns makes this thread hard to comment on. Moultonboro takes on 1M propety is 10 K. :(


so for a $1M property (as assessed), the annual bill would be under $8000 in Moult.

[Lucky2Bhere]

Question?.....For a state with so many vacation home owners what are the options besides property or sales tax. Should a relatively small group of permanent residents shoulder the load with an income tax? What would a fair answer be to all. The money has to come from somewhere and NH already has fewer services than many states.

[Rattlesnake Guy]

The only point I would like to make is that when I go to the town meeting back home in a small town in NH it gives me great sense of value to see the spending of the property tax is controlled by the local group trying to limit the tax rate. Every expenditure is put into terms of what it will cost a resident if they live in a $300,000 home or a $500,000 home. The discussion ensues like it should. The things worth doing get done and well....

I fear that broader based tax solutions would make those same town folks try to get as much of the "free state money" as possible. You see this now when a new school is discussed and the matching funds contributed by the state are treated as free.

We are the state.

Keep it local so it people spend like it is their own money....it is.

[Paugus Bay Resident]

Keep it local so it people spend like it is their own money....it is.

RG - Well put!

[Airwaves]

Lucky2Bhere wrote:
Should a relatively small group of permanent residents shoulder the load with an income tax? What would a fair answer be to all. The money has to come from somewhere and NH already has fewer services than many states.
An income tax in NH would actually help many NH residents. I know, I'm going to be flamed, but many Southern NH residents work in Mass therefore they already PAY MASSACHUSETTS INCOME TAX!

In addition to the Massachusetts Income Tax they also pay very high NH property taxes. (no 2 1/2 limit in NH)
If NH had an Income tax then NH residents working in Mass would pay that money to NH. It would probably be less than they pay in Mass and it would benefit the state they actually live in!

With the additional income, NH could address issues either not being addressed now, or could allow local communities to reduce property taxes. That's where the voter comes in.

It certainly has been pointed out in the past that new taxes do not reduce out of pocket tax payments, but if NH took the money it gives to Mass and gave it to local communities in the form or local aid or whatever you'd like to call it, it certainly would help and spread the burden around a little more equitably.

But, you folks know best, til then I'll just enjoy your money!:cool:

[wifi]

Question?.....For a state with so many vacation home owners what are the options besides property or sales tax. Should a relatively small group of permanent residents shoulder the load with an income tax? ......

Here is how one state, with many winter homes and lots of non resident traffic handled it:
http://www.pbcgov.com/papa/Exemption.htm
http://www.pbcgov.com/papa/SaveOurHomes.htm

Interesting concept, they have been doing it for 12 years.

[ITD]

Here is how one state, with many winter homes and lots of non resident traffic handled it:
http://www.pbcgov.com/papa/Exemption.htm
http://www.pbcgov.com/papa/SaveOurHomes.htm

Interesting concept, they have been doing it for 12 years.

I think a cap on property value increases is not the way to do it. ( Hopefully I read the link right.) If a property is underassessed it should be fixed quickly when found. Everybody should pay their fair share, and in property tax that fair share is base on the assessed value of your property which is base on what you could sell it for. A cap on property value increases does not address the problem which is politicians wasting your money. A cap on the tax levy addresses this problem nicely. The politicians need to ask permission to spend outside of their means (which is the tax levy). The voters can say no. It's a nice system that makes pols a little more honest although it is not perfect.

[Irish mist]

Airwaves when you can name ONE state in the nation where an income tax, or extra tax, lowered property taxes over the long run I'll take you serisouly.......until then you are just blowing smoke.
________
MEXICO CITY HOTELS (http://mexicocityhotel.info)

[Airwaves]

Irish Mist
I don't believe I said an income tax WOULD lower property tax. I said it would benefit the state you actually live in and could:
address issues either not being addressed now, or could allow local communities to reduce property taxes. That's where the voter comes in.
Note that last line...THAT'S WHERE THE VOTER COMES IN...That means elect folks that will do what you would like seen done. Perhaps lower property taxes, perhaps pay for kindergarten, whatever you want. That's what voting is for.

Don't vote then don't complain about how your tax money is spent.

In the meantime NH residents paying out of state income tax to Massachusetts benefits me, not you :)

[Rattlesnake Guy]

Lucky2Bhere wrote:

{cut}...many Southern NH residents work in Mass therefore they already PAY MASSACHUSETTS INCOME TAX!


If NH had an Income tax then NH residents working in Mass would pay that money to NH. It would probably be less than they pay in Mass and it would benefit the state they actually live in!....{cut}



Too bad we can't figure a way to only income tax the NH residents who work in Mass. Sounds too good to be possible. No additional tax burden and the remote "potential" for less property taxes. Must be a hundred reasons why not.

Hey, they tax our residents for working there, why can't we?;)

[kjbathe]

Before we start implementing an income tax in the pursuit of "equity" for NH workers commuting into the Bay State, we should note that Mass salaries are generally 5-10% higher than in Southern NH. Why? I've always chalked that differential up to the 5+% more Mass employees are paying at tax time. You still need to look at the overall tax burden. And NH's tax burden is still lower, even when NH residents cross the border each day for work.

People quickly lose sight of, or simply don't understand, the fact that when Federal Disasters are declared, or Federal Funds are sought, it's still coming out of OUR pockets. I really wish the government sent us bills for taxes each month rather than taking it directly out of checks before we even see them. Federal Funds to repair the collapsed Interstate in Minnesota: You and I are buying that. Federal Funds to repeatedly rebuild damaged homes in Hurricane, Tornado or Flood-prone areas: You and I are paying for those. Rebuilding New Orleans, a city 12 feet below sea level: I'm giving that to myself as a stocking stuffer this year. :) Wanting the State to fund education: Again, you and I will still be paying those bills, but adding more layers of middle men and women so that folks in Concord can decide how much of the money we send in should come back to us.

Isn't it easier if we just fund our own schools, public services, infrastructure and other local priorities? And in so doing, eliminate the 30-80% of overhead involved with sending our money someplace else so that they can decide not to send it back? For all the folks from other states touting the merits of the broad-based taxes, I've never heard an explanation for why their schools aren't any better, why their roads aren't as well maintained, or why their bridges are in greater disrepair. And they think NH should adopt these models? No thanks.

There also seems to be some assumption that NH is only open from May - September, after which we all close up shop leaving a dozen or so folks behind to keep the pipes from freezing until we need them next May. I don't have the stats, but would love to see a comparison of second homes to primary homes in the State. I'm guessing second homes rank well below 5% of the total homes in the state.

Part of the NH advantage is that we can (sometimes) control spending. Control spending, and you can control taxes. But there will always be the crowd that demands all sorts of new or additional services from the towns or cities, expects the State or "the Government" to fund those projects, and want the free money so that their taxes remain unchanged. Bottom line, those folks want all the perks but expect that someone else (you and I) should foot the bill.

Local Control. It's not perfect, but it's better than anything else people have offered as a real alternative to keep spending in check.

[Rattlesnake Guy]

Kjbathe,
Well said! Great post. I think I will keep it in my wallet to use in case of emergency.

[Ropetow]

Lucky2Bhere wrote:


If NH had an Income tax then NH residents working in Mass would pay that money to NH. It would probably be less than they pay in Mass and it would benefit the state they actually live in!

:

Not quite. I pay state income taxes to MA because I work there. If NH sets a state income tax at the same rate (I think it is 5.25%) as MA, I would pay all of it to NH. And I'd much happier to do so. But if NH set a rate lower than MA, say 4%, I would pay 4% to NH and then the difference between the NH rate and the MA rate (in this example 1.25%) to MA. So I wouldn't save a cent. And does anyone think the current Concord Crowd would lower taxes, or just find more ways to spend the revenue. For an answer check out the latest state budget. As Ronald Reagan famously stated, the nine most terrifying words in the English language are, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

[Airwaves]

RG wrote:
Hey, they tax our residents for working there, why can't we?
You can, but in order to do that NH has to impose an income tax. This issue was adjudicated in the 70's when NH imposed a "commuter tax" on out of state residents. The Supreme Court (I don't recall if it was NH or SCOTUS) ruled that a state may impose a tax on out of state residents only if they also impose the same tax on residents of the state. That means no commuter tax, no income tax, no sales tax for out of staters.

Ropetow wrote, in part:
But if NH set a rate lower than MA, say 4%, I would pay 4% to NH and then the difference between the NH rate and the MA rate (in this example 1.25%) to MA. So I wouldn't save a cent.
You're right, you would not save a nickel! I didn't say that you would. I said that the money, all of which you currently pay to Massachusetts, would go to New Hampshire instead of offsetting my Massachusetts income tax. :rolleye2: You'll still pay 5.25% of your income in taxes, but instead of ME (or should I say MA) getting ALL OF IT, NH will get...say...4%? That means I only get 1.25% and NH gets to use the 4% it currently does not receive.

Mkjbathe wroe:
Mass salaries are generally 5-10% higher than in Southern NH.
Actually I think they are higher than that. An Ad Exec in Manchester and an Ad Exec in Boston, 10 percent? No. No one who actually thinks about it commutes into Massachusetts and certainly not into Boston where the money is, for a 5 or 10 percent increase in wages.

People commuting from NH make a Hell of a lot more money than they could "at home" that's why they put up with the commute to Boston and the Massachusetts income and sales taxes, not to mention parking! Don't get me started on that!

Forget I said anything! :emb:

[dpg]

Correct me if I'm wrong. Don't some states allow all property taxpayers, residents and non-residents alke, the right to vote?No.:laugh:

[TomC]

Correct me if I'm wrong. Don't some states allow all property taxpayers, residents and non-residents alke, the right to vote?CT General Statutes Chapter 90, section 7.6 provides for any citizen of the USA who is liable to the town for property taxes in excess of $1000 to vote at town meetings on matters not involving elections..


http://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/pub/Chap090.htm

[vrrooom]

One of the great mysteries that will unfold if NH passes an Income Tax is the tax credit for taxes paid to another state. There appear to be several alternatives in play.

1- On your NH income tax return you get credit for taxes paid to another state ie Mass Maine Vt , where you work and the taxes are withheld.

2- The state where you work allows a credit for taxes paid to NH on their non resident returns

My curious mind wonders if Mass, Maine and Vt, would actually agree to loose all that wonderful tax revenue option 2 involves. My bet is that NH is faced with Option 1, where if you work in another state, they get the tax and the burden of income tax is placed squarely on people who work in NH:eek: . I do not know how much tax money is paid to Mass and Maine by NH residents but I bet it is substantial.:fire:

[AC2717]

Correct me if I'm wrong. Don't some states allow all property taxpayers, residents and non-residents alike, the right to vote?I have a seasonal place in Laconia, pay year round laconia taxes, cannot use any services, except for trash pick up, cannot vote on anything, and yet the lake makes me happy enough to overcome this, but I see a alot of places for sale all the time, when ask- taxes are too much of a burden,

Funny how I can register my boat with my NH seasonal property location, but not my car? and I have to buy an out of state fishing license? Come on who hated us seasonal property owners (the bread and butter of the lakes region) this much?

They get away with all this against us because they put a law in place that does not allow us to do anything about it. They took away town meetings as a way to vote and make it a annual vote town, I am sorry I forget the name of this type of system, but with a town meeting I could have gone and voiced an opinion, now I am not able to

[jeffk]

I agree with the comment by several posters that the real issue with high taxes is the level of spending. It is interesting that the prescription for New Hampshire is that an income and/or sales tax will “heal” the problems we have. However, many states have property taxes, income taxes, and sales taxes and have spent themselves into near bankruptcy until the voters rebelled in on form or another and put caps in place. When you look at the actual financial impact of many of these caps it was a freezing of growth in expenses not a cut. But all the special interests begin to moan and wail and predict the end of civilization.

Another thing to consider is that the reason that New Hampshire spending is kept under control is BECAUSE of its tax system. Because the state government doesn’t have access to very much money (most state money is education directed) it can’t be lobbied to spend money it doesn’t have. This would all change with a sales or income tax. Lobbyists would flock to the now well endowed state government with essential spending needs. Local folks would have the common sense to say “Well, that would be a good idea but we just can’t afford it”. Unfortunately, legislators seem to lose their common sense and spending restraint when they are elected.

Observations:
1.Spending by government will always expand to more than what is available through the current tax structure thereby creating the impression that MORE taxes are needed.
2.Reduction of taxes is almost impossible and is accompanied by major guilt trips from anyone impacted in the slightest. Any reductions are usually minor and temporary.

Lessons learned:
Never give government any more that is absolutely necessary and if possible provide the money in a form that absolutely expires at a specified time or can only be increased through a supermajority or constitutional action. Keep spending control as local as possible.

Before we consider the California fix, or other such similar adjustments consider the information at the following link. http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr153.pdf
To summarize, California (Vermont , Maine, New York, Connecticut, RI, NJ) are in the highest 12 states in the country for local and state tax burden and New Hampshire is next to lowest in the country. These are not the people I would look to for a tax solution.

In addition, the California tax structure smacks of an “I’ve got mine” solution. Dickie B states “Everyone in CA that voted for prop 13 knew that there would be that inequity.” Well, OK, but does that make it fair? Long term owners paid a relatively small amount for their property and now have an extremely valuable asset, often in excess of a million dollars, and pay $1000 yearly in property taxes. Newcomers have to pay inflated real estate prices and $9000 in yearly property taxes. A significant amount of the sub prime mortgage failures are coming from California. Any guesses why? Maybe new owners can’t afford the $200,000 down payment on the inflated real estate and are forced into the sub prime market. Then they are overwhelmed by property taxes that are 10 times that of their wealthy neighbors (plus income and sales taxes). But the people that were there first are happy. They are land wealthy and shielded from property taxes. I’ll bet that they are happy to approve local spending increases as well. They can get 100% of any service increase and only pay 10% of the bill. What a great deal. Californians might as well post a sign “Newcomers need not apply (unless you’re rich)”.

People in New Hampshire also decided (knew) that the tax burden would fall on property owners. Many years ago the people who owned valuable property were the “well to do”. They ended up paying the taxes. Everybody was happy. But now, through the growth of value in property, many “common” people are being burdened with real estate assets worth millions. They, whether they like it or not, have become wealthy. The long known policy in New Hampshire is that the property owners pay the taxes in proportion to the value of their property. Is this a surprise? How could it possibly be? Further, if the owners lived in New Hampshire they have had many years without state income or sales taxes. This is not an inconsequential advantage. Also, given a million dollar property appreciating at 3% a year ($30,000) it about equals the property taxes in Laconia. Maybe the kids could help on the taxes for what will be their million dollars plus inheritance. Maybe a reverse mortgage would help?

I live in New Hampshire and own both a primary home and a house at the lake and pay as much in property taxes as I would if there were a 6% state income tax. I picked out our Lake property in Moultonborough specifically because the taxes there were low. Even so, my property taxes have more than doubled in the 13 years we have owned it. Its value has quadrupled. I think it’s a fair deal. I love the Lake and plan on retiring there eventually. However, if I needed to, I could sell the lake house and pocket the money to fund retirement. I don’t think I’ll need to because I’ve planned for tax and cost of living increases. However, you can never tell.

Do I have a guarantee that I get to live at the Lake? If I don’t or can’t pay my tax bill someone else will have to. Is it fair that I can skip out on my bill and they have to pick up my share because I have a house I don’t want to give up?

[Captain Zipper]

Jeff,

I love your posts, they are very well thought out.

You are a very astute individual.

Do you have any immediate family? I was just thinking that if you were in need of someone to perhaps hand your homes down to due to your early demise.........Well, I mean there is that nasty little rotary to worry about now..........and the lake is getting dangerous with all those nasty boaters...............do you own a kayak?...............do you go out in it at night?.....................

And not to sound overbearing but I will need "both" the houses to be named to me in the will.......... the lake house I will be keeping and the other house will be sold to cover the lake house taxes.

Thank you for your posts Jeff, really. :)

My best,

CZ

[jeffk]

Jeff,
Do you have any immediate family? I was just thinking that if you were in need of someone to perhaps hand your homes down to due to your early demise.........Well, I mean there is that nasty little rotary to worry about now..........and the lake is getting dangerous with all those nasty boaters...............do you own a kayak?...............do you go out in it at night?.....................

And not to sound overbearing but I will need "both" the houses to be named to me in the will.......... the lake house I will be keeping and the other house will be sold to cover the lake house taxes.


CZ

Sorry Captain, I do indeed have an heir. And we don't kayak. I do boat at night but I have my lights on and usually am not naked either. :rolleye2: I also have GPS so that I can avoid those crafty landmasses that keep jumping in front of people. I also am pretty much a teetotaler when I'm boating.

And as to using the sale of house one to pay for lake taxes, that's my first fallback plan if things get tight so you'd still be on your own. :(

[Irish mist]

Jeffk........you stated in a rational fashion why new, or extra tax streams never solve the "spending" problems of state, or federal governments for that matter. The problem is that the special interests in the towns & on this board have no interest in looking to grapple with out tax issues in an honest way.......it's all about how they can "game" the system for themselves.


AC2717..........NH is not in the business of serving the interests of non-residents. We are a state dependent on tourist dollars, and like many states we take advantage of that situation. Have you ever checked out the taxes on a hotel bill in NYC:) After all.......don't you shop sales TAX-FREE up here in NH ? How much money has that saved you over the years buying your TVs & computers and other things....thousands ? It works both ways.

[ITD]

Well said Jeffk.

[Dickie B from HB]

Jeff-

You make some good points. But keep in mind that the value of your property is meaningless if you have to live in it. For those on a fixed income property appreciation only means that perhaps they will have to sell when the taxes become unaffordable. Where do they move to? Will they move to some less desireable location where the costs are less? Is this the destiny of NH property owners? Your reasoning leads one to conclude that you are okay with this. Is this the legacy you want for NH?

DB

[SIKSUKR]

Bravo Jeff!Very well thought out and written.

[GWC...]

Jeff-

You make some good points. But keep in mind that the value of your property is meaningless if you have to live in it. For those on a fixed income property appreciation only means that perhaps they will have to sell when the taxes become unaffordable. Where do they move to? Will they move to some less desireable location where the costs are less? Is this the destiny of NH property owners? Your reasoning leads one to conclude that you are okay with this. Is this the legacy you want for NH?

DB
Life is choices and challenges...

Short memory?

Reread an important part of his input:

People in New Hampshire also decided (knew) that the tax burden would fall on property owners. Many years ago the people who owned valuable property were the “well to do”. They ended up paying the taxes. Everybody was happy. But now, through the growth of value in property, many “common” people are being burdened with real estate assets worth millions. They, whether they like it or not, have become wealthy. The long known policy in New Hampshire is that the property owners pay the taxes in proportion to the value of their property. Is this a surprise? How could it possibly be? Further, if the owners lived in New Hampshire they have had many years without state income or sales taxes. This is not an inconsequential advantage. Also, given a million dollar property appreciating at 3% a year ($30,000) it about equals the property taxes in Laconia. Maybe the kids could help on the taxes for what will be their million dollars plus inheritance. Maybe a reverse mortgage would help?

I live in New Hampshire and own both a primary home and a house at the lake and pay as much in property taxes as I would if there were a 6% state income tax. I picked out our Lake property in Moultonborough specifically because the taxes there were low. Even so, my property taxes have more than doubled in the 13 years we have owned it. Its value has quadrupled. I think it’s a fair deal. I love the Lake and plan on retiring there eventually. However, if I needed to, I could sell the lake house and pocket the money to fund retirement. I don’t think I’ll need to because I’ve planned for tax and cost of living increases. However, you can never tell.

Do I have a guarantee that I get to live at the Lake? If I don’t or can’t pay my tax bill someone else will have to. Is it fair that I can skip out on my bill and they have to pick up my share because I have a house I don’t want to give up?

[jeffk]

Jeff-

You make some good points. But keep in mind that the value of your property is meaningless if you have to live in it. For those on a fixed income property appreciation only means that perhaps they will have to sell when the taxes become unaffordable. Where do they move to? Will they move to some less desireable location where the costs are less? Is this the destiny of NH property owners? Your reasoning leads one to conclude that you are okay with this. Is this the legacy you want for NH?

DB

The problem with supporting someone, and property tax relief IS government support, is that you are forced into some evaluation of their need and whether they “deserve” the support. You supply an example of someone on fixed income. OK, why are they on a fixed income and how much is it?

Example one:
Useless 65 year old son inherits parent’s lake house. It’s been in the family for generations. Son has no money for taxes or maintenance. Does he deserve to keep the house?

Example two:
Two people with extremely similar lives, both have lake property. One difference, Person A saves $5000 a year for retirement, Person B goes on $5000 vacation every year. After 40 years of working, at retirement, A has a million bucks in the bank and can afford property tax for his appreciated lake house. B has nothing(except his million dollar lake house). Should we help B? Why?

Example three:
Again two people, both on moderate incomes, both save a bit. A lives in a lake house, B doesn’t. A’s property appreciates and taxes go up, B’s much less so. At retirement, A has a house worth $1,000,000 and can not afford the property tax. B’s house is worth $300,000 and he can afford the taxes. Should A get tax breaks? How about B?

Example four:
Two retired seniors living in $1,000,000 lake houses with property taxes of $15,000. One has income sources of $100,000 a year, the other $30,000. Should the one with $30K income be given a tax break? Why? How about the other senior?

Where will people move to? Let’s see, sell a million dollar house on the lake and buy a very nice $300K retirement home near the lake (probably a nicer house than their lake house). Put boat into marina. Bank $700K for retirement. Sorry, not what they obviously want but hardly a desperate existence. As I noted family help and reverse mortgages are also an option. How about a condo on the lake? How about moving to a lake where land is less pricey? Many people retire and move across the country to less expensive, smaller, and easier to maintain property. They also look for a warmer climate. The negatives are that they move away from community, friends, and family. I don’t know how many people are “forced” into choices by reality and how many happily make such changes. Should government get involved with tax relief for all these people? Many (most?) towns already have various tax adjustments for seniors, veterans, and other purposes. I think that is appropriate and reasonable although I know many seniors who are well of and really don’t need the relief. Wouldn’t the money be better deserved by a young family just starting in their first home who are struggling with monthly bills?

The New Hampshire “rules” for taxes are well established and overall have been and continue to be a low burden for the state’s citizens. Again, what are the surprises? That property taxes are the primary source of revenue in the state? That valuable land appreciates in value? That property taxes go up with the value of the property? What I want people to do is to understand their choices and take RESPONSIBILITY for them. I don’t want government evaluating who deserves breaks and who doesn’t because it’s an impossible and inherently unfair process. The complexity of human lives is impossible to be analyzed. When government decides that someone “deserves” tax relief they automatically decide that everyone else does not deserve the relief and ALSO will pay more to subsidize the “deserving one”. I will take responsibility for my life and you take responsibility for yours. Government should take responsibility for making sure that we don’t do bad things to each other via laws. Then BUTT OUT.

[Irish mist]

Thanks for proving GWC that people will read ONLY what they want to see......even if it is right there in front of their eyes. My contention is simple: until someone, anyone, can show me one state in the nation that has cut property taxes in the long run by adding an income or sales tax we are just running around in circles here.
________
Fz1 (http://www.yamaha-tech.com/wiki/Yamaha_FZ1)

[ITD]

JeffK another excellent post, keep em coming.

[LIforrelaxin]

Taxes Taxes Taxes..... It seems as someone is always starting a thread on this. There are multiple sides to the argument, and all sorts of twists that can be taken.....

Nope no matter what happens Property Taxes are not going back down... THat is just the way it is..... What the people of NH need to ask themselves is this.... Do we:

A)keep the tax scheme the way it is, and hope that property Taxes don't get so rediculus that people can't afford them..... and by the way I am not only talking about waterfront here..... waterfront home owners are just the first to feel the pinch.

B) Allow some new Taxes to get established to stop the increase in property taxes and possibly ship some of the burden to those from outta of state.... example here would be .... 1% sales Tax..... People would still flock to NH to shop and this would generate enourmous revenues....

It simple nothing is going to Fix the property tax nightmare.... the question is how to move forward. What has been done is done, and will remain. Do you people want to make it worse or look for Better solutions......

[Irish mist]

What "nightmare" are we talking about Lofforrelaxin ? NH ranks 49th out of 50 states in TOTAL tax burden ! We have no general income tax, no sales tax, no capital gains tax. We are a low tax state. Some people have issues with property taxes.....most don't. It's been stated over & over & over again that a sales tax and or an income tax once established in a state does NOT reduce property taxes.

Connectiuct & New Jersey are 2 states that had promised lower property taxes by putting in an income tax in recent history. Both of those states are tax-hells ! It's the government spending people. Always has been.....always will be.
________
Triumph Tt600 (http://www.cyclechaos.com/wiki/Triumph_TT600)

[Merrymeeting]

Jeff,

As you will see in other annual posts on this topic, I've been firmly in the NH-property-taxes-are-unfair camp. Your well stated, clear posts are causing me to strongly reassess my position.

Well done.

[LIforrelaxin]

It's been stated over & over & over again that a sales tax and or an income tax once established in a state does NOT reduce property taxes.


Irish Mist please re-read my post.... I am not advicating that a new tax will reduce property tax nor at this point am I concerned with my tax bill.... I never have and never will.... What I am stating is the obvious.....either the property taxes keep going up to support the government, which in some areas is getting to a point that it is causing some hardships.....because spending will not go down either.... or introduce a new tax scheme......

[Flylady]

I am courious, with the current real estate market slowdown and the lack of liquity for generating new mortgages, does anyone here believe that they may see some property values declining? If someone buys lake property today and it sold for less than the assessed value from a year ago, would the buyer expect the assessment to beloweredtot the sale amount? What if your propery value goes down? Can you request it to be reassessed? Has anyone had a similar experience?

[jeffk]

Moultonborough just did an reassessment and my value dropped by 5% since the valuation done 3 years ago.

You could make an argument that the value paid for a house purchased should be the new assessed value however valuations are done by plugging information into a complex formulation provided by the companies that do these evaluations. Since everyone is plugged into the same formulas it makes it "fair". Valuations don't necessarily match sales prices although they should be in the ballpark. Recent sales prices are included in the formulas. I'm not sure how towns handle sales and property value. Maybe the low price you paid was because the seller was desperate? When the next reevaluation was done you would get plugged into the formulas no matter what price you paid.
Why shouldn't you when you buy?

I'm not sure what luck you would have challenging a single assessment if the town is not doing a general reevaluation and without a recent sale. If everyone is being valued by the same formulas, even if those formulas are not completely up to date, they would consider that everyone is getting the same, and therefore "fair", treatment. The state pushes for frequent revaluations to deal with property value changes.

[Irish mist]

Llforrelaxin.........I thought your idea of a 1% sales tax to shift the cost of taxes to people from away was advocating for a new tax ? I just tried to point out to you that this has been tried, along with an income tax in many states.....and not once has it helped control the cost of property taxes. It really is all about limiting government spending. There is no other choice.
________
Opium Rehab Forums (http://www.rehab-forum.com/opium-rehab/)

[ApS]

Moultonborough just did an reassessment and my value dropped by 5% since the valuation done 3 years ago.
I would expect 5% fluctuations to occur.

What happens when your neighbor's cottage gets torn down, the lot split in two, and two McMansions get built in the place of one residence?

This apparently hasn't happened to you, but it's quietly happening elsewhere.

Unforeseen, it would throw a monkey wrench into your carefully considered lakeside retirement plans, and only then one might see the unfairness built into in this system. Friends have told me of McMansions being torn down to be replaced with $4M McMansions (in another state).

You've suggested that you would sell your Winnipesaukee home if your retirement plans didn't work out. Would you be as satisfied retired in Arizona?

I'm hearing that it's a "dry" heat. :D

[Lakegeezer]

If the government can't control spending, where does the money come from. Property taxes can't fund an out-of-control situation.

The school funding issue in NH is not settled. There are still towns that need more welfare funds to properly operate their schools. What I don't understand is, why doesn't the welfare come with less local control. Franklin and Claremont are the two poster children for towns that lost their industry and can't seem to make ends meet. While I understand that they need help getting back on their feet - and educating their kids is part of that - why shouldn't the people of NH, who are funding the towns, have some say in how they run their local government - for example, attracting new industry? Additional taxes are a threat to the NH way of life, and throwing money at towns with no initiative to recover their economy seems to only increase the threat.

[kjbathe]

1% sales Tax.....would generate enormous revenues....

Yes. Which would simply lead to more spending. It would do nothing to lower property taxes, and would do nothing to lower the overall tax burden.

More revenue! More revenue! That's the mantra. But we should all be asking, more revenue for what?

[Rattlesnake Guy]

Not wanting to touch off a powder keg but in this capitalist society and economy where things manage to work out due to the economics. People move, towns flourish, towns die. Businesses prosper and stay or move. People do the same. If a town does not "work" then perhaps it should be allowed die a natural death rather than drain money from the successful towns that are making the hard choices and making it work. If you don't like the schools in your town as much as my town then do what your neighbors are doing and move to a town of your choice. If you move to my town my taxes may go up to help educate your child. Yours may go up to educate mine. But don't ask me to pay more taxes to fund your school. It is our collective responsibility to position ourselves on a boat that is not sinking and grab an oar.

[Weirs guy]

I'm a product of the Franklin School system graduating in 1992. It amazes me that the whole school funding issue still exists as it did then.

I believe that each and every child in the USofA deserves the exact same public education (why is it if I move my kids from town "A" to town "B" they are both not on the same page?), and that school funding, IMHO, should be nationally funded, not locally.

[Weekend Pundit]

I believe that each and every child in the USofA deserves the exact same public education (why is it if I move my kids from town "A" to town "B" they are both not on the same page?), and that school funding, IMHO, should be nationally funded, not locally.I think I know what you meant to say, but it didn't really come out that way.

If every child were to have the exact same public education as every other child, then our school systems would be catering to the lowest common denominator. There would have to be either state or national control of all of the schools. That's a formula for disaster because all that statewide control of schools has ever brought is statewide mediocrity in education.

I doubt the school systems (or more specifically, the teachers unions) will ever say they have enough money. No matter how much they have it will never be enough. But as we have seen again and again, it isn't how much money a school system has so much as it's how they spend it.

I've seen plenty of school systems in a number of states with very high per student spending that have very poor performance. That shows that they're spending it unwisely. It's no different here in New Hampshire.

[Deepwaters]

This has been an interesting thread, and I have been following it from the start. However, I actually got a log-in so that I could express how stunned I am that Jeff's straight-forward logic and very simple examples have actually silenced the emotional knee-jerk responses that were populating this topic. - Well Done!!

[Skip]

This has been an interesting thread...Jeff's straight-forward logic and very simple examples have actually silenced the emotional knee-jerk responses that were populating this topic. - Well Done!!I agree wholeheartedly! :)

And just to once again show that no matter how many or how high your taxes are - it is never enough to satisfy the government...this timely article from the Herald referencing the financial plight of our good friends and neighbors just south of the Granite State border:

How much & which new tax do we need? (http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=1019694)

[Weirs guy]

I've seen plenty of school systems in a number of states with very high per student spending that have very poor performance. That shows that they're spending it unwisely. It's no different here in New Hampshire.See, they just need a better education! :laugh:

I posted hastily and worded my thoughts terribly, and at the risk of not getting too much off topic, my point was when we move our children from one school district to another the curriculum should be the same. Something as important as education shouldn't be left up to local funding (I understand that the parents choice dictates whether the child goes to a "good" school or a "bad" school, but isn't that punishing the child who has no choice?). Could Franklin spend wiser (the city has a new ladder/fire truck that has a boom bigger then any building north of Manchester and a brand new police station with lots of neat new things to lock up the little delinquents who don't stay in school, cause their educations sub standard...)? Absolutely. Should the children of those not wise enough to know better be punished? :confused:

I agree with you, it all comes back to spending tax dollars WISELY.

[Rose]

My husband and I were watching an episode of Chronicle (Boston edition) about the bridge situation in Mass (and it's similar elsewhere in the country). The secretary of transportation sited the rule of five...if you don't pay to maintain a bridge now, you'll pay five times as much to do it later. It's always driven me totally insane that keeping up the maintenance on a building, bridge, roadway, etc. never seems to added into the cost equation when it's being built, and maintenance seems to be one of the first things cut in the budget when there's a crunch.

[vrrooom]

There have been numerous research projects which have studied the relationship between spending per pupil and student performance. They all agree, spending more does not result in highter levels of student performance. Parental involvement is the best driver of student preformance acording to these studies. Look at Gilford, one of the highest levels of per pupil spending in the state and only average student performance. Leadership with dollars :D not, apparently follow the money leads to the administrators :confused: not to the students.

[jeffk]

I would expect 5% fluctuations to occur.

What happens when your neighbor's cottage gets torn down, the lot split in two, and two McMansions get built in the place of one residence?

This apparently hasn't happened to you, but it's quietly happening elsewhere.

Unforeseen, it would throw a monkey wrench into your carefully considered lakeside retirement plans, and only then one might see the unfairness built into in this system. Friends have told me of McMansions being torn down to be replaced with $4M McMansions (in another state).

You've suggested that you would sell your Winnipesaukee home if your retirement plans didn't work out. Would you be as satisfied retired in Arizona?

I'm hearing that it's a "dry" heat. :D

So my 2 neighbors rebuild their $1 million houses into McMansions worth, for example, $2.5 million. My property value, by virtue of being in such illustrious company, goes to $1.75 million. My wealth just increased by 3/4 of a million dollars off the sweat of my neighbor’s brow. That’s so unfair!

Now my property tax has also gone up so I face some choices.

If, as you propose, I’ve had my head in the lake for the last 30 years or more, then I would be totally unprepared for such an occurrence and would need to cash in my $1.75 million house and move off the lake and spend the rest of my life bereaving my loss. :( BTW, for anyone that doesn’t realize lake property escalates in value and that means your property taxes are going to go up; It will be winter soon. It’s going to get very cold. Buy yourself a warm coat, gloves, and a hat. :)

Maybe I’m not quite as obtuse as you think and the property tax increase is painful but manageable, if I watch my spending. However I really like to travel and eat at fine restaurants. If I keep the house and pay the additional property tax I’ll need to give some of that up. Huummmm????? OK, I’ve decided to sell and get my $1.75 million and salve my pain by vacationing in Italy, Canada, France, Lake Tahoe, Martha’s Vineyard, and other wonderful places. And OH, the food. Yummmm. I visit the lake from time to time, usually I rent for a month every summer, and sometimes have a sense of loss. But did I mention the food? And the Virgin Islands??

Maybe I decide, regrettably, to sell my non lake home, which I have always planned I might have to (see, I’m getting smarter all the time). This provides ample money to cover my property taxes for the foreseeable future and now I can upgrade the lake house a bit too. I really regret having to sell my other house. No wait; I wanted the lake house so I guess I’m happy. This is getting sooo confusing. :confused:

Or, maybe I didn’t plan my retirement on a razor’s edge and I can absorb the tax increase without significant pain. I get to have it all. I’m deliriously happy. :D Isn’t that how life is supposed to be? I have it right here, it’s a little golden form. One GUARANTEE to a 100% SATISFIED life, no planning or contribution required. No bumps in the road or chop on the lake. Just sit back and enjoy. What?? No one else got one of these guarantees?? THAT’S why I’m so confused.

By the way, you imply that I’m a hypocrite by stating that when it happens to me ONLY THEN will I realize the unfairness of the property tax system and change my views. I am not that shallow.

In life, stuff happens; some of it not very pleasant. Stuff is then called something else. Some of it has happened to me, as I am sure to most people. I didn’t ask for special treatment when it did because I had planned for up and downs. I picked myself, dusted myself off and got on with it.

I point out a very significant fact. Almost everyone that struggles with high property taxes does so because they have a valuable property. They are not destitute. They have a favorable financial situation. No one has a guarantee to a house, let alone a valuable lake property. Neither do they have a guarantee to a car, or nice clothes. Gas prices have doubled in the past 13 years. Shouldn't someone be buying us gas?

I’ve been to Arizona, very flat for the most part, kind of boring. My wife doesn’t like hot climates so I guess we won’t go there, thanks. But there are LOTS of New Hampshire towns that are nice to live in. If I sold the lake house I’d be able to afford a VERY nice place almost anywhere else. Guess I’ll stay here. Unless things change. Somehow they usually do. :coolsm:

[GWC...]

Gas prices have doubled in the past 13 years. Shouldn't someone be buying us gas?
I wish... (http://66.70.86.64/ch.gaschart?Country=Canada&Crude=t&Period=72&Areas=NewHampshire,,&Unit=US $/G):D :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[Pineedles]

jeffk,

Stuff happens and you seem to have a plan for any eventuality. I read through your post twice, just to be sure I understood your mindset. Problem is, that not everybody is willing to lose the lake house they have inherited and move, as well as some can't sell because of multiple owners. You sound like YOUR future is set. I wish mine and others were so concrete.

[Eki]

I have been trying to read this and stay quiet... but that is not possible...

I mentioned it in previous threads, and I'll say it again...

Those reports on NH tax burden are so [full of it].

We got fed up with NH taxes. we were payng $15000/year.
We moved to Scottsdale, AZ, have been here for a year, and our RE tax bill is $400/year for like valued property. Yes, thats $400 with 2 zero's.

I worked in MASS, actually still do, and so I paid an extra $180/yr in income tax to AZ... big whoop.

what's left?

sales tax ... wow, I would have to go on quite the spending spree, to make up $14000 in sales tax

The point I am trying to make is; if you own property of any significant value in NH ... you are taking it up the poop shute paying the NH taxes.

if you have a 6 digit income ... kewl for you... pay those taxes. But when you retire, I hope the market was good to you, because if your income falls from 6 digites to 4 digits - there goes your savings, right into the hands of the 30 or 40 people who actually show up to vote on how to spend it.

[Dickie B from HB]

Hooray for you Eki-

You made the point that I was making in my earlier posts. Property owners in NH are getting reamed.

If Jeff and all the others are so happy about paying exhorbitant RE taxes, then I say that they are welcome to them. But we both know that there are better solutions.

DB

[jeffk]

If Jeff and all the others are so happy about paying exhorbitant RE taxes, then I say that they are welcome to them. But we both know that there are better solutions.

DB

I wasn't going to respond to Eki because the information doesn't make sense and I didn't want to get into a messy debate. I want to make VERY CLEAR that I am not doubting EKi's tax bill. Instead I am pointing out that it is not in sync with publicly available information. Either the property is under assessed or we are comparing Arizona oranges to New Hampshire apples.

Here is a pointer to the Scottsdale, Arizona web site RE property taxes. http://www.scottsdaleaz.gov/taxes/realproptax.asp

Here is the pertinent info:
Residential: A home with an Assessor’s full cash value of $100,000 is multiplied by the assessment ratio to determine the assessed value. The residential assessment ratio is 10%, so the assessed value would be $10,000. Applying the current rate of $8.4766 per $100 of assessed value, the approximate tax would be $847.66 based on $8.4766 x ($10,000 / $100).

In summary, Scottsdale says it gets about $850 tax on a $100,000 house.

If Eki is only paying $400 then the property value must be less than $50,000 if a fair assessment was done. A property worth $50,000 would be taxed in the ball park of $340 in Moultonborough (2006 rate $6.71 per $1000). In Laconia the tax would be about $780 ($15.51 per $1000). This is hardly an exorbitant difference, and my town is actually a better deal. The NH median tax rate for 2006 is about $17.41 per $1000 for a tax of $870. The highest tax in NH would be $1950 in Newport which has a $38.93 per $1000 tax rate (OUCH). I wouldn't want to live in Newport. :(

In addition, Arizona's sales tax is about 8% and income tax goes from about 2.6% to 4.6% depending on what bracket you're in. I don't know about Arizona's dividend taxes, capital gains tax, and estate taxes, none of which apply in New Hampshire.

As to working in Massachusetts and paying their state income tax, I do as well. Mass doesn't allow an offset for NH property taxes even they are now collected at the state level. Why not? They have a good deal and don't want to give it up. They would probably be very unhappy to lose the income from all the NH residents if we did institute a state income tax. However, these are Mass taxes, not NH taxes. By working in Mass you get the worst of both worlds. However, I would venture to guess that most NH people do not work out of state and do not pay state income tax.

So, overall it seems that the more money you earn and the more you purchase the less benefit you get from Arizona's "better" property tax.

[Irish mist]

Good job jeffk exposing such nonesense. I too did no want to waste any time on such fiction......but the internet is a wonderful thing, and with the right tools it's easy these days to track down the "real" stats, and state your case.
________
Yamaha xv920 (http://www.cyclechaos.com/wiki/Yamaha_XV920)

[Pineedles]

Point is though, that there are good people that are losing their land. You may be rich and can accomodate the issue of increased taxes, but others feel helpless and want us to know that simple people are being forced off their land!:(

[Irish mist]

We all understand Pineedles that there are isues......but using "fiction" to get your point across is not the proper way to win people over to your side. There are vested interests that want and income tax, sales tax, or both, and they will use any means to push that agenda. NH is a low-tax state to live in for most of her residents.....that's a fact.

One answer to the property tax issue is for NH state government to set up more exemptions for the elderly like they do in Texas & Florida, and perhaps some kind of homested act for residents. What we should not do is change the whole tax strcture of the state.

This thread has been a case study in why I'm comfortable still using the property tax as the main source of income in NH. At least we can hold our local elected officals to account if we want to change things. Once Concord gets an income or sales tax we will never be able to control spending.
________
RELIANT (http://www.dodge-wiki.com/wiki/Plymouth_Reliant)

[GWC...]

Point is though, that there are good people that are losing their land. You may be rich and can accomodate the issue of increased taxes, but others feel helpless and want us to know that simple people are being forced off their land!:(
Point is:

Depends on what the definition of is, is...

You're a nice person; but if you spend the day in a bathing suit on Weirs Beach in January and the air temp is 20 below zero F, do not expect me to feel sorry for you should you experience frostbite.

Dress appropriately for the season's climate.

Property owners need to do likewise, financial climate-wise.

Plan your financial future or endure the consequences.

Is/was your pay the same as your parent's or grand parent's?

Did you pay the same as they did when you purchased a home?

Times change and expenses increase. Welcome to a capitalistic country.

People always seem to be happy when their income increases and unhappy when their expenses increase. Remember, your expenses are someone's income and your income is someone's expenses.

Life is choices and challenges...

[Ropetow]

There have been numerous research projects which have studied the relationship between spending per pupil and student performance. They all agree, spending more does not result in highter levels of student performance. Parental involvement is the best driver of student preformance acording to these studies. Look at Gilford, one of the highest levels of per pupil spending in the state and only average student performance. Leadership with dollars :D not, apparently follow the money leads to the administrators :confused: not to the students.

Not to sound pompous, but I have my Ph.D. in education administration and am a college professor of teacher education, have done extensive consulting and research and.....you are right...there is no proven link between spending and student achievement. Like any function, government or private sector, the key is spending money wisely. If spending-per-pupil equated acaemic achievement, then Boston and Washington, DC would have the highest-achieving students on the nation. That being said, states have implemented curriculum frameworks so that each fifth-grade student in a state would have the same curriculum. This cannot be done on a nation-wide basis....because the Constitution places the responsibility for education at the state level.

[jeffk]

So if we DID want to address the property tax issues by changing the tax structure would it be possible to:

Define a level of adequate education (AE) that is reasonable and wouldn’t grossly expand the current educational funding levels (<15% increase??)
Are not children already getting an adequate education in the state? I'm not really sure why more would need to be spent.

Constitutionally (to keep it away from constant meddling)
1. Create a state income tax for the sole purpose of funding an AE.
2. LOCK the rate at (for example) 4%, an amount that would fund the states obligation.
3. State that this level of funding shall constitute coverage of an AE (so that cost can’t be inflated by mucking with the definition of AE in the future) (this clause also gets the courts out of the debate)
4. Require that any excess revenue beyond that required for AE must be refunded to the taxpayer.
5. Eliminate the state property tax
6. Require that local property taxes be reduced by the amount that would now be provided by the state.
7. Cap future local property tax increases to 4% unless overridden by local supermajority votes.
8. Besides providing the funding and the guidelines for an adequate education the control of education shall remain in the hands of the local educational authorities

Would this be possible?
Would this address concerns about out of control educational and general spending and local control?
Has any state ever done something like this?
Would we want a complete shift to an income tax or some type of mix? Perhaps keep the current state property tax ($2 - $3 per $1000) and fund any new spending with an income tax at say 3%? I don’t like a sales tax because it is impossible to refund excess revenue.

[Pineedles]

You are correct when you said " NH is a low-tax state to live in for most of her residents". I don't think I am using fiction though to get my point across. Perhaps it is a more emotional appeal, than a call to totally overhaul the tax structure in NH. I guess the thing that makes me the maddest is that there is no ability for those folks that are contributing the larger share of taxes to be represented (for those living out of state). We consume the least amount of services, yet have no say in how the money is spent. I like JeffK's latest post as an alternative. But for what it is worth, I don't think that this small forum is going to have any effect on what is legislated in Concord.

[tis]

Jeff. You must not make income in NH or you wouldn't want an income tax. Do you honestly think ANY gov. could keep a tax at a certain percent ? No, it would eventually go up, even if the law had to be changed to do it. And so would the property tax. As others have said here, adding a NEW tax, never,ever, in the long run reduces another. And you said "any excess" beyond that needed for the AE should be returned to the taxpayer. Do you honestly believe there would ever be any returned to the taxpayer?


Don't tax you, don't tax me, tax that man behind the tree.

[Weirs guy]

Property taxes are great for this reason:

Does everyone in the state work in the state (or work at all?): No.
Does everyone in the state shop in the state: No.
Does everyone in the state live in the state: Yep.

While I sympathize with both the out of staters "taxation without representation" and older residents not being able to pay their property taxes, its still those individuals choices to live where they live. No mater what tax we have it will be unfair to someone, but at the end of the day life's not fair.

[Rag Top Daze]

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know of any state that allows non-residents to vote in town elections if they have a vacation home? Is NH so unusual in this area? Are we the only state where the vacation people complain about taxation without representation?

[Pineedles]

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know of any state that allows non-residents to vote in town elections if they have a vacation home? Is NH so unusual in this area? Are we the only state where the vacation people complain about taxation without representation?


Just a quick google search says the question of non-resident voting rights are being considered.

Delaware:

Nonresident property owners in Delaware’s resort towns are no longer eligible to vote by absentee ballot in municipal elections, although in the past they could cast absentee votes in Rehoboth Beach, Dewey Beach, Henlopen Acres, Bethany Beach and South Bethany. An election law, passed last year by the General Assembly, had no provision for nonresidents to vote by absentee ballot.
While no municipal elections have been affected by the law, elections are coming up this summer in the resort towns. Without amending last year’s revisions, nonresident property owners will not be eligible to vote, unless they go to the polls.

Rhode Island:

STATE HOUSE – Three State Senators from South County have announced their opposition to bills that have been approved, separately, by the Senate and the House of Representatives to ask voters in Westerly to allow owners of residential property in the community, even though they are not town or state residents, to vote on election referenda questions involving capital expenditures by the town.


I won't post other Countries, but they too are looking at voting rights. Afetr all the original rights to be able to vote included propert ownership.

[phoenix]

real comparison is what a home is worth and what the taxes are since each state and locality taxes at a different % of real value. We live in Phoenix and the taxes on a 400K home are about 2000-3000. In moultonboro taxes on a million house would be about 7000-8000 or so. In Laconia it might be twice that

[vrrooom]

One of the reasons we need to be villigant about taxes (state) in NH is that our system of state legislators who work little time and are hardly paid. Just imagine if there was a huge pool of money, from an income tax or sales tax avaialble in Concord. Lobbists would make appointments, dinners, schedule golf outings, journeys to Florida in the winter to see new design fire hydrants on the beach (I actually read of that one in the Plain Dealer) creating plenty to do, plenty to spend:rolleye2: . Well if the legislatari are so busy spending the states (not yours anymore) money, they need to be compensated. Soon they become full time, spending more and more, and are well paid (see the outrageous raises recently handed to staff if you want to get an idea of the compensation level the legislatari are seeking.) Money at the state level is sometimes described as honey which draws bees to help spend it. I have other visions of this.:D

[lakershaker]

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know of any state that allows non-residents to vote in town elections if they have a vacation home? Is NH so unusual in this area? Are we the only state where the vacation people complain about taxation without representation?

Connecticut allows non-resident land owners to vote budget related votes.

[Mr. V]

What is wrong with basing taxes on a person's ability to pay?

Some form of a "net worth" tax could be developed, to shift the burden to those who can most readily afford it, i.e. the rich.

The more you have, the more you pay: simple.

It has always seemed unfair to me that the wealthiest members of our society seem to pay a disproportionately lesser amount of taxes.

Lower and middle class folks really get clobbered with a sales and/or income tax, but the rich seem to have ways to help minimize the sting, e.g. trusts and sharp lawyers / lobbyists / loopholes.

Sure, let the wealthy benefit from their wealth, but as a matter of public policy, they should pay more for The Common Good than they are.

Then again, I suppose that a real property tax could be considered a form "net worth" tax, but I envision a tax based on a person's overal "net worth."

[Pineedles]

LAKERSHAKER

I had no idea that CT allowed this.. SO? It appears that even the conservative state of CT allows non-resident voters? Time to start a political action committee? After all, if there are so many of us with moderate means, then a small contribution could add up to a huge PAC! Who's interested? Stop bitchen if you want real change!:liplick:

[Lucky2Bhere]

A "net worth tax" would tax the same money every year. Hardly fair! A flat tax which has been proposed nationally would lower rates overall but eliminate all deductions.

[jrc]

...
Then again, I suppose that a real property tax could be considered a form "net worth" tax, but I envision a tax based on a person's overal "net worth."

NH effectively has a net worth tax. If you're rich where do you keep your money? Real estate, cash in a bank, or stocks and bonds. NH has property taxes (real estate), nh has a tax on interest (bank accounts and bonds) and dividends (stocks).

So unless you hide your money in a mattress, NH will tax it.

[Deepwaters]

It has always seemed unfair to me that the wealthiest members of our society seem to pay a disproportionately lesser amount of taxes.

Sure, let the wealthy benefit from their wealth, but as a matter of public policy, they should pay more for The Common Good than they are.

You seem to feel that you pay an unfair share of taxes and that "wealthly" people should pay more. News flash - If you own a valuable piece of property on the lake then congrats, you are wealthly! Perhaps you should start paying more to help out others that don't have such a valuable assets.

The fact is you are Wealthy, its just that you are Land Rich! and for some reason you don't feel that you should pay taxes like other rich folk. Its OK to soak the other rich guys but you are different because your house appreciated quickly or maybe someone left you the house and it has personal value to you.

Obviously, no tax situation will work for everyone, but the vast majority of the voting residents like soaking the people from MA. and the only way to do it is through property tax. They don't care about you. - in fact they think "that wealthly people like you should pay more for the common good".

Its all about your prespective - everyone has a good reason why they should get what's best for them and why someone else should pay. you need to look at how others look at you. - they see a $1M house and don't understand your problem. Bottom line is this is America, we were founded on the principle that that the majority rules and things are not always fair. Most people in NH aren't willing to pay more so a guy with an expensive house can stay in it. Its sad in a way but its part of what makes us American. If this was the old USSR we would pay no taxes and we would all get the same crappy house - then everything would be fair.

[jeffk]

NH effectively has a net worth tax. If you're rich where do you keep your money? Real estate, cash in a bank, or stocks and bonds. NH has property taxes (real estate), nh has a tax on interest (bank accounts and bonds) and dividends (stocks).

So unless you hide your money in a mattress, NH will tax it.

I can buy stock or mutual funds that pay no dividends and reap capitol gains when I sell and NH takes nothing from me.

With the generous deduction provided I can have assets of around $100,000 before I generate enough interest and dividends to have to pay the 5% tax. Another way to look at it is I can make $5000 interest and dividends without paying tax.

[idigtractors]

Quote:
It has always seemed unfair to me that the wealthiest members of our society seem to pay a disproportionately lesser amount of taxes.

Sure, let the wealthy benefit from their wealth, but as a matter of public policy, they should pay more for The Common Good than they are.

I really would appreciate that you wouldn't say the above statement as I might just be one of those people someday. Who knows I just might hit the big one. :)

[Lucky2Bhere]

Any investment whether it is business, stock, or property pays tax in this country if it makes a profit. If your stock took off and you had a huge capital gain you'd sell it and not complain. If your business is busting at the seams you'd pay a business profits tax and not complain. If your home appreciates it may be a tough decision but you either sell or stay and pay.

Personally, I'd rather be concerned about the trillion dollars we're spending in Iraq than than the comparatively small community expenses in the lakes region that effect tax rates. I'm thankfull that I moved to NH from MA tax wise and my friends in NY, NJ, and PA agree.

[ITD]

Quote:
.........The Common Good ........




Whenever you hear this statement put your hand on your wallet because money is about to be extracted. I'm appalled at the number of people who want more taxes, either in other forms (income) or on other people ( the "rich"). The problem is how the money is being spent people, trying to solve a too high tax problem with more taxes is like trying to put out a fire with gasoline. It won't work.

[Irish mist]

Lol, stop making sense ITD:) It seems you can explain, and prove time & time again that the problem is SPENDING......but people just don't want to hear it. Which is why we are in the situation we are in.
________
Mazda R360 History (http://www.ford-wiki.com/wiki/Mazda_R360)

[jeffk]

What is wrong with basing taxes on a person's ability to pay?
...
It has always seemed unfair to me that the wealthiest members of our society seem to pay a disproportionately lesser amount of taxes.
...
Sure, let the wealthy benefit from their wealth, but as a matter of public policy, they should pay more for The Common Good than they are.
...


I won't say that some smarmy, well off people find some loopholes to exploit but in general the "rich" pay much more than their fair share in supporting the public agenda.

This link http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html shows the US income taxes paid by percent of the total payees. For tax year 2004, about 130 million individual returns were filled. The top 1% of filers, about 1.3 M, paid about 37% of the total tax from individuals at a tax rate of 23.5%. The top 10%, 13 M payees, paid 68% of all individual tax, at a avg. 18.6% rate. The lowest 50% of earners, 65 M payees, paid 3.3% of all individual taxes at an avg rate of about 3%. Since 1980 the Amount of taxes paid by the top 1% of highest earners has gone from 19% to 37% of the total paid while the lowest 50% of earners has dropped from 7% of the total in 1980 to 3.3% in 2004.

In short, the highest earners shoulder the vast majority of the individual income tax burden and have have significantly increased the portion of the total that they pay since 1980!

In New Hampshire the more valuable the property (wealth) the higher the property tax.

A high earner living in NH and working in MA would be paying 23.5% fed income, 6% state, 6% Social Security, plus say 5% in property taxes for a total of 40.5%. Isn't this enough? How much more "common good" must be supported before it is "fair"?

People can always find something "good" to spend money on when it isn't their money. Wouldn't it be great to walk into a car dealership looking for a mid grade car and in walks a rich person and you turn to the dealer and say "Give me the upscale model and charge the extra to the rich guy". Why is it "good" or "fair" for government to do this? Everyone seems to want Cadillac education for the Chevy price and to "Send the bill to the rich guy".

[SIKSUKR]

Quote:
It has always seemed unfair to me that the wealthiest members of our society seem to pay a disproportionately lesser amount of taxes.

[FONT="Arial Narrow"][I][COLOR="Red"]]
This is the biggest Democratic calling card MYTH there is.In fact,it is just the opposite.Check your facts people before continuing the democratic cry of "poor me".
Oh I forgot FLL,Judd Gregg doesn't pay any taxes.

[AC2717]

This is the biggest Democratic calling card MYTH there is. In fact, it is just the opposite. Check your facts people before continuing the democratic cry of "poor me".
Oh I forgot FLL, Judd Gregg doesn't pay any taxes.
just because some are lucky work hard or inherit money does not mean they should paid more than you and mine. if I bust my butt and you do not, does not mean I should pay more than you. I hate this reasoning. I do not have money by any means and still feel this way. It should be equal for all. unfortunately it will never happen that way when those that are super rich have the control and those that are too lazy to do anything, get hand outs. Now take this the right way I said those that are lazy, NOT those that have no control because they are handicapped or physically unable to work We stuck in the middle get the short end because we have no control.

[GWC...]

Since 1980 the Amount of taxes paid by the top 1% of highest earners has gone from 19% to 37% of the total paid while the lowest 50% of earners has dropped from 7% of the total in 1980 to 3.3% in 2004.

In short, the highest earners shoulder the vast majority of the individual income tax burden and have have significantly increased the portion of the total that they pay since 1980!
Perhaps you forget why President Ronald Reagan played so much golf and what he did about it when President.

Not to worry, the Clintons made your thesis possible and true.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/UserFiles/Image/Tax-Freedom-Day/2007/figure3small.jpg

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/52.html

[Ropetow]

Whenever someone from MA says that taxes need to be higher, ask them if they voluntarily pay a higher rate on their state income tax. Some year back when a citizen's initiative petition reduced the state income tax rate from 5.85% to 5.3% (I think those are the correct percentages...if not they are close), taxpayers were given the option on their state income tax return to pay the old, higher, rate. Now, with the predictions of doom from all the Payroll Patriots, you'd think that tens-of-thousands of MA residents would be paying the higher rate. Yet, the number who actually do is annually in the hundreds. The liberal mantra regarding taxes, property and other: Do as I say, not as I do.

[Weirs guy]

Here's an idea for those that believe its unfair to burden people with higher property taxes on homes that have been handed down for generations.

Lets say that when mom and dad leave you the lake house, you assume the property at its currently assessed value ($100,000 for the sake of argument). That assessed value remains unchanged for the entire time you own that property, thus eliminating any major escalations in property tax that you may or may not be able to afford. Then when you either sell the home or hand it down again, you "sell" the house for its current market value ($1M for arguments sake again), you pocked your original investment ($100,000) and the remainder goes to the state to make up for past tax bills.

Sound fair now?

[ossipeeboater]

Here's an idea for those that believe its unfair to burden people with higher property taxes on homes that have been handed down for generations.

Lets say that when mom and dad leave you the lake house, you assume the property at its currently assessed value ($100,000 for the sake of argument). That assessed value remains unchanged for the entire time you own that property, thus eliminating any major escalations in property tax that you may or may not be able to afford. Then when you either sell the home or hand it down again, you "sell" the house for its current market value ($1M for arguments sake again), you pocked your original investment ($100,000) and the remainder goes to the state to make up for past tax bills.

Sound fair now?


Wouldn't that be a great idea, would give people something to think about since they always want the best of both world, low taxes while there alive and the value of the property when they die.

[Rattlesnake Guy]

Jeffk,
A big sincere thank you for your post. Well said.

[Mr. V]

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

A bit hoary, a bit Marxist, but still worth thinking about.

[SIKSUKR]

just because some are lucky work hard or inherit money does not mean they should paid more than you and mine. if I bust my butt and you do not, does not mean I should pay more than you. I hate this reasoning. I do not have money by any means and still feel this way. It should be equal for all. unfortunately it will never happen that way when those that are super rich have the control and those that are too lazy to do anything, get hand outs. Now take this the right way I said those that are lazy, NOT those that have no control because they are handicapped or physically unable to work We stuck in the middle get the short end because we have no control.
What does this have to do with my post.I was pointing out that the Dems cry of the "richest pay the least taxes" is absolutely false.Read JeffK's post before mine.

[Rattlesnake Guy]

(Snip). Since 1980 the Amount of taxes paid by the top 1% of highest earners has gone from 19% to 37% of the total paid while the lowest 50% of earners has dropped from 7% of the total in 1980 to 3.3% in 2004. (Snip)



Jeffk,
I sometimes get the crazy thought that if the top 50% raised their tax burden by 3.3% and told the bottom 50% they don't have to pay a cent, if the reality of the current situation would have a chance of sinking in.

[tis]

Some people believe everything they hear. "The rich don't pay their fair share." How many times have you heard that?

[jeffk]

Jeffk,
I sometimes get the crazy thought that if the top 50% raised their tax burden by 3.3% and told the bottom 50% they don't have to pay a cent, if the reality of the current situation would have a chance of sinking in.

There are people who know exactly how the system works and don’t care because pontificating on how the “rich pay no taxes” is how they get elected. It’s a power game. They want power and this is how they get it. Since there are more mid to low earners than high earners they can build a winning vote this way. They create the impression that an inequity exists and they are going to “fix” the problem. People who are struggling to make ends meet see the inequity as cruelly unfair and strongly support such a person, even though the basis for that support is untrue.

Other people are socialists in their world view and believe that everyone should be afforded equal financial positions and look at the tax system as a way to “fairly” redistribute equal income to all. The person making a 6 figure salary has no right to it in the first place and so we will tax it right out of him.

It seems to me I read somewhere that the founders of this country did not want too strong of a money generating capability for the central government because the temptation to use money to buy favor with the voters would prove too sore a temptation for most. How tempting to turn to the “common man” and say “Look here. I’ll provide this benefit for you and it will cost you nothing. I will take the funds from the wealthy. Simply vote for me and I will provide this for you.” Since the Income Tax was established in 1913, only because the “common man” thought it was to be only a “rich man’s” tax :laugh: , this is exactly what has happened. The only problem is that the “common man” has been taken along for the rich man’s tax ride because all the rich man’s money in the country is not enough to satiate the longing for money and power in the federal government.

[tis]

jeff. Are you running for president? I want to vote for you!

[tis]

At first I thought this was funny...then I realized the awful truth of it.
Be sure to read all the way to the end!

Tax his land,
Tax his bed,
Tax the table
At which he's fed.

Tax his tractor,
Tax his mule,
Teach him taxes
Are the rule.

Tax his cow,
Tax his goat,
Tax his pants,
Tax his coat.

Tax his ties,
Tax his shirt,
Tax his work,
Tax his dirt.

Tax his tobacco,
Tax his drink,
Tax him if he
Tries to think.

Tax his cigars,
Tax his beers,
If he cries, then
Tax his tears.

Tax his car,
Tax his gas,
Find other ways
To tax his a..

Tax all he has
Then let him know
That you won't be done
Till he has no dough.

When he screams and hollers,
Then tax him some more,
Tax him till
He 's good and sore.

Then tax his coffin ,
Tax his grave,
Tax the sod in
Which he's laid.

Put these words
upon his tomb,
" Taxes drove me to my doom..."

When he's gone,
Do not relax,
Its time to apply
The inheritance tax.

Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Excise Taxes
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax

Flush Tax (in MD.)
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax (42 cents per gallon)
Gross Receipts Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marr iage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Personal Property Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service Charge Tax
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Tax
Sales Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax

STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY?
Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago,
and our nation was the most prosperous in the world.
We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.

What the hell happened? Can you spell "politicians!"

And I still have to "press 1" for English.

I hope this goes around THE USA at least 100 time

(For those of you who may not have seen this before!)

[wifi]

"...And I still have to "press 1" for English...."


Be glad its still "1"


-Rich

[vrrooom]

Not at the Miami Airport, where all announcments are first made in the Majority Language then English.

We should not allow any other language or signs or whatever in anything but english. My grandparents were immigrants, who spoke no english when they came to he US in the late 1800's, they learned english and forced their 8 children to do the same. English was produly spoken at home by the old folks for their entire lives. So why have we incurred the costs of Bi Lingual everything here, you won't see that in Europe by the by.:emb:

[Little Bear]

Sometimes politicians, journalists and others exclaim; "It's just a tax cut for the rich!" and it is just accepted to be fact, without questioning it. But what does that really mean?

Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100.

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go
something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1...
The sixth would pay $3...
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until on day, the owner threw them a curve.

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20." Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," (5% discount) declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10 out of the $20" (50% discount)

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.

In fact, they might start drinking overseas. :cheers:

Nicely put, Professor!

[Rattlesnake Guy]

Heard a statistic yesterday that the cost per person for health care in north east is $6400. This is with it being controlled by private industry in a competitive environment. Lets say 300 million Americans go onto the Government system being proposed, that is almost 2 trillion dollars per year. I am trying to imagine a 2 trillion dollar Washington program that is anything like the VA system they run now. Please don't save us money we can't afford in many ways.

[Weirs guy]

Not at the Miami Airport, where all announcments are first made in the Majority Language then English.

We should not allow any other language or signs or whatever in anything but english. My grandparents were immigrants, who spoke no english when they came to he US in the late 1800's, they learned english and forced their 8 children to do the same. English was produly spoken at home by the old folks for their entire lives. So why have we incurred the costs of Bi Lingual everything here, you won't see that in Europe by the by.:emb:

While I agree wholeheartedly with you, I look at it this way. As long as rich white men are in charge then English will be our language. As long as my kids speak-a-da-english and more and more of other peoples kids speak Spanish, or ebonics, or whatever, the rich white men in charge will hire my kids to work for them!

[ITD]

Sometimes politicians, journalists and others exclaim; "It's just a tax cut for the rich!" and it is just accepted to be fact, without questioning it. But what does that really mean?

Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100.

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go
something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1...
The sixth would pay $3...
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until on day, the owner threw them a curve.

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20." Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," (5% discount) declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10 out of the $20" (50% discount)

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.

In fact, they might start drinking overseas. :cheers:

Nicely put, Professor!

Great example, the only problem I have with it is it doesn't take in account the "Earned Income Credit" which gives money to the first four people that they never paid in, it's welfare and vote buying. Figure that one out.

Also I can't agree with the premise of the statement "The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction.".
Sure they get a bigger amount returned to them, but they pay in a much larger amount to begin with. This attempt to redistribute wealth is why many high income people never become "rich". Not complaining here, but it really erks me to hear these liberal whiners cry class warfare when many of them have never had a real job in their whole life.

[fatlazyless]

It's anyone's guess but it's my hunch that the falling home selling prices will not translate into falling assessed values and lower property taxes.

In the past three years Meredith has built a new large police station and community center. In the past three years my property taxes have gone from 2800 to 8200 dollars.


At least I have something big to show for my increased taxes, indirectly or something! It's better for the community to benefit than for the individual! ...say what?

[ITD]

It's anyone's guess but it's my hunch that the falling home selling prices will not translate into falling assessed values and lower property taxes.

In the past three years Meredith has built a new large police station and community center. In the past three years my property taxes have gone from 2800 to 8200 dollars.


At least I have something big to show for my increased taxes, indirectly or something! It's better for the community to benefit than for the individual! ...say what?
Nope, your taxes won't go down Less, the assessment may go down but the rate will go up to compensate, just as when everyones assessment goes up the rate goes down to keep the levy the same. The problem isn't property values rising or falling, it's the spending.

[Irish mist]

The spending will never stop......the special interests have found a home in the school systems & municipal offices in the towns & villages all over the region. We have 50 million dollar schools going up, new police stations, new fire stations.....new this & that & everything.

Back in the day......folks in this region knew how to milk a buck.....now it's a free-for-all ! The political "Left" has figured out how to position themselves in money generating areas of our small towns & cities and gather enough votes to create small kingdoms where they drain the taxpayers to fund pensions & benefits that would make even the best paid managers in the private sector green with envy !
________
SUZUKI BOULEVARD C109R HISTORY (http://www.suzuki-tech.com/wiki/Suzuki_Boulevard_C109R)

[Rattlesnake Guy]

Question:
I keep getting conflicting answers to this question. I am hoping for a decisive answer here.

These are fictitious numbers for my example.

If Mass has an 8 percent income tax and NH has a 6 percent income tax, which of these is true if I work in Mass and live in NH.

A) Mass gets 8% and NH gets 0%
B) NH Gets 6% and Mass gets 2%
C) Other

Thanks

[fatlazyless]

Neighboring state tax reciprocity, as exists between some states, does not exist between New Hampshire and Massachusetts since New Hampshire has no state income tax so this is a mute issue. If New Hampshire ever gives itself a state income tax, the reciprocity agreement would be an issue as the two states both want to do what best for themselves.

Massachusetts residents are already supporting the local NH mountain and waterfront towns with their property taxes on expensive vacation homes, and there's probably not too many Mass residents working in NH so for Massachusetts a reciprocity agreement would be a money loser. Why would Mass ever agree to that?

If the 'Old Man' can fall down and get smashed into pebbles, then ditto on long-time New Hampshire tax policy! Ax the view tax!

[Windrider]

Fatlazyless, it's also a moot issue.

[MJM]

Sure, let the wealthy benefit from their wealth, but as a matter of public policy, they should pay more for The Common Good than they are.Socialism is an ugly beast. Redistribution of wealth by Government is not how this country works.

I have two brothers. One worked all through high school, paid his way through college, studied so hard he got a scholarship to graduate school, now works very hard and earns an excellent living. The other drank beer all through high school, never went to college, doesn't work hard at his low-paying job, and makes just enough to party and go to concerts.

Shouldn't they both pay the same PERCENTAGE of their income in taxes? Why should the first brother get to keep a smaller PORTION of his hard-earned money?

[JayDV]

I believe that None of the above is correct. The employee will fill out W-9 or the equivalent, to identify the withholding rate for each state. At the tax filing time all numbers will true up.

The math would be:

Employer state collects tax and resident state collects tax. However, if there is a reciprocity between the states then the resident state would allow a credit for tax "X" paid to other "non-res" state(s) for "Y" dollars of income.

In the event of non-reciprocity (I'm not positive here) I think you would allocate earnings by state so therefore, employer state would have earnings and the tax would be collected and subsequently reported via non-resident calculation. Resident state would have no income allocated and therefore no tax liability.

[ApS]

"...Redistribution of wealth by Government is not how this country works..."
Just stumbled upon this quote this morning...

"There is no force in the physical universe as simultaneously unstoppable and destructive as the implacable need people have to feel better about themselves at the expense of others."

[jrc]

"There is no force in the physical universe as simultaneously unstoppable and destructive as the implacable need people have to feel better about themselves at the expense of others."

Maybe I live in a different world than you, but the very few people I've met with this "implacable need" were idiots and universally shunned. The people I know tend to believe a "rising tide raises all ships"

[MJM]

"There is no force in the physical universe as simultaneously unstoppable and destructive as the implacable need people have to feel better about themselves at the expense of others."How sad. I know there are people who feel that way, but I sure hope it's a small minority. I feel sorry for anyone who lives their life that way.

[B&D]

Today's federal funding = federal mandates, which = 21 school days of testing per year,....time spent the kids are not receiving an education. Want more of that for your kids?
Alton has decreed that they are operating on the basis of evaluating your property based on when it was at it's highest, vice it's advertised "Present Value"(which is today's value, not yesterday or tomorrow, which requires the tax folks to stay current on values), then added a surtax for water front property. Guess it's time to roll back the taxes on a state wide basis (like Prop 13), and force the local admin types to stay within a budget (like the rest of us). If you want your kids educated better then what is locally avaluable you have a couple of clear choices - move somewhere else, or work with the school.