Moultonboro State Rep Betsey Patten [Archive]

wifi

11-01-2007, 07:10 AM

Like has been mentioned before, its the government spending that needs to be checked. We don't need all these new buildings, apparatus, etc. Moultonboro spent $30,000 for an air conditioned dog cage to go in the back of a police car, for the police dog .... duh !!

Betsy is also a selectman in Moultonboro. There is no slowdown in spending in that town, and as they take bonds out for this and that (new community hall is what is coming up next), I am beginning to wonder if people realize that it takes a decade or more to pay bonds off.

So, if the CSPA kills the value of the smaller lakefront properties and non resident owners start dumping them on the market, and/or there is a downturn in the economy after the election next year and/or for some reason the Lakes Region has a problem like Groveton (large employers leaving), who is going to be left holding the bag in paying these bonds off? Why is there no thought for the future?

I hope I am left with a house and job, but each year, as the taxes climb up and up to buy things for the town, that are not essential/life giving and will take years to pay off, I really wonder.

Here is a direct link to the article mentioned:
http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071101/NEWS01/711010361&SearchID=73298129752063

TomC

11-01-2007, 07:25 AM

if you don't like the spending and Vote...them...out...

wifi

11-01-2007, 07:37 AM

I do try to vote them out. I am hoping other voters read my text, so maybe we can get together and vote in conservative spenders.

KonaChick

11-01-2007, 08:44 AM

if you don't like the spending and Vote...them...out...

As I understand it, lakefront property owners who do not live there full time have no voting privileges. I think if that ever changes you'd see a dramatic change in spending because ridiculous things like $30,000 air conditioned dog cages would be voted down.

TomC

11-01-2007, 10:17 AM

As I understand it, lakefront property owners who do not live there full time have no voting privileges. I think if that ever changes you'd see a dramatic change in spending because ridiculous things like $30,000 air conditioned dog cages would be voted down.

...but i would think that permanent residents would also object to a $30K airconditioned dog cage. I don't see a correlation between the seasonal residents and common sense that your message implies??? Some of the permanent residents of these lakefront towns are struggling to get by - why in the world would they approve this expenditure?

In my neighborhood there are plenty of lakefront residents that have changed to year-round living so they can vote. They also bring with them the "flat-lander politics" that others were objecting to in another thread. That's the law of unintended consequences at work... if the towns continue to hose the non-resident tax payer, then many of them may very well change their living/residence status and begin imposing the rest of their politics while they are voting on budgets...

ps ..in CT property owners (who pay taxes) can vote on the town budget. Doesn't that make sense?

Redwing

11-01-2007, 10:51 AM

Fat, dumb and happy.....three simple words that describe the Moultonboro political (spending) mentality. Betsy Patten has been at it for years, and it is time for new (reasonable & responsible) blood in the fabric of those who are in positions of political power. Enough is enough!

KonaChick

11-01-2007, 10:55 AM

Go look at what the town of Moultonboro has spent and what they've spent it on in the last 5 or 6 years...it appears the permanent residents who have voting powers don't object to the spending.

eyenotall777

11-01-2007, 11:12 AM

Please keep in mind that there is a difference...That not all lakefront owners are seasonal, but are there at least 48x through out a whole year, whether it be during the week or weekends and pay the same amount of taxes as primary residents and most, if not all do not send their children to the public schools. NH is a mostly a recreational state and the NH government is changing that. Point I am saying-Here full time and still cannot vote because do not use as primary.

KonaChick

11-01-2007, 01:55 PM

eyenotall777

11-01-2007, 04:08 PM

I am referencing TomC's headline "i understand seasonal residents can't vote (in NH)" in regards to your statement. You state your understanding as "lakefront property owners who do not live there full time have no voting privileges".

All I am saying is that I am not "seasonal". I am there at least 48 weeks (I would consider that "full time", some may not) out of 52 weeks a year, pay the same taxes, do not send children to schools and do NOT have the right to vote.

Some think that if peeps are not there full time (7 days/week ?) that we are considered "seasonal". I do not deny that there are "seasonals", but to me, I am at my place as least 3 nights straight every week out of a year...I do not consider that "seasonal" but some may and I do not have a right to vote.

KonaChick

11-01-2007, 05:46 PM

fatlazyless

11-01-2007, 07:34 PM

People used to roll their eyes and yawn when I told them what I paid in prop taxes, dismissing it and saying; 'oh, that's Winnipesaukee waterfront.' As long as the tax bill was low, the property tax system was a relatively happy system.

Now, that the view component gets factored into the bill in places like Orford, Colebrook, and Hopkinton, it is felt by a new group; some very long time NH residents, and they are not at all happy about it. The year end tax bills will be here soon enough, and no one seems to be addressing the view tax issue. Not the governor, not the state reps, and not the state senators......nobody has much of anything to say at all......yet it is a big problem for many long-time residents.

The politicians, Democratic and Republican just seem to shrug it off as the way it always been done, so you just be quiet and pay your prop taxes. They like to repeat "It's all about local control and don't forget the NH Advantage!" I say: What Advantage?

LIforrelaxin

11-01-2007, 09:50 PM

I'm curious as to why you don't consider this your permanent residence if you're here 48 weeks out of the year as you stated?? I would assume that the other 4 weeks you're at another residence?? Why would you claim the place you're at for 4 weeks out of the year to be your permanent residence? What am i missing?

It is not about weeks..... it is about days.... If eyenotall is only at his winnipesaukee home 3 nights a week that is 3 x 52 or 156 days.... now most states draw the residency line at being in thier state for 180 days which clearly eyenotall meets in his home state..... then add in that his work is in the other state, and his kids go to school in the other state....

fatlazyless

12-06-2007, 09:02 PM

Tax assessments hearings end with more criticism
Thursday, December 6, 2007

Lincoln N.H. (AP) - Hearings around New Hampshire on the way property values are determined ended the way they began, with questions about how views should be considered and a call for the chairman of a state board to resign.

The Assessing Standards Board held the last of the series of hearings in Lincoln on Tuesday. About two dozen people turned out, including residents who attended the first meeting in Colebrook a month ago.

At that meeting, Stewartstown resident Rick Samson asked board chair Betsey Patten to step down. He asked again Tuesday night.

Samson: "Will you resign?"

Patten: "I will discuss your question with the board when we sit on Dec.13."

Samson: "I asked you for your answer."

Patten: "You are not going to get one."

Others said they were frustrated not to have received answers to questions they asked at earlier forums. Patten has said the questions would be discussed at the Dec. 13 meeting, and those who asked them would be contacted with responses.

Many questions delt with what critics are calling a "view tax." They say assessmens have risen unfairly on property with views.

Tom Thomson of Orford, a tax critic and member of the board questioned Revenue Commissioner Phil Blatsos, saying he didn't believe the board or Blatsos had been serving taxpayers.

Thomson said there is no definition of a view in assessing manuals.

"It is the wow factor or the you-know-it-when-you-see-it," he said, adding that he has had several conversations with Blatsos about clarifying the view issue in the draft of an assessing reference manual the board has been developing for nearly two years.

"We are still no closer than we were a year ago," Thomson said. "You told me commissioner, we were going to do that and we have not done that. If this state was going to value views, we need a clear and concise definition.

"(The public) is crying for answers," he said.
............................................

My opinion here: This hopefully is an issue which will not go away and will get bigger and bigger as we get closer to the November 2008 election.

If you feel the same, then lets vote Moultonboro State Rep Betsey Patten a new title as a FORMER State Rep.

Now that some long time NH residents who have views are getting hit with some big property tax bills, it is not just waterfronters like myself who are feeling the pain. It is absolutely not a good feeling to watch your property tax bill grow and grow every year until you seriously wonder how you will be able to afford your home. When it's a house that's been in your family for generations, pelple start to think,,,,ugh...no...what exactly is happening here, and it is not a happy place to be.

Weirs guy

12-07-2007, 12:31 PM

Just imagine how tough it will be for the 300+ employees of Wasau Paper in Groveton, when it closes on Dec 31, after a 103 year history. Will their property tax bills get reduced? I don't think so, at least not right away.

OK Less, I'll bite. If we did a way with the property tax and changed to a sales tax, would you offer these employees a special card they could use when making purchases that lowered or eliminated the tax just for them? What if we have an income tax, since they would make no income then it would fall to us to make up the difference, would it not? Which tax advantage would you prefer?

At the end of the day one of 2 things will happen:

1. Someones going to pay for the $30K doggie limo UNLESS:
2. Someones going to stop someone from buying the doggie limo.

I vote for the stopping someone option.

But wait, I'm a family man, full time job, 2 kids and a house. I haven't got time to sift through all the local spending plans, attend the meetings, ect. So here we are, with the doggie limo (and my kids schools new gate that we won't get into!) and no way out.

I'm open to suggestions for a new plan.

Sal

12-07-2007, 02:10 PM

If property has a loverlee view, doesn't that feature increase the selling price? If the selling price is higher due to the lah-de dah view, doesn't the valuation track the selling price? So now some want to increase the valuation further, because of the wonderful view??

Someone on the "tax the view" side please explain this aspect to me. (I won't bother to ask what criteria might be used to separate a good view from a so-so view from a very nice view ... just assume a loverlee, lah-de dah wonderful view in your response)

Thank you in advance.

Skip

12-07-2007, 03:24 PM

...If property has a loverlee view, doesn't that feature increase the selling price? If the selling price is higher due to the lah-de dah view, doesn't the valuation track the selling price? So now some want to increase the valuation further, because of the wonderful view??...

No, that is not the case here.

The location of the property factors into the overall valuation of the property. A one acre spread in community x that is located on a hilltop with a view of a nearby mountain range or body of water will command more value on the open market then the same one acre property located intown with no comparable view. Your property tax is based on fair market value. The key factor in real estate being "location, location, location".

There is no "separate" view tax, that is a misnomer coined by those who for years were not being assessed fair market value for their properties where location greatly enhanced that property's assessed value.

What occurred to stir the controversy is when the State stepped in and forced all communities to begin assessing properties on a fair and even scale. Many smaller communities in the northern & western portion of the State had not revalued properties in decades, or were using outdated or incorrect statistical data or comparable methods.

The bottom line is quite simple. You are assessed a certain value for your property. If you feel that value is incorrect you can ask for an adjustment through the abatement process. If you just don't want to pay your fair share when your property is assessed at its fair market value you coin a cute but incorrect phrase like "ax the view tax". But in the end you either pay your taxes, sell or allow the government to foreclose on your property.

Most people in New Hampshire pay their taxes and as the last election and survey after survey after survey continue to show, they continue to believe that the property tax system in New Hampshire remains a superior collection method vice the income or sales tax alternative.

And those that don't like the fact that they are now being asked to pay their fair share complain.

fatlazyless

12-08-2007, 04:20 AM

Achieving state wide equalization for assessing property values is not easy to accomplish. Before the state established a state-wide school tax as part of every property tax bill, the assessing standards were totally designated at the local municipal level.

If an individual town's tax collector wanted to assess two very IDENTICAL properties, for example, property A at $100,000, and property B at $200,000, based on the reason that property A was owned by a local family who lived and worked locally, while property B was a second home owned by someone who lived and worked in the Boston area, the tax collector could do this.

I can remember a 2001(or so) quote in the local newspaper from the town of Ashland's tax collector that she had to do this, and that it would not be right to assess the two properties the same. Basically, the tax collector said that the person working in Boston had a much higher income and should be assessed higher. This is how we do things in our town, otherwise it would not be fair to the local family to hit them with a great big property tax bill. How could they afford it?

Here's a 2001 link to the NH Supreme Court decision, Evelyn Sirrell verses State of NH, which started the process of state wide equalization in assessing property.

http://www.nh.gov/judiciary/supreme/opinions/2001/sirre087.htm

Evelyn Sirrell was the Mayor of Portsmouth, 1998-2006, ... thankyou very much Evelyn !!! ....and good luck trying to read through this legal case.

Now, we have a State Board of Assessing Standards which regulates and controls all the individual town's practice of local assessing. Things used to be all about local control, and I think a lot of the assessing was done with a wink and a grin. Now, with the combination of state controlled assessing standards and the big run-up in home values, a lot of local residents have seen their tax bills go way up and are feeling a lot of financial pain.

It's all about the money, low taxes are good and high taxes are no good. So, now it is not too good for a new and growing number of local people all across New Hampshire.

SAMIAM

12-08-2007, 06:32 AM

I wonder which government agency Skip works for......where have I heard "your fair share before" If he likes taxes so much,please feel free to send in a little more.
Also FLL...you've got me in tears....it's not fair that you are suffering...poverty is so cruel...where can I send you a check?

ITD

12-08-2007, 09:17 AM

I don't want to speak for Skip, he is more than capable of speaking for himself, but I take his comment "now being asked to pay their fair share complain" as being directed at people who for years have for been paying too little tax on their property because of a valuation that was too low one reason or another. Most of these people knew they were getting a deal/ beating the system so they kept quiet accepting the benefits of increased spending. Now that their valuation is where it should be they cry like stuck pigs, I wish they had been so vocal while the spending was happening, but I guess they thought they might have been found out sooner.

jeffk

12-08-2007, 10:34 AM

If an individual town's tax collector wanted to assess two very IDENTICAL properties, for example, property A at $100,000, and property B at $200,000, based on the reason that property A was owned by a local family who lived and worked locally, while property B was a second home owned by someone who lived and worked in the Boston area, the tax collector could do this.

I can remember a 2001(or so) quote in the local newspaper from the town of Ashland's tax collector that she had to do this, and that it would not be right to assess the two properties the same. Basically, the tax collector said that the person working in Boston had a much higher income and should be assessed higher. This is how we do things in our town, otherwise it would not be fair to the local family to hit them with a great big property tax bill. How could they afford it?

So this is to say that "locals" have and should get special treatment? When they go to the grocer they should get 1/2 priced food and everyone else should pay a premium "because they can afford it"? Same with heating, clothes, hardware, ...? Are these locals "welfare queens" in Yankee drag?

This was blatant favoritism by the local assessors. How do they know who can afford what? Their decision was based on "I know these people. They are my friends. I am going to give them special favors." How many non locals were forced to sell their land because the property taxes were unfairly shifted to them and beyond their means to pay? But the assessor didn't care 2 cents about that, as long as her buddies were protected.

Now, we have a State Board of Assessing Standards which regulates and controls all the individual town's practice of local assessing. Things used to be all about local control, and I think a lot of the assessing was done with a wink and a grin. Now, with the combination of state controlled assessing standards and the big run-up in home values, a lot of local residents have seen their tax bills go way up and are feeling a lot of financial pain.

There were two ways to deal with property taxes being too high for the locals. The first way, subsequently found illegal (note that no new law was passed, a spotlight was shined on long term unfair and illegal behavior), was to arbitrarily shift the tax burden to out-of-towners who have no voting rights and overall demand few services from the town.

The second way, now being forced upon the poor locals, is to more carefully review spending so everyones tax bill is lower. The local towns built on the backs of out-of-towners for a long time and now fairness and responsibility for your own spending is coming home to roost and the whining has become deafening.

And I have to point out, since the spending levels continue to increase the majority of the locals in these towns who vote to support it seem to think the spending and required taxes are acceptable and affordable. Maybe you should be talking to your local buddies.

gtxrider

12-09-2007, 07:33 AM

We need ROBIN HOOD steal from the rich to give to the poor!

Lets see if this maked sense. I don't live here year round, my children don't go to school here, I don't use the roads 7days a week or use the town facilities on a regular basis. Seems like the tax rate should be lower on the nonlocals. The practice of assessing the nonlocals higher than the locals seems like socialism to me.

Skip

12-09-2007, 08:11 AM

...The practice of assessing the nonlocals higher than the locals seems like socialism to me...

Yes, it would seem like socialism. As a matter of fact it would seem like this practice would be illegal, now and back then when FLL claimed in an earlier post:

...If an individual town's tax collector wanted to assess two very IDENTICAL properties, for example, property A at $100,000, and property B at $200,000, based on the reason that property A was owned by a local family who lived and worked locally, while property B was a second home owned by someone who lived and worked in the Boston area, the tax collector could do this...

Sorry folks, it has never been legal during New Hampshire's implementation of a property tax to assign different tax rates to residents & non residents. And, as with FLL's usual flair for inaccuracy, the assessed value of a property is set by the assessor, not the collector. The value of your property remains simply that, the fair market value of your land and buildings regardless of any particular residency, job status or political persuasion of the owner of such property.

Once again fatlazyless has played very loose with the facts and circumstances of a particular polarizing issue. Perhaps he does this intentionally to stir debate and discuss. However, in this particular case he has clearly misrepresented the process and failed to provide a reference source for any of us to verify the outrageous claim he makes against the Town of Ashland's tax collector.

That is an unfortunate disservice to the reader. :(

Paugus Bay Resident

12-09-2007, 08:25 AM

I don't live here year round, my children don't go to school here
Ok, I do live hear year-round, but don't have any children. So, by that logic, even though I am not a "nonlocal", my tax rate should be lower. But wait, I also live on an "association" road which we maintain, so lower again ....... Sounds good to me.

SAMIAM

12-09-2007, 09:15 AM

I was born,raised and in business here in the lakes region and probably differ with other locals on RE tax issues.Seasonal residents don't use our schools,it's true,but they also use very few other services....certainly not fuel assistance,welfare,food stamps.They rarely need police,fire and emergency medical.They do have lots of disposable income since they are only here on vacation.Without them,taxes would be much higher than they are now.Just look at other small towns that have no waterfront property or tourism.Town hall is usually in a ramshackle main st 3 decker.Fire and police...they same.Older wood frame buildings with outdated equiptment.
Every town that I know of here in the lakes region has the best of everything.Just look at the police and fire facilities in Moultonborough and Meredith.They would be the envy of a city the size of Manchester.
If it were up to me,I would offer a tax credit seasonal residents.

Webbsatwinni

12-09-2007, 09:57 AM

I say we vote SAMIAM into public office as the voice of the non resident! Can we ad an extra tax rebate for island life, the island season is the smallest and would appear to me to have the least impact on the community.
Has there ever been a non resident group to address this issue with state and local government, strength in numbers?

fatlazyless

12-09-2007, 10:17 AM

In response to Skip's saying that I am bending the truth and making things up about the assessing practices prior to the 2001 Evelyn Sirrell vs State of NH lawsuit, and the establishment of a state-wide assessing standard.......I know what I read in the newspapers...the Union Leader.....Laconia Citizen...Laconia Daily Sun....& Concord Monitor and that's where I get my info.

As I recall, there were two similar waterfront homes on Little Squam Lake in Ashland and the Boston area owner of the one with the double assessment was suing or publicly speaking out, or something, and it was reported as I said in the papers with the Ashland town clerk-assessor's comments.

The issue now today with a big impact felt by many all across the state is the increase in their prop taxes. That's no secret. And, it is due to the combination of a run-up in home selling prices plus a MUCH MORE accurate and timely, state directed assessing mechanism than was used prior to the 2001 lawsuit of Sirrell vs NH.

Skip

12-09-2007, 01:15 PM

...If an individual town's tax collector wanted to assess two very IDENTICAL properties, for example, property A at $100,000, and property B at $200,000, based on the reason that property A was owned by a local family who lived and worked locally, while property B was a second home owned by someone who lived and worked in the Boston area, the tax collector could do this...

For the final time, no the "tax collector" could not do this.

Perhaps you should carefully read the Supreme Court case you cite.

The case you cite does not back up your false claim and actually makes a sttrong case against your and Tommy Thompson's cases, where for a number of years you enjoyed lower taxes because your properties were not fairly assessed. From the decision you cite:

We agree that the plaintiffs failed to present statistical data that provided a comprehensive and reliable picture of the actual operation of the statewide property tax system. In our view, however, the absence of such evidence is fatal to their claim. What the plaintiffs proved was that the taxing system is flawed. What they did not prove is that the flaws resulted in a systematic pattern of disproportionate taxation. Nor did the plaintiffs prove that the flaws produced such substantial inequality that the inequality must be deemed intentional.

I too regularly read the news sources you cite. And never I have I read that any community could or did tax non-residents at a higher rate than residents. Being that such a situation would be highly illegal either before or after Evelyn Sirrel lost her case it would have stood out clearly not only to me but to the thousands of non-resident property tax payers who would/should have immediately filed abatements and suits against any town or city claiming to do the same.

I have no issue with folks that understand that their local property taxes are a direct reflection of the community's propensity to spend. I encourage folks to continually speak out about the spending where they are taxed, whether that individual is a resident or non-resident. Likewise I have no issue with folks that want to debate the merits or fairness of proprty taxes versus income or sales taxes. Healthy debate on all these topics is a necessary function of a free society.

I do take issue with those folks that for years took advantage of their fellow neighbors by enjoying artificially low taxes by being grossly underassessed. Those same folks that only raised their voices when individual towns and cities correctly made adjustments to equalize values by creating false controversies around misleading statements such as "view tax" and "ax the view tax". Unfortunately when you live in a free society there are always the irresponsible few that really try to live that life literally, that is an attempt to "live free" at the taxpaying expense of the rest of their collective neighborhood.

Unfortunately for the rest of us rooted in reality, there is no free ride. ;)

Sorry Don, my apolgies to the webmaster for prolonging a discussion sure to stray from the original "Lakes Region" intent of this fine website!

fatlazyless

12-09-2007, 04:34 PM

"What the plaintiffs proved was that the taxation system is flawed. What they did not prove is that the flaws resulted in a systematic pattern of disproportionate taxation."

As Skip, in his post above, quoted from the Sorrell vs NH supreme court case. I want to add a few remarks about the line: "What the plaintiffs proved was that the tax system is flawed."

Until recently, a relatively low semi-annual local tax bill coupled with no sales and no income tax has been the mainstay of our 100 year old NH property tax system. A low tax bill is a low tax bill, and no one really cared much more about it, or about the whys and why-nots.

Well, ask around, all across the state and you will find many home owners who are not at all happy with their property taxes because they have increased so much.

The property tax has an inherent flaw because it is not based on one's ability to pay.

Again, let's think about the 303 employees of Wasau Paper in Groveton NH who will all lose their high wage manufactoring jobs on Dec 31. Will they get any reduction in their property taxes? I do not believe so, at least not for some time.

Here is a story from today's Union Leader about an Epping couple whose home burnt down, but still are required by state law to pay the town their $6360. prop tax bill.
......................................
Twice burned?

Epping: A couple is being taxed for a full year on a house that was destroyed by fire.

By Jason Schreiber, Sunday News Correspondent

Epping - Jack and Beatrice Knight lost everything when the house they enjoyed for nine years went up in flames.

The fire, which they blame on a dishwasher, leveled the house last May, leaving nothing but the shell of the garage and piles of their charred belongings.

"This place was like 9/11," Jack Knight said. " It's been a very difficult time."
As they struggle to get their lives and make plans to rebuild in Tilton Woods, a local developement, the Knights are faced with a property tax bill on a house that's no longer there.

They've now asked the town for a tax break, but a state law may force them to pay up despite losing everything they had.

Until the fire, the Knights, who are living in Manchester until they can rebuild, were unaware that if a house existed on a piece of property as of April 1, the owner must be taxed for the entire year under New Hampshire law. Since the Knights' home didn't burn until May 23, it was there on April 1, so they got a bill for the year totalling $6360.

Jack Knight doesn't think it's right. He filed for an abatement in hopes of reducing his tax bill and this week pleaded with selectmen for help.

I'm hoping that the board of selectmen will use some compassion here and give us a break. It's not very fair for someone to have to pay taxes on a building that isn't there." Knight said.

Selectmen are researching the problem to see if there's any way they can legally get around the law.

"We're in the process of trying to get more information to see what other towns have done. We certainly feel for them and are certainly compassionate." Epping Selectmen Chairman Jeff Harris said.

Bob Boley, a property tax advisor for the state Department of Revenue Administration, also understands the dilemma, but says selectmen need to be careful when they consider a request that could set a precedent.
....................................

Isn't that just a terrific state law! It's my guess that it was passed by the Republican state legislature during their lengthy reign as the majority party. It is the type of law that people like you, Skip, and Moultonboro State Rep Betsey Patten would shrug off and then feel it best to support. How very NOT fair!

Skip

12-09-2007, 04:47 PM

...Isn't that just a terrific state law! It's my guess that it was passed by the Republican state legislature during their lengthy reign as the majority party. It is the type of law that people like you, Skip, and Moultonboro State Rep Betsey Patten would shrug off and then feel it best to support. How very NOT fair!...

Ah yes Less, but let's tell the whole story here, not just the first half purporting to support your cause.

For those of you interested, Less only posted half the story...probably a good thing due to copyright infringement, but if you want to read the whole story then Less could have just as easily (and more quickly) posted this LINK (http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Area+couple+taxed+on+house+t hat+was+destroyed+by+fire&articleId=b6373a94-bb51-4cd6-9a30-9ec4c5efdd17) to the article.

Oops, when you read the whole story provided in the link you also learn that those darn lawmakers also have provided the necessary provisions within State law to grant the unfortunate couple an abatement or hardship relief for the time left in the tax year after their home was destroyed.

Kinda takes the wind out of your story again Less, or did you once again fail to read the entire contents of the source you cited? :confused:

Irish mist

12-09-2007, 09:34 PM

Ah yes Less, but let's tell the whole story here, not just the first half purporting to support your cause.

For those of you interested, Less only posted half the story...probably a good thing due to copyright infringement, but if you want to read the whole story then Less could have just as easily (and more quickly) posted this LINK (http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Area+couple+taxed+on+house+t hat+was+destroyed+by+fire&articleId=b6373a94-bb51-4cd6-9a30-9ec4c5efdd17) to the article.

Oops, when you read the whole story provided in the link you also learn that those darn lawmakers also have provided the necessary provisions within State law to grant the unfortunate couple an abatement or hardship relief for the time left in the tax year after their home was destroyed.

Kinda takes the wind out of your story again Less, or did you once again fail to read the entire contents of the source you cited? :confused:

Bravo Skip for exposing FLL on this.......and many other posts. Though his dog & pony show is getting real old.......
________
HONDA CM125 HISTORY (http://www.honda-wiki.org/wiki/Honda_CM125)

jrc

12-09-2007, 10:41 PM

"...

The property tax has an inherent flaw because it is not based on one's ability to pay...

This is the kind of thinking that scares me, it's all to prevelant and popular and of course makes no sense. What else in life is based on your ability to pay? We should all get lakehouses and have our mortages and taxes based on our ability to pay?

Resident 2B

12-10-2007, 12:12 AM

Well, ask around, all across the state and you will find many home owners who are not at all happy with their property taxes because they have increased so much.

The property tax has an inherent flaw because it is not based on one's ability to pay.

Perhaps these resident home owners will attend their town meetings and vote down the lavish proposals. The cities and towns in the Lakes Region overall have better municipal resources than most cities and towns in New England. If the residents control the spending, the taxes will stabilize and in time go down. If you cannot afford it, do not vote for it. Residents control the spending and the taxing!

Income taxes are based upon income, therefore to some extend "one's ability to pay". Property taxes are based upon fair market property value. Any other method of assessing property taxes is unfair and immoral. Who you know should never have been a factor.

R2B

fatlazyless

12-10-2007, 06:31 AM

That's a pretty interesting article, that Union Leader story about the couple in Epping whose house burnt down and still owe prop taxes. Thanks Skip for posting a link to the rest of the story, and a few reader comments. A big tax bill is due, because the house was intact as of April 1. Talk about an April 1-april fool's joke. And, how would you like to lose your house in a fire and then eight months later have the town send you a property tax bill? Hey, walk a mile in their shoes, and see how that feels?

I can hear it now....we all feel great compassion for the people who lost their house....but the town money has to come from somewhere...and it could set a precedent.

The prop tax is just like the holy grail for NH Republicans. We must protect and maintain our property tax because it is the fairest and best way to raise money, plus it's how it's been done since 1912.

One hundred years of Republican majority in the NH legislature, and a law like this, is what they were able to cook up!. ....goodbye and good riddance to your Republican majority!

ApS

12-10-2007, 08:16 AM

1) Here's a few more tips on reducing your property tax (http://www.drcnh.org/proptax.htm). For example, adding ramps and elevators for wheelchair-bound family members can be deducted from the assessed value of your property.

2) "...Any other method of assessing property taxes is unfair and immoral. Who you know should never have been a factor..."
Here are the minutes of Betsey Patten, et. al., when the "View Tax" was being actively discussed in Moultonborough—FWIW:
http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:tkvrutiYI_EJ:www.nh.gov/revenue/munc_prop/documents/asb12_14_2006appr.doc+Evelyn-Sirrell,+view-tax&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us

There, you'll see two poignant quotes by taxpayers who reflect my exact situation just a few years ago—when my property taxes nearly tripled upon the sale (and no building going onto) a similar property adjacent to mine! :confused:

"...Mr. Samson stated he would like to see fewer assessors on the board and more public members, none who would be associated in real estate..."

"...Mr. Duffy Daugherty stated if fair market value should apply to properties that aren’t bought and sold, because there isn’t a willing buyer and seller at that point. It was stated there is unfairness to some of the factors because they are arbitrary and capricious.
My own property tax has since gone down $3000, and I've yet to receive a subsequent tax bill that is ±$1000 of any previous year's tax bill! :confused:

3) NH Supreme Court excerpt"...We agree that the plaintiffs failed to present statistical data that provided a comprehensive and reliable picture of the actual operation of the statewide property tax system...What they did not prove is that the flaws resulted in a systematic pattern of disproportionate taxation..."
What is "bolded" above, is a hopeless task except for a government agency! Evelyn Sirrell's lawsuit was doomed from the start. :(

This summation, by a NH Supreme Court mired in a contemporaneous scandal, is only made worse by the NH Senate who found no wrongdoing of Justices who could "legislate from the bench" and grant themselves a pay raise! (This was discussed privately by Justices for a favorable ruling for a NH Senator's case that was before the Supreme Court).
:fire:

chipj29

12-10-2007, 09:00 AM

How about the flip side of the coin FLL. If they built their house on say May 1, then they would only be taxed on the value of the property as of April 1. On April 1 it was only land, no structure. That means they would be living in a house without paying their fair share of property taxes for 7 months. So how is that fair for the town?

ITD

12-10-2007, 09:54 AM

........One hundred years of Republican majority in the NH legislature, and a law like this, is what they were able to cook up!. ....goodbye and good riddance to your Republican majority!

Welcome to the new Democrat majority, being pushed by their constituents to find new taxes, guaranteed to to double the net amount of state tax you pay in the near future. Meet the new boss, WORSE than the old boss.........

Irish mist

12-10-2007, 10:08 AM

Welcome to the new Democrat majority, being pushed by their constituents to find new taxes, guaranteed to to double the net amount of state tax you pay in the near future. Meet the new boss, WORSE than the old boss.........

The new boss is property rich......and he wants to just spread taxes around a bit so we all pay our fair share......he really cares about you & me. Look how well Massachusetts is run after all with an income tax & a sales tax & a capital gains tax. The new boss is worse than the old boss indeed !
________
YAMAHA CS-80 HISTORY (http://www.yamaha-tech.com/wiki/Yamaha_CS-80)

fatlazyless

12-10-2007, 10:40 AM

Yes, and there's now plenty of people all across New Hampshire who, according to their assessed home values, are property rich. However, and this is a BIG HOWEVER, after living in the same house for years, and maybe even paying off its' mortgage, that house has become a HOME and is not considered an investment by the owner.

In the last election of Nov 2006, when the Democrats whooped the Republicans big-time here in New Hampshire....was that due to 1. war in Iraq and Pres Bush, or 2. increasing property taxes, or 3. a combination of both? Is it possible to make a logical-believable answer to this question? I don't think so...there is no true answer.....it's all a lot of spin-spin-spin.......just have to wait till next election.

Up & down the ticket, next November's election should be very close and very aggressively pursued by both sides. The Republicans know that if they get whooped again, they're in for a long vacation of reminiscing about their good ole days when all NH was red, right, & Republican.

Sorry, all you lay-abouts down at the country club, NH has gone Democratic blue for good!

radar4401

12-10-2007, 11:47 AM

For all those who want a state income/sales tax in order to lower property taxes, I suggest you think it over. If the people who live out of state are here only part time, who is going to pay the new taxes? It's going to shift the tax base more to the locals who are here full time causing an increase in taxes on the lower income personnel who can least afford to pay it. Think about it.:)

LIforrelaxin

12-10-2007, 01:21 PM

Everyone spends a great deal of time talking about the expense of property taxes, which of course are based on how much property is worth. We also spend a great deal of time pointing fingers at politicians, and goverment. Not that they don't have a finger in this. But you know there is also another culprit at work here. Real estate Agents and Developers and thier greed. They have as big an input into the the market price of property as Assesors do. There business is to convince people how much there property is worth, so they can market it for top dollar and therefore line there pocket with the biggest commision possible. Along with pointing at the politicians, and the government, people need to also start point fingers at Real Estate Agents and Developers.

Does anyone else get annoyed by those mass mailings for Lakes Regions Real Estate firms trying to drum up business by impressing you with how much they have sold propertys for in the Area.

I am sure that this will be upsetting a few of you real estate agents out there, but why should you finance your lifestyle greedly off of those that worked long and hard for what they have.

SIKSUKR

12-10-2007, 01:53 PM

As is the case in 90% of FLL's post's he has his Democratic agenda to push and will not let the full truth get in the way of a good Republican beat-down.Any regular forum member has now seen through his misleading posts and any democrat forum member would be smart to distance themselves from his half truths.Can we stop this politcal football crap on this wonderfull website please FLL and just stick to the topic in the thread?Although you started a legit thread it seems you can't help yourself from turning it into a Republican bashing.I for one don't like talking about politics in forum form but get frustrated from the constant underlying intent of misleading forum members to suit an agenda and must voice my dismay.OK,I'll step down now.

ITD

12-10-2007, 03:53 PM

Moultonboro is pushing for a new senior/community center to the tune of $5 million. They're asking for $450,000 to get the ball rolling. Projected impact on the tax rate $0.33 per $1000. Sounds like a spending problem to me, get ready all you tax payers, the "progressives" are here......

Irish mist

12-10-2007, 05:31 PM

As is the case in 90% of FLL's post's he has his Democratic agenda to push and will not let the full truth get in the way of a good Republican beat-down.Any regular forum has now seen through his misleading posts and any democrat forum member would be smart to distance themselves from his half truths.Can we stop this politcal football crap on this wonderfull website please FLL and just stick to the topic in the thread?Although you started a legit thread it seems you can't help yourself from turning it into a Republican bashing.I for one don't like talking about politics in forum form but get frustrated from the constant underlying intent of misleading forum members to suit an agenda and must voice my dismay.OK,I'll step down now.

I don't mind political threads on this forum......as long as the politics STAY in those threads. The problem with FLL is that he pops up in threads on dental care, and food reviews with his political views ? It's outrageous behavior, and shows a lack of RESPECT for his fellow forum members.

As for the half-truths, and outright lies that have been exposed over & over by other posters concerning FLL.....what can you do ? Buyer beware I suppose:)
________
COLORADO MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARY (http://colorado.dispensaries.org/)

The Big Kahuna

12-10-2007, 06:20 PM

To the Democratic Republic of New Hampshire. Any and all will be taxed if, when and where we say so! And there isn't anything or anybody that can do anything about it!

fatlazyless

12-10-2007, 07:56 PM

Skip

12-10-2007, 08:05 PM

...I'm all very sorry, I can't help it......am starting to have some doubts about my sanity....what I need is a big cut in my property tax....paid for by a NH income tax...

Sorry Less, then you better run down to the nearest medical supply house and pick yourself up one of these:

1636

Because your friends the Democrats have complete control of the House, the Senate, the Executive Council & the Governor's Office and guess what; yep...there's no serious proposals for an income tax before any of those esteemed bodies! :eek:

p.s. - Don't forget, December 14th is just around the corner......;)

Irish mist

12-10-2007, 08:23 PM

I'm all very sorry, I can't help it......am starting to have some doubts about my sanity....what I need is a big cut in my property tax....paid for by a NH income tax which exempts the first $19995.99.....and then I'll have to find something else to arrrroooo about, like an old Basset Hound......arrrrrrrroooooooo!

That's the thing......you're not sorry. You could care less who's toes you step on in this forum. I've seen at least 4 or 5 different posters ask you to please post your political diatribes in the proper threads.....not so much as a peep is heard from you about their concers.

Forums like this work best when posters are responsive to other posters concerns. We ALL have made mistakes posting out here, including me.......but if I am asked by other posters on a regular basis (like you have been) to watch my posting habits then I try my best to respect those concerns. I don't get you, or your behavior, at all. It's not funny, it's not kind, and it's not respectful of others.
________
Ford Ecosport (http://www.ford-wiki.com/wiki/Ford_EcoSport)

JDeere

12-11-2007, 08:45 AM

As always it is good to have Skip on this forum to set the record straight especially given the pontifications of FLL.

fatlazyless

12-11-2007, 09:21 AM

:) A visual picture can have a lot of impact, and Skip in his above post has whipped up a very strong visual communication in a very short time as his response. I notice that for a period of years, his logo has always been "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" Well, this is not a court of law, but with that picture of the strait jacket it makes me feel like I am being prosecuted for my opinions......and that's what they are....my opinions.

If this were a court of law just imagine how difficult it would be to defend oneself against a "Mr Prosecutor Skip." With his computer skills, ability to find the specific related law, and his fast intelligence, you would not have an easy time of it.

A forum is supposed to be an exchange of ideas and not be getting down and dirty. So, I say let's just keep the peace on our forum, and here's a great big MERRY CHRISTMAS to Skip.

As a New Hampshire Republican who is long used to having his way, Skip knows if he cannot attack the message, then he attacks the messenger! So, come on Skip, let's stay on track here by staying away from personal attacks and staying on topic. ...thanks in advance!

JDeere

12-11-2007, 09:48 AM

FLL it is Skip who stays to the facts and posts them. Your opinions are always stated as factual information when they are anything but that. You stray far from the facts when you begin your diatribe that is laden with verisimilitudes in your effort to put forth your agenda. If I disliked NH as much as you do I would leave! I am sure a few of us would be willing to help you pack.

Skip

12-11-2007, 09:51 AM

And if you're a good boy, maybe Santa will leave a big fat abatement in your stocking this year! ;)

Sincerely, a Merry Christmas to you as well Less! :)

Be safe & enjoy the holidays,

Skip

SIKSUKR

12-11-2007, 11:13 AM

I must say that FLL still makes me laugh occasionally.I know he can't really believe all that mumbo jumbo he writes.At least FLL does not take personal shots.And Skip,yup,he's Joe Friday.To both I wish a safe and happy holiday.

Weirs guy

12-11-2007, 01:15 PM

I personally find MOST of FLL's post entertaining at the very least and OCCASIONALLY thought provoking. I also enjoy pitch forking baby seals, so who am I to judge.

I know some of you feel as JDeere does that if he's so unhappy here he should move, but I could make the same argument to a lot of non-voting tax payers who still vacation here despite the horrors us locals bestow on them (not picking anyone out for flaming, just convenient points to make).

Life's too short people, if FLL bothers you then use the wonderful "ignore posts from" feature that Don has magically given us.

And a Merry Christmas too all, even you FLL. ;)

fpartri497

12-11-2007, 03:46 PM

:D Hey people:

dont you think you all are making too much of FLL`s posts? look for the humor and loosen up a bit please.

happy holidays to all

:)

Irish mist

12-11-2007, 04:29 PM

:D Hey people:

dont you think you all are making too much of FLL`s posts? look for the humor and loosen up a bit please.

happy holidays to all

:)

Call me old fashioned.......but if you turn every thread on the board into a RANT on politics it tends to get people angry that the forum is being spammed. I don't have a problem with FLL's foolishness in political threads.....but do I have to put up with it when I'm reviewing a thread on dental care? There are posting guidelines about this stuff:)

GWC...

12-11-2007, 08:11 PM

Call me old fashioned.......but if you turn every thread on the board into a RANT on politics it tends to get people angry that the forum is being spammed. I don't have a problem wih FLL's foolishness in political threads.....but do I have to put up with it when I'm reviewing a thread on dental care? There are posting guiedlines about this stuff:)
Try this…

Login

Click:User CP ( http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/usercp.php)

at the top left, Control Panel, scroll down and
click: Buddy / Ignore Lists (http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/profile.php?do=editlist)

type info into bottom area - Ignore List

click: Save List

end of problem…

Here’s a little something to remind you of the season…

http://gpsinformation.info/main/merryxmas.swf

fatlazyless

12-11-2007, 08:30 PM

Here's an article about rising costs for the Belknap County nursing home from today's LaDaSun. Let me say that not everyone can afford a private nursing home like the Taylor Home in Laconia and providing care for the elderly is a very necessary and important servce provided by Belknap County. The waterfront communities of Alton, Centre Harbor, Gilford, Laconia and Meredith are in Belknap County, while Moultonboro, Tuftonboro, and Wolfeboro are in Carrol County.

My parents are 93 and 91 and I am familiar with the costs of nursing home care. People in New Hampshire tend to have long lives and what with exercise and better eating habits, are now living even longer.

The question, as always, is how do the bills for the Belknap nursing home get paid. It's looking like the property tax payer will again be asked to stick a crowbar into his/her checkbook and pry out a lot more money for the county section of their already high property tax bill..

People who live at the Belknap County nursing home should get excellent care and conditions, but how to pay for it?
.........................................
Laconia Daily Sun, Dec 11, 2007, by Michael Kitch

Nursing home costs driving cost of county budget up about 8%

LACONIA - Although the 2008 Belknap County budget is expected to rise just 2 percent, the amount to be raised by property taxes is projected to jump four times to as much as 8 percent.

Presenting the budget to the County Convention last night, Commissioner Philip "Bud" Daigneault explained that the cost of intermediate nursing care, home health care and community-based care would increase $1.5-million while reimbursement rates for nursing care could drop by as much as $11 per patient per bed, sapping the county's revenue. "It's really a big hit." said Daigneault of the reduced revenue. He pointed out that the share of the nursing home budget born by property taxpayers has risen from $670,000 in 1998 to $3.5 million in 2008 as the state has shuffled its share of the long-term care expenses to the counties.

Representative Fran Wendleboe (R-New Hampton) met the news suggesting "We look at getting out of the nursing home business. Put the nursing home up for sale."

by Michael Kitch, Laconia Daily Sun Dec 11, 2007
......................................

Post #36 above by Mr Acres per Second has a link to the December 14, 2006 minutes of the State Assessing Board that is a very interesting look at what they do. It's lengthy and informative and probably the #1 best single item in this whole thread......suggest you check it out!

Weirs guy

12-12-2007, 05:55 PM

fatlazyless

12-12-2007, 07:07 PM

How's this for an analogy? Having lots of waterfronters in a town that's politically controlled by the resident-locals is just like having a credit card that's paid by someone else.

On our mark, ready, set & go......it's time to spend....it's always time to spend....spending is terrific when someone else is getting the bill.

It's not that new buildings aren't nice to have, it's just payn for em that's hard.

Probably this principal applies here: " Well, if he can't afford the prop taxes, then the next buyer will, plus the new guy will probably tear down the old place and spend a lot buildn a new house." And, it's true.

I could get used to that, too....ho-ho-ho...better to have than have-not....& a Merry Christmas to all!

Hope this doesn't come out sounding all sarcastic....just trying to inject a little humor here.

Irish mist

12-12-2007, 09:46 PM

Just out of curiosity what makes FLL's hijacking of the dental thread to whine about taxes different then your hijacking of this one to whine about FLL? :confused:

Because I'm not, on a regular basis, breaking the posting rules of the forum....GET IT ! Did you ever read the posting guiedlines here ? Do they mean anything to you ? Is FLL, or a regular basis, breaking the posting guidelines, or not ? I mentioned this, in this thread, because many members are tired of him spamming the forum......where should I bring it up. He never responds to other posters complaints. I expect you are going to ask all the other posters who have complained about him on this thread the same question, or are you just going to ask me, and if so, why ? Now what else do you want to know ?

fatlazyless

12-12-2007, 10:00 PM

No replies to that latest article from the LaDaSun about the county tax going way up and in the word's of Bud Daignealt "taking a big hit.." Like, what else is there to say? The state passes the nursing home buck to the county, and the county can pass it to the towns.

I do not understand the quote at the end from Fran Wendleboe (R) of New Hampton who suggests that we look to get out of the nursing home business and to put the nursing homes up for sale.

Am I missing something but selling a nursing home that is kept going by the property tax....how to do? Please someone who really knows this issue......enlighten me.
.
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

Guys, as I recall from the dental thread, I think the point I was trying to make is that money spent on my property tax kept me from going to the dentist to get a cavity in a front tooth (incisor) repaired, and as a result it got much worse turning into a two tooth infected root canal(s) and when one root did not respond well to the dental treatment, an expensive trip to an oral surgeon was needed, as well.'

So, I guess I can say that property taxes are like dental cavities. If you do not take prpper care of them, things get bad very fast. How's that sound?

And, my $8500 prop taxes are indeed paying for the no-deductible dental insurance for the town's employees......it's enough to give one a toothache just thinking about it.

LIforrelaxin

12-13-2007, 12:17 AM

Irish mist

12-13-2007, 12:29 AM

Well I do not mean to indicate that I think FLLs post are always in good humor and taste, give the guy a break. He is expressing his opinions, and is now seeming to get hammered for doing so because people don't agree with him. Like every post on this Forum, I take FLLs post for what they are, his thoughts and reactions. Nothing more Nothing less. And hey once in a while he reminds me to laugh, or even think about something from a different perspective. So give the guy a break, stop bashing Him. As it has been suggested add him to your ignore list and you will never here from him again.......

Sure......whatever. BTW, no one is bashing him. He's been asked for months, by many posters, to please post his political rants in political threads, period. That's all. He's been asked to show some simple respect to other posters. You're aware that's the issue here....right ? And that no one is going after him for posting, but for posting POLITICS everywhere.

It amazing how people only read what they want to read.......

I'm done posting in this thread......I can see where it's going. No matter how clear I, and other posters have made it that we don't object to FLL, or his postings, just as long as it does not pop up in EVERY thread on this forum. Yet people like Llforrelaxin still will get on here and say we are bashing him over the content of his posts.......which no one has done ! It's incredible.

I don't mind being attacked....I can deal with it well enough, but please try and understand the subject matter, ok ? Try and at least get the context of the complaints about his posting behavior right. FLL is not being bashed for posting. He's been asked, over & over, by a lot of members to not turn everything from dental care posts to food reviews into a political rant.

Knowing human nature.....I expect several future posts to ignore what I just said......and claim FLL is being shouted down:) Have at it.....I'm moving on.

Dickie B from HB

12-13-2007, 04:24 AM

Based on the way that FLL responds to you, it would seem that he has you on the ignore list.

Irish mist

12-13-2007, 07:24 AM

Based on the way that FLL responds to you, it would seem that he has you on the ignore list.

Nice shot, keep it coming. turn me into the issue. Especially since I said I would not post in the thread any longer. Turn a simple request by dozens of members of the forum into a "got you" game. Sorry for trying to abide by the rules of the forum. Oh, and please ignore the context of all the complaints, that always helps:) At least my guess in my "last" post that human nature would rear its ugly head was true in your case. Thanks for adding some snark. Now I'm really done with this thread:)

fatlazyless

12-13-2007, 07:59 AM

Getting back on topic here, my post above from the Laconia Daily Sun about the increasing cost of county nursing home care is a large and looming issue. It's probably one of those issues that people just role their eyes, and let it go, because it is too much to deal with and beyond one's control

What's happening, in my opinion, is that the State can no longer keep up with county nursing home expenses so it is trying to shift the expense over to the local property tax, and it is succeeding.

This is a complicated issue. You know who is a real first class expert on this issue? It is Senator Cathy Sgambatti (D) Tilton. She looks out for the local resident-home owner-property tax payer in a way that did not exist before with the prior occupant. There is a whole world of differance between Senator Sgambatti and the former occupant of the Laconia senate district, and for this, all us struggling property tax payers should be very thankfull.

People just roll their eyes over these big issues like county-state nursing homes because it's hard to understand, but you'll know it when you get the bigger tax bills.

fpartri497

12-13-2007, 08:06 AM

Sure......whatever. BTW, no one is bashing him. He's been asked for months, by many posters, to please post his political rants in political threads, period. That's all. He's been asked to show some simple respect to other posters. You're aware that's the issue here....right ? And that no one is going after him for posting, but for posting POLITICS everywhere.

It amazing how people only read what they want to read.......

I'm done posting in this thread......I can see where it's going. No matter how clear I, and other posters have made it that we don't object to FLL, or his postings, just as long as it does not pop up in EVERY thread on this forum. Yet people like Llforrelaxin still will get on here and say we are bashing him over the content of his posts.......which no one has done ! It's incredible.

I don't mind being attacked....I can deal with it well enough, but please try and understand the subject matter, ok ? Try and at least get the context of the complaints about his posting behavior right. FLL is not being bashed for posting. He's been asked, over & over, by a lot of members to not turn everything from dental care posts to food reviews into a political rant.

Knowing human nature.....I expect several future posts to ignore what I just said......and claim FLL is being shouted down:) Have at it.....I'm moving on.

GOODBYE, GOODBYE

ITD

12-13-2007, 08:26 AM

Ah yes, the nursing homes, it is the goverment's job to jump in and take care of everyone. Give us our entitlements, just make sure you tax the other guy for it. Just make sure that one particular person with a million dollars ( or close to it ) in assets doesn't have to pay for it via property taxes. After all, a million dollars isn't what it used to be. Add new taxes because we all know what a great job government does, they deserve to be rewarded. We are all entitled to an easier life, and the state had better provide it. It being free care and taxes only for the other guy. Yeah that'll work. :rolleye1:

fatlazyless

12-13-2007, 09:00 AM

Hey, 1945 was 62 years ago, so a lot of WWII people are in their 80's. They were there then when it really really mattered, so we can be here now. Don't ever forget that!

SIKSUKR

12-13-2007, 09:45 AM

fatlazyless

12-13-2007, 10:11 AM

You guys are talking platitudes but the reality is every county in NH runs a nursing home for elderly and others who have no other way out. It's a system that been around for a long time, and people are living longer. NH has a relatively old median age population.

Paying for county nursing care has been shifted from the state to the local towns....ie property tax payer...because the state could not afford to pay it and was able to shift it.

I am not all very knowledgable about this, but that's how I understand it.

As you probably know, your property tax has four sections: town, school, state school & county.

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
Is NH spending its' way to a state income tax, as people can no longer afford their homes? Maybe?

ITD

12-13-2007, 10:37 AM

"I still believe that, regardless of what the costs committee comes up with, that we need an amendment," Lynch said. "We need an amendment to be able to direct more state aid to the communities and children that need it more than others."

Hmmm, this should be good for waterfront owners, yep those democrats have our backs.........

Article:

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Lynch+to+push+amendment+agai n&articleId=20014cdd-df45-42e5-9eb3-83d09f1b9b73

ITD

12-13-2007, 10:52 AM

And take a look at this gem:

"Cullen claims Democrats bought a list of voter information from the Secretary of State for $450 and sold copies for $65,000. He charged that customers include commercial companies outside the election system, a direct violation of the law.
Cullen said that since the law has been found unconstitutional, the Democratic Party should put the $400,000 or so it earned into the state treasury."

I'll have to hand it to them, they're pretty industrious figuring a way around campaign finance law by soliciting donations er... payments of $65,000 from corporations that could just as easily buy the list for $450 from the Secretary of State.

I expect the same craftiness when they are figuring out how to get more taxes out of waterfronts.

Article:

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=State+GOP%2c+Dems+at+odds+ov er+voter+information+law&articleId=5149066e-bc78-49f4-b6d7-cd2e085391b6

ITD

12-13-2007, 11:18 AM

Ok, one more, this bill is being resubmitted by your helpful crafty Democrats, should really help out waterfront owners. Here is one of many tax increases being proposed.

I. Taxes property which is not primary residential real estate at twice the rate of primary residential real estate under the local property tax.

Read here for the rest of the proposed misery: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2008/hb0925.html

Hint, it will have you new tax proponents jumping for joy with its estate tax, income tax and luxury tax (vehicle over $30k is a luxury car) and the most painful, higher BEER tax.:eek:

fatlazyless

12-13-2007, 11:43 AM

:coolsm: Wow...thanks ITD for posting that link to hb 925....a bill that would double the prop taxes on residential homes that are not a primary home. Second vacation home owners will get wacked. Hopefully, it dies a fast death in the committee hearing.

You think I'm yapping now with a $8500 tax bill....how does 17000 sound....fortunately for me my place is my primary residence. At 17000, I'd have to sell...absolutely positively absolutely sell.
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

After reading thru the bill, it's not all that bad. All money raised by it would be going to the education trust fund.

The bill is in the Ways & Means Committee, and has a floor date of January 2, 2008.

A gambling tax, small increase in beer tax, sales tax on cars over $30k & individual items over 10K, an estate tax over 3mil (Hello Bob Bahre!) and a payroll tax on payrolls over 10k/week, and a second home tax that doubles its' prop tax.

That second home tax could require a whole new division in NH law enforcement.

Meet the NH RESIDENCY POLICE!!

State of New Hampshire
Dept of Revenue Administration

How to determine residency?

The number of days/nights that one physically is present at a residence has absolutely nothing to do with establishing residency.

Determining one's residency is totally at the discretion of the local board of residency or lacking one, the local board of selectmen.

Recommendations: If the applicant is not at least a second cousin, or known on a meet & greet conversational basis by a majority of the board, then he/she cannot be considered a resident.

In cases where the applicant owns a high value waterfront property, the applicant must be at least a FIRST cousin to qualify.
..............................

If it were to pass, it could actually create a lowering of selling prices, don't you think? And that could be a good thing. Selling prices of homes went up so high do to all the very easy mortgage money available. Now, many banks are posting big losses, and mortgage money has tightened up.

Due to New Hampshire's very high property taxes and the current shutdown in mortage availability, the housing market should be getting a nice 33% price haircut to bring it back to the real world.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

But hey, the Dems will NEVER-EVER pass it...they'll be cutting their own throats to pass it before the November election. Gov Lynch is keeping some Dems who want to pass an income tax from doing so. So, there's no way a vacation home tax will go anywhere. either.

Weirs guy

12-13-2007, 01:10 PM

Because I'm not, on a regular basis, breaking the posting rules of the forum....GET IT ! Did you ever read the posting guiedlines here ? Do they mean anything to you ? Is FLL, or a regular basis, breaking the posting guidelines, or not ? I mentioned this, in this thread, because many members are tired of him spamming the forum......where should I bring it up. He never responds to other posters complaints. I expect you are going to ask all the other posters who have complained about him on this thread the same question, or are you just going to ask me, and if so, why ? Now what else do you want to know ?

I guess that my point was if your so annoyed by FLL's hijinks's, perhaps you can understand why some of us are with you doing the same? I am not going to ask the other forum members the same question, because they seem to have let it go already. Perhaps you would be better served by expressing your issues FLL directly via IM, or even Don, and not posting, by my count, 6 times in this thread about it. After all, you wouldn't want to have your behavior compared to FLL's would you?

Now, back on topic, I can't believe that the Democrats would even touch a bill that would double the prop taxes on residential homes that are not a primary homes. Seems to me this came up a few years ago, too, and I believe that local business owners help end the shenanigans then?

Skip

12-13-2007, 06:01 PM

...Wow...thanks ITD for posting that link to hb 925....a bill that would double the prop taxes on residential homes that are not a primary home. Second vacation home owners will get wacked. Hopefully, it dies a fast death in the committee hearing...

...But hey, the Dems will NEVER-EVER pass it...they'll be cutting their own throats to pass it before the November election...

Oh, I couldn't resist....

But Less, you said this about the same Bill back on April 5, 2007:

...Maybe I'm not the brightest bulb out in the barn but this HB 925 would sure help your everyday working stiff like me who just struggles to buy gasoline and pay his property taxes.

So here's hoping it passes and gets tagged the Senator Judd Gregg Powerball gambling tax because it would be the future cure to his Powerball winning of $850,000. on 10/20/05 with no NH tax what-so-ever. I, for one, am getting tired of subsidizing Judd's use of state services with my McChicken 8 cent taxes. How many McChickens does it take to support Sen Gregg? HB 925......onward and upward to the NH State Senate! It's good to have a Democratic majority that has some basic common sense!...

Hmmmmm, help me Less, I am so confused!

Merry Christmas,

Skip

fatlazyless

12-13-2007, 06:29 PM

:coolsm: Well, thankyou very much for shedding a little light on the subject. As I very clearly and lucidly said:

'Hey, maybe I'm not the brightest bulb out in the barn."

I bet you no one will disagree, so there!

And a Merry Christmas to you too Skip.

fll

Skip

12-13-2007, 06:56 PM

...As I very clearly and lucidly said:

'Hey, maybe I'm not the brightest bulb out in the barn."...I bet you no one will disagree, so there!...

Oh Less, I think you a much more bright (and definitely much more clever) than you usually lead us on to believe! ;)

Merry Christmas Buddy,

Skip

tis

12-13-2007, 07:26 PM

If they pass those taxes they might as well get ready for a mass exodus out of NH. Then they won't need any money.

LIforrelaxin

12-13-2007, 11:57 PM

If they pass those taxes they might as well get ready for a mass exodus out of NH. Then they won't need any money.

Well a mass exodus of the second home owners anyways.... which would put a run on property for sale.... suddenly there would be more property for sale...... which in the fight to get property sold, will lower selling prices..... which will start to effect assessed value..... the assessed values will go down..... thus reducing the property tax bills..... and then all the banks will be scatching thier heads as all the residents left have home worth less then they maybe mortgaged for....

The good news taxes would be lower........

jeffk

12-14-2007, 12:13 PM

The good news taxes would be lower........

For the second home owners, if the assessed value tanks, their property taxes would drop. However, the tax bill would shift back to the primary home owners. The spending doesn't go away and it needs to be paid for by someone.

The funny thing about this is that it always seems to work out this way. Elected officials try to gouge someone, usually "the rich", to spend money to benefit people who want lots of services but don't want to pay for it. And what happens? The "rich" move on, or their property value collapses, or they put off taking their capital gains, or use one of hundreds of ways, both legal and illegal, to shelter their money. Guess who gets left holding the bag? The people who didn't want to pay for it in the first place. :laugh: I would ask you, who is really greedy here, people who work hard for their money and are successful or the politicians and their supporters who covet other people's money?

If the politicians wouldn't kick off the "let's soak the rich" game and the general electorate wasn't dumb enough to expect to get something for nothing maybe we could restrain our public gluttony and control spending and everyone's taxes would be lower.

KonaChick

12-14-2007, 01:35 PM

For the second home owners, if the assessed value tanks, their property taxes would drop. However, the tax bill would shift back to the primary home owners. The spending doesn't go away and it needs to be paid for by someone.

The funny thing about this is that it always seems to work out this way. Elected officials try to gouge someone, usually "the rich", to spend money to benefit people who want lots of services but don't want to pay for it. And what happens? The "rich" move on, or their property value collapses, or they put off taking their capital gains, or use one of hundreds of ways, both legal and illegal, to shelter their money. Guess who gets left holding the bag? The people who didn't want to pay for it in the first place. :laugh: I would ask you, who is really greedy here, people who work hard for their money and are successful or the politicians and their supporters who covet other people's money?

If the politicians wouldn't kick off the "let's soak the rich" game and the general electorate wasn't dumb enough to expect to get something for nothing maybe we could restrain our public gluttony and control spending and everyone's taxes would be lower.

jeffk..I couldn't agree more, great post. These towns around the lake have gotten used to the high tax base from lakefront homeowners and they've become like kids on Christmas morning getting what they want. I'm fairly confident that many of the second residence lakefront homeowners who do not get a say in how their tax dollars are spent will be sending a message to these towns LOUD AND CLEAR when they go somewhere else, if this indeed passes. The tax burden will then shift to the primary residents of these towns. These towns have let the "cat out of the bag" with their big spending and there's not way it's going back in now, IMHO.

LIforrelaxin

12-14-2007, 03:26 PM

For the second home owners, if the assessed value tanks, their property taxes would drop. However, the tax bill would shift back to the primary home owners. The spending doesn't go away and it needs to be paid for by someone.

The funny thing about this is that it always seems to work out this way. Elected officials try to gouge someone, usually "the rich", to spend money to benefit people who want lots of services but don't want to pay for it. And what happens? The "rich" move on, or their property value collapses, or they put off taking their capital gains, or use one of hundreds of ways, both legal and illegal, to shelter their money. Guess who gets left holding the bag? The people who didn't want to pay for it in the first place. :laugh: I would ask you, who is really greedy here, people who work hard for their money and are successful or the politicians and their supporters who covet other people's money?

If the politicians wouldn't kick off the "let's soak the rich" game and the general electorate wasn't dumb enough to expect to get something for nothing maybe we could restrain our public gluttony and control spending and everyone's taxes would be lower.

Good Post Jeff, It is a sad state of affiars and a slippery slope as I was trying to point out...... It ends up being a vicious cycle.........

tis

12-14-2007, 06:29 PM

Agreed, great post Jeff.

fatlazyless

12-14-2007, 08:38 PM

Anyone know how HB 925 treats commercial property? How does it effect retail stores, service businesses, hotels, restaurants, and apartment rental property?

January 2, the floor day for HB 925, is about 2 1/2 weeks away.
..........................

Ok, just found this line in the Methodology section of the bill.

"The Department of Revenue Administration states this will be revenue neutral, resulting in a shift of the tax burden to the owners of commercial property, rental housing, and on residents owning a second home."

Only the section dealing with property tax is considered to be revenue neutral. The sections dealing with motor vehicles over 30k(3%tax), items over 10k(3%tax) (includes boats), entertainment, gambling(5%tax), tobacco, beer, estates (over 3mil), and payrolls (over 10k/week) are revenue generators.

All revenues to be deposited into the education trust fund.
................................

Alrighty-dighty now, after staying up late and sharpening this #2 pencil here, I figured that Senator Gregg's Oct 20, 2005 Powerball win of $853,492.00 would have put $42,674.60, which is 5%, into the state's education trust fund.

That's the tax generated equivilent of way too many eight cents-each, McChicken sandwiches, costing one dollar, than I can figure out with just a pencil? Someone out there with a calculator, what's $42,674.60 divided by 0.08? That's a whole lot of McChickens, and that's how our NH tax system has been set up, up until now.

Senator Gregg, you lucky guy, you!

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
Not to worry, HB 925 will never get passed. Even if like the boat speed limit bill, it is able to eek out a pass in the house, it will die in the senate. And then Gov Lynch would veto it anyway, what with the huge November election coming. Gov Lynch is set on getting a constitutional amendment so the state will not have to help pay for local schools.

ITD

12-15-2007, 08:38 AM

"The Department of Revenue Administration states this will be revenue neutral, resulting in a shift of the tax burden to the owners of commercial property, rental housing, and on residents owning a second home."

Oh, this sounds wonderful!!!!!!!!!!!! Pass the burden off to the liberals favorite whipping boy, commercial interests. What's the greatest enemy of socialism and communism you ask????? Why it's capitalism, a system most commercial interests depend on.

So let's put on our thinking caps. Commercial interests exist to make money. If no money is made, then the blood, sweat, tears, aggravation just isn't worth it and the commercial interest shut down or move away taking any jobs it was supporting and all the taxes it was paying with it.
So what happens when the libs increase taxes on commercial interests????? Why they increase their prices to you and I their customers. They have to or they can't survive. So who pays for this brilliant idea to "shift the burden"???? Why you and I do, it doesn't get shifted, in fact it costs us MORE. This is a simple concept that most liberals and some republicans just don't get.

All revenues to be deposited into the education trust fund.
................................

Why do you suppose that the libs didn't finish this statement and say "the resultant surplus left from property tax collections will be credited to the respective property owners"??????????

BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO INTENTION OF GIVING THIS MONEY BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! There will be an emergency, a statue will need to be built, some more toll collectors will need to be hired. Gov. Lynch will need a Cadillac or 70 people on his staff to keep up with his liberal counter part in Massachusetts. Or here's another gem, the libs will be all up in arms asking why should the RICH property owners be getting such a huge break with OUR (meaning the government's) money.

Less, I fear you will get your wish and get these new taxes, only to figure out too late that you will be paying more rather than less. I can only imagine the posts when you finally realize you are being duped.

fatlazyless

12-15-2007, 08:59 AM

Now you begin to know how I already feel about my high property tax. What I support is an income tax w/ the first 20 or 25k excluded, is what I want to see.

I do not support this new property tax bill because it is not based on one's ability to pay, while an income tax is. The NH property tax has become such a mean tax that I would not wish to double-burden anyone with what already is too high a tax.

An income and sales tax is already "built into' the property tax because it is the only tax in use. Doubling a prop tax is not the way to go, and you are likely correct in that it could back-fire in a number of ways.

With an income tax, people are paying their own way and not getting a hand-out, plus it's based on ability to pay.

A five percent tax on gambling is a good tax because gambling winnings have the ability to pay. Some of the proposed gambling taxes being tossed around with casinos have been much higher than 5%.

This double property tax is really a mean and nasty tax, and is not based on one's ability to pay.

Skip

12-16-2007, 09:40 AM

...Epping: A couple is being taxed for a full year on a house that was destroyed by fire...

...Isn't that just a terrific state law! It's my guess that it was passed by the Republican state legislature during their lengthy reign as the majority party. It is the type of law that people like you, Skip, and Moultonboro State Rep Betsey Patten would shrug off and then feel it best to support. How very NOT fair! ...

Just to put closure to this issue, which was front page news in the Union Leader last week.

As I surmised, Epping Selectmen utilizing authority granted to them under NH State statues abated the Epping couple for the months after their home burned down. This resulted in halving their tax bill of $6,360 by nearly $3,500.

While the original story was headline news, this followup story was found on page B5 of today's Sunday News.

How very fair!

Merry Christemas,

Skip

fpartri497

12-16-2007, 02:31 PM

:D FLL for president :D

Mee-n-Mac

12-16-2007, 04:54 PM

With an income tax, people are paying their own way and not getting a hand-out, plus it's based on ability to pay.

I find it most interesting that the sentence I singled out above has both contrasting ideas of "ability to pay" and "paying their (your) own way". Which is it to be ?

How about this concept .... your property tax gets abated depending on how much time you spend at your property. Full time residents get to pay 100% and seasonal residents something less (since they're not there to use the town's services). Sound like "paying their own way" to me.

fatlazyless

12-17-2007, 07:36 AM

Hey Skip. yes it's good for that Epping couple that the Epping Selectboard agreed to pro-rate their prop tax from the day of their house burning.

There's an old saying in politics that comes from someone long dead...

ALL POWER CORRUPTS, AND ALL POWER CORRUPTS ABSOLUTELY!

If the Union Leader had not made the Epping story into a front page item with large color photos, would the Epping selectboard have made the same decision or were they influenced by all the publicity?

Only the Epping Selectboard knows.

There's a lawsuit appeal before the NH Supreme Court coming up soon between the guys who write the GilfordGrok blog, two Republicans no less, and the Belknap County board of overseers or something over their closed door habit of secretly voting on county business like Sheriff Wiggin's election a couple months ago. Should be a good one to watch!

...stay tuned!

Rattlesnake Guy

12-17-2007, 08:24 AM

To bend a phrase...
The selectmen process is the worst system conceivable expect for all the other options.

I think the town process that goes on around NH works pretty darn well. I love watching people make the decision on if it is worth the spending of their own money to buy things. If you elect a few frugal members, it will save you more money than an income tax ever could. It is a lot more like what happens in your own house when you want to buy a new boat or repair the roof. The creativity is reassuring.

Watching a town meeting negotiate through millions in spending and giving the retiree's a chance to explain why we just can't afford everything that can be conceived is incredibly powerful.

jrc

12-17-2007, 09:20 AM

...

ALL POWER CORRUPTS, AND ALL POWER CORRUPTS ABSOLUTELY!
...

Les, this is a big step! Can you take the next one:

MONEY IS POWER!

And when you tie these together, you understand why an income tax that will send all the money and power to Concord is such a bad idea

Weirs guy

12-17-2007, 12:58 PM

I do not support this new property tax bill because it is not based on one's ability to pay, while an income tax is.

That position still kills me. When you sell the property that you can't afford the taxes on any longer because of the "unfair" increase in said properties value, would you be willing to give the government all the increased value to compensate for lower taxes?

Doubt it.

jeffk

12-17-2007, 03:14 PM

So

... if I have property I will chose to pay income taxes or interest and dividend taxes or capital gains taxes.

... if I am making a good income you can tax me on property or interest and dividends or capital gains.

... if I have have lots of stock invested I will choose property tax or income tax or interest and dividends taxes.

... if I have savings and dividend paying stocks you can tax me on property or income or capital gains.

Taxes, they're ALL GOOD as long as they are someone else's taxes. :emb:

Skip

12-17-2007, 04:32 PM

fatlazyless

12-17-2007, 09:03 PM

hey Weirsguy, you raise the issue of what's it worth sold, and sure I'd try to get the highest price, but selling basically is not part of my thought process. Sell....never! A reverse mortgage.....interesting idea....minimum age is 62, and I plan to still have my old mongrel cottage till 2047. The neighborhood has already started to get torn down and redone, but my place will be the last handyman special left on Meredith Neck!

ApS

12-18-2007, 03:55 AM

"...I do not support this new property tax bill because it is not based on one's ability to pay..."

"...The practice of assessing the nonlocals higher than the locals seems like socialism to me..."

Let's see...

The town needs the revenue, and lakefront properties are owned by those with the ability to pay.

Therefore, we presently have this system:

"From each according to his abilities, and to each according to his needs"
I forget who wrote that. :rolleye1:

JDeere

12-18-2007, 08:10 AM

http://www.phrases.org.uk/images/acton.jpgThis arose as a quotation by Lord Acton in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton in 1887:"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."

SIKSUKR

12-18-2007, 02:01 PM

minimum age is 62, and I plan to still have my old mongrel cottage till 2047. !

Alright Les,are you saying that your only 22 years old?

fatlazyless

12-20-2007, 09:04 AM

Hey Siksukr, no, I'm a Lord Acton look-a-like...looks just like me.....hey, putting a photo into a post can add a lot...what a handsome guy!.

That famous phrase,

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."

is known as Lord Acton's Dictum, England 1887, and it was a reference on how he, a life long Catholic, felt about Papal power.

Sorry to bore you with the subject of nursing homes again but we'll all grow old someday, and nursing homes run by the counties are here to stay.

I told you that Sen Kathleen Sgambati (D) Tilton, who is the Senator for the Laconia area district really knows this subject top to bottom, inside out, and upside down, and that she is about a one thousand percent improvement over the district's prior occupant of this very important senate seat.

In the Dec 20 www.cmonitor.com,

a carefully detailed explanation by the Senator on how the state-county nursing home relationhip is being administered, and improved.

http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.d11/article?AID=/20071220/OPINION/712200302/1028/OPINION02

My links to the Concord Monitor never seem to work, so is there any chance someone could please set up a link to Senator Kathleen Sgambati's 'My Turn' opinion before it disappears into internet ancient history. Definately worth reading!

SIKSUKR

12-20-2007, 02:51 PM

You still crack me even if I do disagree with you.

phoenix

12-21-2007, 06:52 PM

Hb 925 sounds like something that Chavez would approve. How does it make sense to tax non residencial property at twice when most don't even use resources equal to residents. One can justify paying fair share based on value or the property but twice makes no sense .

fatlazyless

01-26-2008, 11:30 AM

Concord Monitor, Friday January 25, 2008

My Turn

Only answer: tax reform

Bills should be based on the ability to pay

By Rep. Jessie Osborne

For the Monitor

Congratulations to the Monitor for its excellent Jan. 19 editorial ("Commission should step off the treadmill"). You are absolutely correct that if the commission charged with arriving at the cost of an "adequate education" comes up wih an artficially low figure and the Legislature adopts it, the education funding issue - the great issue of our times in New Hampshire - will be headed back to the courts.

Some seem to believe that we can just delay, and delay more, on meeting the challenge of the Claremont lawsuit rulings. I believe something must be done now, and that Democrats were elected to majorities in both the House and Senate at least in part so that a permanent solution could be brought about.

That is one main reason I introduced House Bill 1593, taking on this issue from a revenue basis. The other main reason for this bill is to address the obvious and growing problem that over-reliance on the property tax is creating for the New Hampshire economy.

HB1593 establishes a combination statewide "enhanced education" property tax at $5.50 per $1,000 of equalized assessed valuation, with a $200,000 homestead exemption; and a 4 percent educaton income tax with liberal income exemptions and a credit for the statewide property tax the household pays. These taxes replace the current interest & dividends tax, and business enterprise tax, which are both repealed totally; the bill also reduces the business profits tax to 7.5 percent. The bill also contains a circuit breaker (abatement) program fro taxpayers whose total property tax bill (municipal, school, county and statewide property taxes) exceed 8 percent of household income. In short, this bill bases the financing of education on ability to pay.

A homeowner with a property valued at $250,000 would pay a statewide property tax of $275; a homeowner whose property is valued at $500,000 would pay $1,650; a homeowner whose property is valued at $1 million would pay $4,400. Similarly, the income tax paid by a family of four whose federal adjusted gross income is $40,000 would be $0; with an income of $60,000 and a homestead valued at $275,000, the family's state ncome tax would be a net of only $525; with an income of $200,000 and a homestead valued at $500,000, the net state income taxwould be $4,750.

The Department of Revenue Administration prepared a fiscal analysis of this bill, and while I question some of its' assumptions and calculations, DRA concludes that the bill would produce almost $837 million of net new revenue for the state. That is more than double the current education trust fund revenue. This means that the cost of an adequate education can be pegged at a realistic and defensible level, not a lowball figure that backs into the current state revenue raising system.

I wish to thank my co-sponsors - Democratic Reps. Chuck Weed of Keene, James Phinizy of Acworth and Mary Cooney of Plymouth - for their support and work in preparation and presenting this bill. I also thank the members of the House Ways and Means Committee, chaired by Democratic Rep. Susan Almy of Lebanon, for their open-minded reception. Unfortunately no member of the media chose to cover the hearing, and the bill has attracted zero publicity. Perhaps the media has written off such a legislative effort as totall unrealistic and unachievable.

While I am under no illusion that this comprehensive tax reform will become law his year ( a gubernatorial veto would be swift after the unlikely passage of such a measure), the time is well overdue for honest debate over New Hampshire's broken tax system. The future of our state depends on it.

(Rep. Jessie L. Osborne is a Democrat from Concord.)

Concord Monitor, January 25, 2008

......

:banana: :cheers: :banana: :cheers::banana:

wifi

01-26-2008, 11:54 AM

..... DRA concludes that the bill would produce almost $837 million of net new revenue for the state ....(Rep. Jessie L. Osborne is a Democrat from Concord.)

More taxpayer money for the Democrats to spend... yes, that's the fix... sure...

phoenix

01-26-2008, 04:31 PM

if this stays on the table until November the democrats will have a short stay in the majority in new Hampshire legislature

ITD

01-26-2008, 06:48 PM

Concord Monitor, Friday January 25, 2008

My Turn

Only answer: tax reform

Bills should be based on the ability to pay

:banana: :cheers: :banana: :cheers::banana:

Groan

What about spend reform............

How about : For the NH Government spending should be based on the ability to pay

phoenix

01-26-2008, 09:41 PM

still think the best way if money needs to be raised is allow a casino at rockingham park. Those who pay do it voluntarily( you don't have to go if you don't want to) and it will bring in money from Mass residents. It does bring issues with it as some have raised but may be the best way to solve the education funding gap. But I do agree with the others that spending control should come first.

fatlazyless

01-27-2008, 06:40 AM

Laconia Daily Sun, Saturday, January 26, 2008

On the editorial page below the weekly Garrison Keillor column
............

Record number of votes cast in N.H. Primary

CONCORD (AP) - New data show that record number of votes were cast in both the Republican and Democratic presidential primaries in New Hampshire on Jan. 8.

Secretary of State William Gardner released the official vote total Friday. They showed that 241,039 Republican ballots were cast, which surpassed the party's record of 239,523 set in 2000.

Gardner said 288,503 ballots were cast in the Democratic primary Jan 8, breaking the record set in 2004 of 221,309.

In all, a record 529,542 ballots were cast.

The total number registered voters has not yet been calculated. New Hampshire lets people register at the polls, and Gardner's office has been busy re-counting ballots in both primaries.

Laconia Daily Sun
.......................

And one of those Republican votes was mine. Ok, so then why am I so pleased that the numbers figure out to be a terrific and historical high Democratic vote of 54.5%, and for the Republican vote it was 45.5%. This is excellent news for the NH Democratic party. Hey, is it time to party yet?

.........................

:banana::patriot::patriot::banana:

Weirs guy

01-28-2008, 12:15 PM

Funny, based on that new tax system and the tax cuts it would provide me I think I just became a Democrat! And the best part is other people will have to pay for my 2 kids education!!!

:rolleye1:

wifi

01-28-2008, 12:44 PM

... Funny, based on that new tax system and the tax cuts it would provide me I think I just became a Democrat! ...

Just wait until next year, when they pave the road in front of FLLs house "because he doesn't have the ability to pay ... " it will come out of a raise in YOUR taxes.. :laugh: :laugh:

fatlazyless

01-28-2008, 07:33 PM

For me, and probably for most people, what matters the most is the money. Republican-Democrat-Republican-Democrat, eenie-meenie-minnie-moe, show me the money and by that I mean the tax bill, and that's what really counts. No surprise on that.

For some, the New Hampshire system is an advantage, and for others it is a burden. Probably for most, chosing to be a D or an R is determined by the M factor (money). No wonder why so many chose to be undeclared or independants. Does it really matter whether you attach yourself w/ the D's or the R's, when it's really all about the M's.

..............................

From yesterday's www.cmonitor.com, Jan 27, the last five paragraphs of an editorial that helped me to understand Rep Jessie Osborne"s HB1593 proposal.
................................

" Osborne's bill is complicated. Unlike the governor's, it won't make a good bumper sticker or campaign slogan. Unlike the governors, it addresses both problems cited in the Claremont school funding litigation: unequal resources for rich and poor school districts and the crushing financial burden on taxpayers forced to pay the lion's share of education costs through the regressive local property tax.

In its' broadest form, Osbornes's bill would establish a statewide educaton property tax at $5.50 per $1,000, with a $200,000 homestead exempton. It would establish a 4 percent income tax with liberal exemptions and a credit for the state wide property tax. It would repeal the interest and dividends tax and business enterprise tax. It would reduce the business profits tax. It would provide abatements for everyone whose total property tax bill was more than 8 percent of their income.

The upshot: New Hampshire taxpayers would contribute to education based on their ability to pay. And New Hampshire government would collect enough money to truly provide an adequate education. It's hard to argue wih common sense.

Osborne isn't under any illusions about her bill's chances this session. She has no slick p.r. campaign or the muscle of heavy hitter political leaders behind her. Even if it reached his desk, the governor wouldn't sign it.

But Osborne wants an honest conversation on school funding and New Hampshire's antiquated tax system. Her bill, unlike the governor's State of the State pitch, could provide just that.
.............
Concord Monitor

...........

Irish mist

01-28-2008, 10:19 PM