Quote:
Originally Posted by garysanfran
Why is the cost of running a town connected to the value of the residences?
If a property's value increases, the cost of running the town doesn't go up. I see Meredith is spending their windfall on a new DPW building. That is certainly going to enhance my life.
|
The cost of running the town has no connection to the values of the residences or services individual residents receive. The value of the residences IS associated with the assumed ability to pay tax (people who can afford an expensive house can afford to pay a higher portion of the taxes) and tax is apportioned on THAT basis.
You can argue for and against the current form of tax apportionment just as you can argue for and against about any form of tax; sales, income, fees, business, etc. At some point the elected legislature decided how to apportion taxes to get the bills paid and THAT is how it works in NH.
I personally think the reasoning about ability to pay tax relating to the value of your property is pretty fair. In addition, I like to keep the taxes close at hand, in the town, where you have much more power to impact spending decisions. Most other forms of taxes end up being collected by the state which is far less accountable to individual citizens and keeps escalating spending as long as they already have their hands in your pocket. Further, lobbyists can lobby the state to spend easier. It is pretty impractical to lobby individual towns to spend money for a cause. Since the state doesn't have a spigot of money, they have to say no to lobbyists.
Finally, there is the history of almost every other state. They all bought into income and sales taxes to provide relief from property taxes. Over time, the property taxes increased again. Now they have it all, income, sales, and property taxes and an overall bigger spending/tax bill.
Again, this is my opinion. Your milage may vary.