HB 1707 to Double property taxes
 

Proposed NH House Bill 1707 will double the current real estate tax on any property in NH not occupied for six months (or is a short-term rental for at least six months).
https://gc.nh.gov/bill_status/result...tbillno=hb1707

This is especially bad for island camp owners, for properties that cannot be reasonably occupied for six months of the year.
This sure feels like a money grab from non-resident property owners.



https://legiscan.com/NH/text/HB1707/2026

1 New Section; Taxation; Persons and Property Liable to Taxation; Supplemental Residence Tax. Amend RSA 72 by inserting after section 6-a the following new section:

72:6-b Unoccupied Housing Tax. Any owner of property that is unoccupied for at least 6 months of the tax year, or is occupied as a short-term rental for at least 6 months of the tax year, shall be required to pay to the department of revenue administration a sum equal to the total of all property taxes, fees, and interest owed on that property to any municipality, city, town, village, or unincorporated place.

2 New Section; Taxation; Tax on Transfer of Real Property; Transfer Tax Exemption. Amend RSA 78-B by inserting after section 13 the following new section:

78-B:14 Transfer Tax Exemption.

I. There shall be a one-time exemption allowed against the entirety of the tax due under this chapter in any given tax year.

II. No exemption shall be allowed under this section unless the person applying therefor:

(a) Is the buyer of a property;

(b) Does not currently own any other property; and

(c) Has a household with an income for the preceding year of no more than 100 percent of the median income for a 3-person household for the metropolitan area or county in which the housing is located as published annually by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development; or

(d) Is the owner of a property being sold to a qualifying buyer under subparagraphs (a) and (b).

3 Effective Date. This act shall take effect April 1, 2027.

May to October.
A bit long for some, but doable.

How does this get enforced? If I walk onto the property does that count as use?

This ought to be cute to enforce. Will they now have residential housing police to check if owners are at their home every day???? Oh, maybe we need to take a picture standing at our property with the local paper publication date to verify we are there for 6 months plus a day?? What if you ahve an out of state emergency and miss the 6 months timeframe? Not enforceable. Stupid. Just another way to get non-residents to pay for NH excesses. Let's propose a non-student tax credit for those who do not have students in local school. See how that goes. Guess you can't fix stupid !

As if we don't get hit hard enough living on the lake. :mad:

Looking at bills, you need to go to NH.gov/bills, not the independent search sites. Look at the sponisrs. In this case, a D from Newmarket, a D from Peterborough and a D UNH student. Nobody from the Lakes Region. These three will be unlikely to get past a Republican Ways and Means Committee, never mind success in the House and a Republican Senate. Sleep well, taxpayers.

They'll monitor your utility use. Did you put cable on seasonal hold? Show us your credit card statements.

They will look for you to declare it your primary residence with all that entails.

Several bills are looking for the means to "fix" the cost of the educational mandates and housing affordability.
Several are using the "second home" option that was presented in "Yellowstone" by Governor Dutton.

https://economistwritingeveryday.com...ty-tax-system/

I know a wealthy Massachusetts resident who sold a large multi million dollar business and wanted to beat the Mass taxes. He claimed to be a Florida resident. (No income taxes) Among other things, he drove leased cars in Massachusetts that one of his businesses paid for so it wouldn't come back to him. He got a Florida drivers license. He put a car at his Florida condo and gave the doorman the keys and a gas card so it would show use. He told the doorman to make sure he filled it at least once a week. He left all the lights on in the condo to run up the electric bill.

I have a neighbor in Florida who also has a home in Michigan. I was told that Michigan DOR will track you by where your cellphone is if they want to prove you owe taxes.

Canada is also tracking the number of days a Canadian spends outside the country to qualify them for government health care.

This is a different one:

https://gc.nh.gov/lsr_search/billTex...id=2435&type=4

This is another one, but seems to hit commercial/retail/industrial properties along with rental properties pretty hard.

https://gc.nh.gov/lsr_search/billTex...id=2434&type=4

Obviously, even with the "credits" everyone can see some taxes go up in low tax municipalities.

There are others that seem even more complex.

New York is known as a State to watch where their former residents move to as they don't like losing all those tax dollars......

NH is out of control. I hope enough lawmakers have enough sense to realize that more and more taxes only drive people away.

Sounds like a little bit Massachusetts is slipping into NH…….

I'm not certain legally but I would wonder if targeting a specific group like this for an enormous tax penalty is unconstitutional? Doesn't a tax have to be equitable? In this case, applying to all land owners, not a select group based on how they choose to use their land.

It also seems like they are trying to force an outcome, like the selling of such properties to people who would live in the homes full time, to ... fix the "housing shortage"?

Also, unintended results should be considered. NH is big on being vacationland. This penalty tax could crash the vacation home market except for the extremely wealthy who could shrug it off. It could force homes into abandoned status because the owner couldn't afford the taxes and no one could afford to buy it.

Does it apply to condos? THAT would be a mess. Hotels that close during the off season (mid-October - mid-May)?

The whole thing seems very badly considered.

[Art.] 5-b. [Power to Provide for Tax Valuations Based on Use.]
back to top
The general court may provide for the assessment of any class of real estate at valuations based upon the current use thereof.
November 15, 1968

Well established in constitutional doctrine.

Hotels are not residential, and would not be subject to the statute.

As I linked, being used in various formats by what are considered very conservative States.

A little bit here and there eventually adds up to a lot. And that has happened.

I have almost nothing in common with Governor Dutton (although he and I are both dashingly handsome and of a certain age :)). Nevertheless, Yellowstone is one of the best shows on TV, and Dutton represents a very admirable old school conservatism that values rugged individualism and respect for the land and neighbors. He's not represented by the people who typically call themselves conservatives today, and most liberal ideas are foreign to him, but we could all learn a lot from him.

So don't worry about this tax that's never going to pass, but watch the show!

HB 17-7 to Double property taxes
 

The town of Barnstable on Cape Cod has a similar law. Attached is a letter new owners receive. I must admit I found it a little confusing.

So what they are proposing is to double the taxes on those that do not live full time in their property. The same people who do not send anyone to school, or require any emergency medical services, or any trash pick-up for example, while their property is not occupied. Being an Island property owner means that I would pay double what I am paying now so that someone who lives full time on the mainland and uses all of the services the town has to offer gets to vote to spend even more without having to worry about their tax bill. Who thinks of this stuff??Reminds me of shooting fish in a barrel!

When the bill enters committee, make a public comment to that fact.

Legislators have several bills in the works on this subject, so it may take some diligence.

And most can't vote...

We need some kind of a lake coalition to fight all these bills they are coming up with. They seem to think there is no limit to how much they can tax us. I will never forget the Wolfeboro Planning board chairman referring to lakefront homeowners as the "cash cow".

This kind of crap drives me crazy. Are their additional services that are being proposed that need a funding mechanism or is this just a way to allocate more of the tax burden to the part time/non-resident owners? The solution is to tax those people who largely don't use much/any of the services provided such as schools? Yes, that makes a ton of sense. At some point (and I think it already has started) it just won't make sense to have a second home and then they can figure out a way to pay for everything without that group of people.

The "show" had its finally. All reruns now.

Most out-of-state owners will just change to NH being their primary residence.
But other loopholes on this OP bill exist with just a little bit of effort.

Most of the homes that I have been working on are either going to be a primary residence (some very high end), so they won't be under this bill; or second homes with owners that have children in the area that could "lease" the home from mom and dad, and also simply avoid this bill.

Happening already in towns with lots of lakefront property on places like Winni..... In M'boro, something like 70 % of properties are waterfront and they get hit with high valuations based on sales. A large majority are second homes and they pay disproportionally for town and school services. The locals are all in favor of spending money since they only pay a small amount. Somewhere taxation without representation got lost after the Boston Tea Party. If you pay taxes, then there should be a separate voting list so you can vote for elected officials as well as attend Annual Meetings and vote. Never going to happen as it would take the locals to give up control. Same thing exists as to why many towns will not vote for SB2 and allow all residents to vote on budgets, not just the few that attend the meetings. All those snowbirds are left with the tax bills but no say. All about power and control. And as the southern portion of the state is heavily populated by MA transplants, they are more than willing to add taxes to the seasonal's north of Concord. Don't be surprised at what happens. Sooner or later, this type of double taxation will happen as the state runs out of money being a no income tax state and they have to find the money somewhere. Just look at one of the bills where they exempt property under $500K....they just tossed all this crap in your seasonal face as they protect their own. No need to be shy...they certainly just stick it in your eye and say.."whatcha going to do about it??"

As a non-resident, you may not cast a ballot, but you can vote with your wallet. For example, the sponisors of HB1707 are all Democratrs, so a contribution to the PAC, "Committee to Elect House Republicans" could benefit from your sujpport.

What about the bills using roughly the same format that have Republicans signed on?

Change residency.
Make NH your primary home, register your vehicles here, transfer your license, and register to vote.

Already done it years ago after retiring from MA. But have more than one property in NH, so I am exposed. NH will ultimately be a victim of their own past success. With zero large industry moving to NH now or presumably in the future, lack of business revenue will force more and more on property taxes. And those who vote will be sure to protect their wallets at the expense of others who cannot. Choice is simple...pay and hold your nose or sell.

Is the other one leased?
This bill exempts second properties that are leased for six months or more.

I am a New Hampshire resident. I own a home and a commercial property in New Hampshire. Doesn’t help me with my island property situation.

What about a guest house?

A three season island property does not work well as a year round home.

Any examples?

Where do I send the check. This is a disease that must be eradicated.

Three seasons is more than enough to meet the primary residence definition if apt.

I post two of them previously.

There are more than just the three, but at least one other is too hard for me to even figure out what its implications are.

HB 1580FN-LOCAL
HB 1800FN

Part of the primary property, best guess it would be exempt.

But I think it depends on what bill, if any, were to pass.
What amendments might be added in committee, etc.

Democrats? Wanting to raise taxes? I’m shocked

I can”t believe this would get through the legislature . Maybe wacko bills get filed but if it gets through Gov will veto

There are no democrats left in office. They are all socialists/communists at heart. They prey and abuse empathy and emotion to steal more and more from taxpayers under the guise of some seemingly noble cause that will never be satisfied. Maybe one day the old school democrat voters and squishy moderates will wake up before they destroy themselves too.

Bah, humbug.

Why affiliate with EITHER party?

Analyze issues using your own "filtering tool," and arrive at your own conclusions as opposed to parroting spoon-fed mantras.

Be Independent.

Take it to another forum please.

Florida Considering Removal of Residential Property Tax...
 

Florida enforces a similar law against half-year residents.

While I've claimed this relief without question for 15+ years, a notice was returned to our County's tax collector, who demanded proof of eligibility. As a result, I was asked to present proof (within 30 days) by maybe eight different records--including one I don't understand (and which may not apply).

Of course, I would get a medical procedure--with two weeks of hospitalization--that same month!

:eek:

Unintended consequences?
 

This bill would encourage people to become NH residents (if possible and it makes sense for the individuals involved). If current non residents become NH residents and have the right to vote, wouldn't they bring their political beliefs with them to the ballot box?

Political bias won't be the problem.

No revenue would be the problem.

These three bills affect property owners in New Hampshire, especially those who rent their properties out:

HB1580, being heard on January 12, would assess a surcharge on the assessed market value of any non-primary residence valued over $500,000, potentially making it too expensive to continue hosting. Depending upon the wording of a final version it could affect anyone who has a second home in New Hampshire.

HB1707, being heard on January 12, would assess an additional tax on unoccupied properties. The bill would double owners’ taxes, requiring payment of equal amounts of taxes to the municipality and the state.

HB1068, being heard on January 14, makes unnecessary and confusing changes to the definition of “hotels” to include STRs, which are already subject to meals and rooms taxes.

HB 1580
"III.(a) The surcharge under paragraph II shall not apply to:
(1) Properties used as the owner’s principal place of abode.
(2) Long-term rental properties leased for 6 or more consecutive months per year to the same tenant.
(3) Properties with an assessed market value below $500,000."

HB1707 has the same thing. But HB 1580 allows for second homes that are not rented out for at least six months to be exempt if they have a low enough market value.

that certainly eliminates waterfront who now already pay a disproportioned share vs usage

Maybe I don't understand this correctly. If I do, I see the potential for a significant disruption in the real estate market. I know there are a lot of out of state residents who own second homes in New Hampshire.

If an out of state resident owns a summer or weekend home in New Hampshire, valued at over $500,000, and it is not their primary residence, then this legislation would seem to apply. They could have a significant increase in their real estate taxes.

If the bill passes, to avoid the tax increase, many of those people might change their residence to New Hampshire and become part of the voting base. How will that change the votes and budgets in these small towns?

I see the other unintended consequence as a lot of movement in the real estate market. People who can't or won't change to be New Hampshire residents may sell their homes to avoid the tax increase. That may result in a lot of homes, many waterfront, changing hands. That could have an effect on prices.

With all the bills in, some I haven't even had time to review, it is impossible for me to ascertain the downline effects.

Can't even tell if NH will get there before Florida.

If you are going to double someone's real estate taxes, I see no way that their wouldn't be an impact (and likely significant) in the real estate market. Sellers have been enjoying an environment where there are more buyers than sellers but a bill like this could flip that quickly. A lot of these homes are waterfront so we are not talking a few thousand dollars we are talking ten's of thousand of dollars. The one link shows the estimated impact and it placed it at $922.6 million (in additional revenue/taxes).

Just another money grab
 

Just add a sales tax and be done with all this non-sense. If this ever passes there will be so many carve outs that it will disproportionately hit a tiny group that cannot even vote. And soon after which, they will be back looking for more money.

That is what they are hopeful to get.
They can't determine how many non-residents would just change residency, or how many would seek to lease their homes for the six months they may not be using it.

But not all the bills are narrow.
At least one increases taxes on all formats of property.
It moves the SWePT from $1.44 to $5. Even if a property owner meets all the carve outs, it would only reduce the increase from $1.44 to $3.
But the redistribution of the SWePT would hit certain towns harder than others.

NH needs to lower the business taxes, so it wants to make that up with property taxes.

We have sales taxes... just not a general sales tax.

Yup I'm aware of the meals tax and others. Talking about the general. At least people will have a choice of what and what not to spend their money and how much.

Guessing you aren't a native of NH.

We pride ourselves on no general income or sales tax.

And the State considers the acquisition of a second home a choice to expend money... not a necessity.
So not the best argument to use in committee.

Might be time to swallow your pride – joke

But seriously, perhaps the state needs to take a broader view of the situation. An income tax would not be discretionary, but a sales tax would be. Most likely solve most if not all of the spending issues.

At this point, they have taxed most every generational family camp on the lakes out of existence for multi-million-dollar homes. And if they do hold out, most can’t afford to leave their home to their kids with the tax burden. I suppose a self-fulfilling prophecy at this point. Hey maybe if they get enough people forced off of Bear Island due to the tax burden, someone like Zukerberg can buy the whole island – what a bonanza of tax dollars that would be for the state > Yee-Haw. (Another joke)

Correct, sadly I don’t currenlty live in the state (can’t vote but simply watch) but have been spending summers here for over 40 years. One has to ask themselves – is it better now than it was then? We are heading in the right direction by taxing people out? Personally, I think not.

It's true. Yes they are greedy for money to waste but they might just get unintended consequences.

Honestly, I couldn’t agree more. The revenue the State is forgoing from all out of state summer vacationers, downhill skiers, snowmobilers, leaf peepers, etc is a hefty amount

Article in NHPR
 

Yesterday's Hearing
 

With NH property taxes already some of the highest in the country, this would be devastating.
I don't rent my property, and I don't reside in NH but this law would definitely push me to sell, not to move there, JMO.

Well, I have three major bills that I reviewed.
And was working on two more, when I accidently came across a Luxury Home Tax hidden in a third.

Not sure how it will all shake out.

Maybe increase the Rt. 93 toll for those coming north from Massachusetts to $100. Could solve problems on many levels.

My thoughts on the bill:

New Hampshire’s housing problem is a supply problem.
HB 1707 does not create new housing units or remove barriers to construction.

Taxing unoccupied or short-term rental properties does not increase supply.
The bill changes who pays taxes, not how many homes exist.

Higher taxes can reduce long-term rental availability.
Owners may sell, keep properties vacant, or shift to other uses rather than provide long-term rentals.

The bill discourages productive use of housing.
Increased costs make housing investment less attractive in an already difficult development environment.

The transfer tax exemption helps only a limited number of buyers.
A one-time tax break does not reduce home prices or competition in a tight market.

Affordability does not improve without more housing.
Tax relief does not lower construction costs, operating costs, or rents.

There is no guarantee of workforce or affordable housing.
The bill does not require or incentivize long-term affordability.

Real solutions focus on increasing supply.
Zoning reform, streamlined permitting, infrastructure investment, and incentives for new construction address the root causes of the crisis.

Bottom Line:
HB 1707 is a tax policy, not a housing solution. It does not increase housing supply and will not meaningfully improve affordability or availability in New Hampshire.

Sure, drive more folks to sell. The same folks who patronize local businesses -- from groceries to cable to septic pumping. Attract more buyers who knock down existing camps, build McMansions, and then sell them five years later.

Sounds great! :mad:

Two concepts: Sales tax and income tax. Level the playing field a bit.

(This coming from a family that sold due to escalating taxes after 80 years of lakefront living...)

interesting if these bills pass it would cause more waterfront sales and likely reduced prices which will cause assessments to drop and place a larger burden on non-waterfront. I still can't believe this soak the rich will pass and get signed by the governor

From the Concord Monitor article:

“I do my best not to be a typical liberal, but in this instance I think that we do have to address a situation where these homes are left empty and people are not contributing back to the communities in which they are residing in,” Wheeler told the House Ways and Means Committee on Monday, “at the same time while the people who spend 365 days out of the year are having to be priced out.”

From the NPR article:

“You have the right to keep your property out of rent, but, in a housing crisis, you don’t have the right to keep it out of the rental market without paying something back to the state, because you are actively harming the state,” said Democratic Rep. Ellen Read of Newmarket, the lead sponsor of this bill.

This sounds like one of those spoof articles in the Laconia Daily Sun on April Fools Day.

Which one? I am up to eight different bills at this time.

We just did away with an income tax (D&I) and have been lowering the BPT/BET for ten straight years. Changing directions now would not be in the best interest of Republicans. It would signal that Democrats were right all along.

Those that do have properties that are unoccupied November through May already do contribute a lot to their communities directly (disproportionately) when paying their Real Estate Taxes......

How? Doesn't their Real Estate Tax take consideration of Schools, Police and Fire protection based upon 12 months of occupancy and not a lessor time frame of a seasonal structure?

Clearly a seasonal structure owner won't be placing their children into the local school system.......

HB 1707 to Double property taxes
 

I have an idea, now brace yourselves, this is radical.
If the State of New Hampshire is looking for ways to raise MORE money, maybe they should be looking for ways to SPEND less money (and attract more people).

Chimi, we don't have the RIGHT to decide what we want to do with our own homes. Isn't that nice? :mad:

Camp Guy, Yes spend less. Maybe even look at waste in fraud. Do you think Minnesota etc. are the only states that have it?

Well this is some interesting legislation. It looks like NH wants to turn itself into a elitist colony..... If some of this legislation passes, look for lake front property sales to increase.... I don't think the market will be flooded, so properties will not start loosing value... but I think with the increased tax burden a number of folks will decide it is no longer worth trying to hold onto their homes.

Really I think the intention of all this legislation is to try and curb the short term rental investment frenzy brought forth by VBRO, and such....... Why the state is trying to tackle this problem is interesting...

Not really true.

The increase in tax bills is nothing compared to the run up in land values. It's not that the family can't afford a few thousand per year in increased taxes, it's that they are looking at land they don't use all that often that's now worth a couple of million. Their lake house may be the majority of their net worth, and they need cash!

And when we say can't afford to leave their home to their kids due to tax burden--the total tax bill is lower if you die while owning the home. If you sell towards the end of your life, you owe capital gains. If you leave the home to the kids, the cost basis resets and there is zero capital gains tax if they decide to sell quickly.

The real issue is the opportunity cost--there are a lot of other things that could be done with the money

As posted earlier, I don't think these billks will go anywhere. Too many camps (second homes) are owned by people from NH, so the taxes fall on NH voters, not mostly folks from away. At least one Democrat Rep testified against HB1707 at the public hearing, so, to me, this is not a strong party position and there won't be pressure from party leadership to support this bill.

What about the other bills?

Gentrification. Only so many lakefront lots.

Following Florida. Florida is working on reducing and removing taxation of primary homes.
Certain legislators smell blood in the water; they want people on record.

Tried that.
$8 million is spent from the General Fund on Dam Maintenance.
The Legislature put forth several bills, none were liked, and finally decided to add $5 to a boat registration.
So now General Fund revenue only has to raise about $7.5 million a year.

If we have to subsidize luxuries, not really some way to cut spending on the necessities.

They are all slick politicians...screw the non residents who cannot vote to oust them if they do not like the solutions. All focused on the seasonal non residents located mostly north of Concord by the residents south of Concord where the majority of representatives are located. "Residents" will love it as it continues to blatantly bilk the out of staters. Perfect world for the residents. It is a love / hate relationship. Most hate the seasonal non residents but they love them for offsetting a huge amount of their taxes. So they tolerate them for 10 weeks. My guess is any of these proposals might be considered a "fee" by the Fed's as it is not a broad based tax. This could negate its deductibility on Federal Tax returns...another screwing. Why have a sales or income tax when you can screw the non residents to raise money?

They are property tax proposals. So they would be deductible to the allowance.

The bills are all different.

The one with the Luxury Home Tax doesn't tax any property extra money with an assessment below $1 million whether it is primary, secondary, or rental.

Over $1 million assessment, the extra tax is $5 per thousand.

So you think NH is perfect and doesn't have any waste or fraud? And it's time government serves needs not wants.

This is targeting lake properties as most are over 1 million just for the land. Screw the lake people. They have too much. They need to share.

Unless you bring your home state spendthrift attitude with you, then maybe stay where you are happy.

There is a lot of waste to be cut here, start with SAUs that pay their top administrators more than the governor makes here.

That would be local, and not covered by State taxes unless the State mandated it.

This is about State taxation.

Hopefully this reply will help me if I ever have to prove it in a court of law, but I hereby declare on January 14, 2026, that if this passes, I will no longer be a weekender; instead I shall move to Gilford and reside there for 183 days a year or however many days it takes to avoid paying this terrible fee!

So none of what the state collects goes toward schools and education?

Only what they have specifically mandated.
Everything beyond that is a local expenditure that is covered locally.

It is why a cost per student can be thousand of dollars and the State grants are a portion of such rather than the whole thing.

Going the way of California?

There is an assault on the wealthy in this Country.

California is trying to impose a wealth tax... As is New Hampshire. I believe Massachusetts and a few other states are attempting the same.

This Socialist attempt to redistribute wealth is having "unintended consequences".

Many billionaires are moving from California and they're NOT relocating to New Hampshire or Massachusetts.

I have never worked for someone less wealthy than me. Rich people drive the economy more than those less financially well off.

The rich also drive innovative progress. They invent things and thus create an industry around those inventions, employing many.

The small number of wealthy already pay the majority of Govt. tax revenue. Not enough for some. They must "pay their fair (fare) share" (Bernie Sander's favorite spiel).

Fiscal responsibility includes cutting spending.

Waste, fraud, misdirected goodwill for immigrants should all be actively pursued and eliminated.

An immigrant to the USA should demonstrate financial solvency like is required in Australia. An immigrant on public support for years, contribute nothing and drain lots.

Compassion does not have to be sacrificed for fiscal solvency. Just the opposite. Fiscal responsibility is compassionate support for the hard working taxpayer.

I started coming to New Hampshire when my age was in single digits. It was so different than my Massachusetts then. Not anymore.

I'm a big advocate of fiscal responsibility while also recognizing that the very rich have ways to grow and preserve wealth most people do not. The super-wealthy benefit from structural advantages that go far beyond simply having more money: most of their wealth comes from assets rather than wages, allowing them to pay lower capital-gains rates, defer taxes indefinitely, or avoid them altogether through legal strategies such as borrowing against stock, exploiting valuation rules, or using vehicles like Roth IRAs Peter Theil has billions in a Roth, perfectly legal, thanks to access to investments closed to most people) in ways never available to ordinary workers. Unlike middle-class earners, who pay taxes automatically with every paycheck, the ultra-wealthy can control when income is realized, shield gains with sophisticated legal planning, and pass wealth to heirs with minimal taxation.

In the decades following World War II, we took a very different approach. Top marginal tax rates were dramatically higher, wealth was taxed more directly, and public investment in infrastructure, education, and housing expanded alongside strong labor protections. That period coincided with the fastest and most broadly shared growth of the middle class in modern American history. A tax system asking more of those who benefited most from the economy helped create the conditions for widespread prosperity rather than stifling it.

There are lessons to learn from the past as well as opportunites to create a better future.

the question I always ask is " what" is the Fair share" but this forum is not supposed to be political so won't add any best to stick to the bills

Assault might be a bit strong, since the wealthy have not actually been hit with anything yet. But I hear what you're saying wrt Bernie et al. To me, this is a natural, and even reasonable backlash against the pretty much undeniable fact that the wealthy have taken virtually all of the new wealth created in our country over the past 20-25 years. Just google this and look at whatever source you'd like for percent of wealth owned by the top 1% or top 0.1%, and how that number's changed over time. A big part of this is our tax system. Even when the wealthy have to pay taxes, which in some cases it's not as often as you'd think, they pay on capital gains instead of salaries. So a guy with millions in the stock market living off his interest is paying a lower tax rate than the guy busting his hump for the same income. It's kind of messed up. (And I write this as a person who's benefitted greatly from our system, and whose taxes would increase if Bernie got his way)

Ma has had the wealth tax for a couple years now, an extra 4% over one million earned. It hasn't made more millionaires move out of the state, it has attracted more wealth.
But Ma is losing middle class residents because of the cost of housing and childcare. The average home in Ma now is over 850K and the average yearly childcare is over 35K.
People are making a lot of money in Ma but are still finding it difficult to afford rent and save to buy a home. And Ma has some of the highest childcare in the country. We still have a healthy real estate market with low inventory and high prices.
I know NH residents hate Ma people but as a 72 year old blue collar worker, I don't think I would have what I have today if I lived my whole life in NH.
I love NH as I love all of New England, wouldn't live anywhere else.

The ideas are based on Montana and Florida.

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/pol...313803813.html

Property Taxes
 

Looks like we should get working on homesteading my wife in Florida!

Government Must Spend and Tax With Care
 

"The power to tax is the power to destroy." This is a quote from Chief Justice John Marshall writing for the court in [U]McCulloch v. Maryland[U] in 1819. Although this case is not on point with today's dilemma it highlights the danger in government's ability to impose unfair taxes on those least able to bear them. As well as government's ability to spend itself into debt foolishly.

No person should be taxed out of their property. No group of people should be targeted for taxation above what all others are taxed. This seems to be the case in the proposed legislation.

The answer, government must spend what is needed on necessaries only, not on pork barrel wants. Government must only tax fairly by spreading the cost of government equally among taxpayers. Targeting groups of people for a disproportionate share, especially a group of people who have no say how they are taxed is wrong.

They need a constitutional amendment.
But I think they will get it done.

My mother discussed it with us when she came home for the holidays.

You can't have it in two states though. You would have to give up NH.