NH Real Estate Taxes

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Biggd

NH is a highly touristed State! At least out of staters would have to pay a good portion of it. An income tax would only hit residents.

No. The latest numbers for tourist is $4.2 billion. About the same number we had in 2000. When inflation is taken into account we are actually way down.

In 2000, tourism was about 8% of the economy, today it is about 3.5%

[garysanfran]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

No. The latest numbers for tourist is $4.2 billion. About the same number we had in 2000. When inflation is taken into account we are actually way down.

In 2000, tourism was about 8% of the economy, today it is about 3.5%

As towns limit the amount of vacation rentals, this will continue.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by garysanfran

As towns limit the amount of vacation rentals, this will continue.

The localities have little power on the issue.

Which is why DeSantis is making a proposal were all the property taxes would be moved toward those properties and thus make them worthwhile for the localities to harbor.

Currently, local residents feel that the costs are being socialized and the revenue is being privatized.
Under their limited empowerment, removing the STRs increases the value of re-establishing hotel, motel, cottage colonies, etc.

DeSantis' proposal changes that thinking around.

[Garcia]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

The localities have little power on the issue.

Which is why DeSantis is making a proposal were all the property taxes would be moved toward those properties and thus make them worthwhile for the localities to harbor.

Currently, local residents feel that the costs are being socialized and the revenue is being privatized.
Under their limited empowerment, removing the STRs increases the value of re-establishing hotel, motel, cottage colonies, etc.

DeSantis' proposal changes that thinking around.

NH has decided to collect money through property tax and maintain no income or general sakes tax - and thus is in the top 5 of the states with the highest property tax. Florida's property tax is in the middle of the states, about average. BUT FL has a statewide sales tax of 6% and allows local surtaxes creating an effective rate of 6.5%-7%.

DeSantis does not have a real proposal yet to eliminate property tax, it's more of an idea. To make up the lost revenue, guess what has to go up? Sales tax.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Garcia

NH has decided to collect money through property tax and maintain no income or general sakes tax - and thus is in the top 5 of the states with the highest property tax. Florida's property tax is in the middle of the states, about average. BUT FL has a statewide sales tax of 6% and allows local surtaxes creating an effective rate of 6.5%-7%.

DeSantis does not have a real proposal yet to eliminate property tax, it's more of an idea. To make up the lost revenue, guess what has to go up? Sales tax.

If you read the notes to the bill... NO.
Taxes would go down on residents of the State, and up on all other properties to make up the difference.

The budgets would remain the budgets... just the tax rate on the remaining taxable properties would surge.

[Garcia]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

If you read the notes to the bill... NO.
Taxes would go down on residents of the State, and up on all other properties to make up the difference.

The budgets would remain the budgets... just the tax rate on the remaining taxable properties would surge.

You are correct on the idea but the reality is to make up the difference additional revenue - sales tax - will be needed.

[8gv]

As this conversation evolves a few things come to mind:

The op posted about NH property taxes being high. When compared to other states this may be the case but what is the total tax load on our citizens? How does that compare to other states?

At the age of fifty-seven I moved from CT to NH. During my time in CT I watched the state go from having a small sales tax without an income tax to a growing sales tax which is currently 6.35% (with the exception of "luxury items" to include vehicles over $50k which are taxed at 7.75%) plus a meals tax at 7.35% and an income tax with rates ranging from 2% to 6.99%.

When I compare the property taxes of comparable homes in my previous CT town, they are at or above what I pay now in high tax Laconia. But that's not the end of it. On top of the property tax bill, CT residents get to pay the sales tax and income tax noted above!

Once the government gets the opportunity to add another tax they find ways to spend the money. More money brings more programs, often unnecessary ones, that can be used to influence more voters. This cycle feeds itself.

My observation of NH tax policy is that the state and local governments are held in a perpetual state of near starvation. Many would say that this is to the detriment of education and other services. This may be so but having seen what can happen when the Pandora's box of income tax is opened I say DON'T DO IT!

[Garcia]

Originally Posted by 8gv

As this conversation evolves a few things come to mind:

The op posted about NH property taxes being high. When compared to other states this may be the case but what is the total tax load on our citizens? How does that compare to other states?

At the age of fifty-seven I moved from CT to NH. During my time in CT I watched the state go from having a small sales tax without an income tax to a growing sales tax which is currently 6.35% (with the exception of "luxury items" to include vehicles over $50k which are taxed at 7.75%) plus a meals tax at 7.35% and an income tax with rates ranging from 2% to 6.99%.

When I compare the property taxes of comparable homes in my previous CT town, they are at or above what I pay now in high tax Laconia. But that's not the end of it. On top of the property tax bill, CT residents get to pay the sales tax and income tax noted above!

Once the government gets the opportunity to add another tax they find ways to spend the money. More money brings more programs, often unnecessary ones, that can be used to influence more voters. This cycle feeds itself.

My observation of NH tax policy is that the state and local governments are held in a perpetual state of near starvation. Many would say that this is to the detriment of education and other services. This may be so but having seen what can happen when the Pandora's box of income tax is opened I say DON'T DO IT!

Overall NH tax obligation is among the lowest among the 50 states. NH relies heavily on property tax. I don't know what the answer is and wonder of the current system is sustainable. Or, does it favor those who are leaving higher tax states, driving up housing prices, and making it harder for the next generation of NH residents to stay? It's already happened (happening?) with waterfront property and border locations.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Garcia

Overall NH tax obligation is among the lowest among the 50 states. NH relies heavily on property tax. I don't know what the answer is and wonder of the current system is sustainable. Or, does it favor those who are leaving higher tax states, driving up housing prices, and making it harder for the next generation of NH residents to stay? It's already happened (happening?) with waterfront property and border locations.

It will self-correct.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Garcia

You are correct on the idea but the reality is to make up the difference additional revenue - sales tax - will be needed.

No.
Same as NH.
If the total property assessment is $10 billion, and the budget is $10 million.
That is $1 per thousand for the rate on the valuation of each property.
If I remove $8 billion in residential valuation, then the budget of $10 million changes the rate to $5 per thousand.

The money is made up through the remaining property valuations that exist on the tax rolls.

The owner with the taxable property - lets say a second home - sees their taxes increase to five times what it would have been.

[Garcia]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

No.
Same as NH.
If the total property assessment is $10 billion, and the budget is $10 million.
That is $1 per thousand for the rate on the valuation of each property.
If I remove $8 billion in residential valuation, then the budget of $10 million changes the rate to $5 per thousand.

The money is made up through the remaining property valuations that exist on the tax rolls.

The owner with the taxable property - lets say a second home - sees their taxes increase to five times what it would have been.

Mark my words - if this gets approved in FL, sales tax, state and local will increase. Charging non residents 5 times more than residents will drive away non residents and/or have them become residents thus dropping their taxes significantly while also increasing their use of services.

[tis]

Originally Posted by Garcia

Mark my words - if this gets approved in FL, sales tax, state and local will increase. Charging non residents 5 times more than residents will drive away non residents and/or have them become residents thus dropping their taxes significantly while also increasing their use of services.

I agree. And why shouldn't they?

[John Mercier]

It is why I consider it a bad idea.
Populism can get one elected, but seldom has decent long term results.
It ignores economics and sociology.

Of course, the increase in residents may supply Florida with more House seats after the next census, and would entail them to more federal funds.

[The Real BigGuy]

I guess my basic issue with the NH philosophy is we are always looking for ways to shift our burden to others. We want non-resident home owners to pay for educating our children even though they already pay for educating their children in their residential location. We demand that island vacation home renters pay to plow our streets even though they have none. ETC. And on top of that we don’t let them have a say in how the local part of the taxes are spent or allow exemptions for services not received. I guess it is a “whose ox is being gored” thought process and really being driven by the tremendous increase in costs over the past few decades. In the long run it may actually drive non-resident second home owners out of the state and shift the burden back to the residents. But then, we have achieved our goal of pushing costs onto others. They just happen to be future generations.

[BroadHopper]

Take a look at this NHPR article. Value added tax system looks a lot favorable.

https://www.nhpr.org/nh-news/2026-04...e-report-taxes

[TomC]

Originally Posted by The Real BigGuy

I guess my basic issue with the NH philosophy is we are always looking for ways to shift our burden to others. We want non-resident home owners to pay for educating our children even though they already pay for educating their children in their residential location. We demand that island vacation home renters pay to plow our streets even though they have none. ETC. And on top of that we don’t let them have a say in how the local part of the taxes are spent or allow exemptions for services not received. I guess it is a “whose ox is being gored” thought process and really being driven by the tremendous increase in costs over the past few decades. In the long run it may actually drive non-resident second home owners out of the state and shift the burden back to the residents. But then, we have achieved our goal of pushing costs onto others. They just happen to be future generations.

But how is that different from other states? Second homeowners in other states pay for the school system, etc. As for the island resident argument... every mainlander chips in for the fireboat which they will never use...

[John Mercier]

The intent of our Founders was for conservative capitalism.

More effort put into production and conservation of resources.

Sort of Needs vs Wants.

I need shelter. I want a McMansion.
I need shelter. I want to live on the lake.
I need shelter. I want to have a second home.

[Major]

We are going through a similar exercise with our law firm. We lost a relatively large client (through no fault of anyone at the firm), which lead to a revenue shortfall for the 2026 budget. It's hard to cut your way out of budgetary crisis but demanding times require demanding decisions.

One benefit of the DOGE exercise is that there is plenty of room to reduce our Federal, State and Local budgets. Our government is way beyond in scope and size than anything our founding fathers could imagine. We look to our government to fix our personal problems not to manage the infrastructure to enable us the opportunity to succeed.

My grandparents were probably like most grandparents to members of this forum. Both sets owned a home, had one car, had one job with the spouse working modest jobs once the kids left the house. Both sets of grandparents retired around 65 years old. They had no pensions but actually saved money on social security. I realize expenses are in hyperdrive right now, but we as a society where we "need" everything. There are not "wants," everything is a "need." My grandparents could not afford cable when it came in the 1970s; they lived with the rabbit ear antenna on the TV. My grandparents could not afford cell phones when they came out in the 1990s; they relied on their home phones.

We do not have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem.

[Biggd]

My father in-law used to say, when people talked about the good old days, "the good old days weren't that good'.
I'm 72 and I look back fondly on my childhood, but I don't want to go backwards.
Today is the first day of the rest of your life, make it a good one!

[Major]

Originally Posted by Biggd

My father in-law used to say, when people talked about the good old days, "the good old days weren't that good'.
I'm 72 and I look back fondly on my childhood, but I don't want to go backwards.
Today is the first day of the rest of your life, make it a good one!

I don't think I was pining for the good old days or said that my grandparents era was better than ours. My point is that our values have changed. As a society, we don't live within our means. Like John said, we want the McMansion when we can't afford it. We feel that it is somehow deserved, not earned.

[tis]

Originally Posted by Major

I don't think I was pining for the good old days or said that my grandparents era was better than ours. My point is that our values have changed. As a society, we don't live within our means. Like John said, we want the McMansion when we can't afford it. We feel that it is somehow deserved, not earned.

That's the problem. Everybody has a taker mentality. Our parent and grandparents were too proud to take a cent from the government and didn't need all the little extras that government provides today. I also can't imagine that there isn't going to be a credit card explosion in our future.

[Garcia]

Originally Posted by tis

That's the problem. Everybody has a taker mentality. Our parent and grandparents were too proud to take a cent from the government and didn't need all the little extras that government provides today. I also can't imagine that there isn't going to be a credit card explosion in our future.

It's a little more nuanced. The tax rate of the wealthy was significantly higher and there was a stronger sense of civic responsibility to share the costs of the war, or programs to benefit the middle class like the GI bill, and to pay for the interstate highway system. Because of this, or in spite of depending on your viewpoint, there was the biggest growth of the middle class in our country's history. Wage inequality shrank, wages went up, and the middle class grew.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by tis

That's the problem. Everybody has a taker mentality. Our parent and grandparents were too proud to take a cent from the government and didn't need all the little extras that government provides today. I also can't imagine that there isn't going to be a credit card explosion in our future.

Actually, they voted this all in.
It isn't a generational thing, it is human nature.

Do you know why the modern farmhouse-style is black/black windows?
Farmers used to have to repaint sashes every few years as part of their maintenance. Some could afford much large pieces of glass developed through new processes. Those that could not would paint them black/black to make the muntins (grilles that held the glass) disappear. The eye would perceive them less with the dark color.

This type of keeping up has been around forever. We just don't have the correct incentives to make society more productive and less consumptive for long term trends.

Government restrictions can make that happen.

[The Real BigGuy]

Originally Posted by TomC

But how is that different from other states? Second homeowners in other states pay for the school system, etc. As for the island resident argument... every mainlander chips in for the fireboat which they will never use...

It is different in that the state of NH wants to double the RE TAX on second/vacation homes to reduce taxes on state residents. As far as the fireboat goes - while the fire department response may actually save a mainland property, the fireboat, not so much. But islanders probably are more than happy to pay for it but would consider an abatement for the school portion of taxes fair.

[Descant]

Originally Posted by The Real BigGuy

It is different in that the state of NH wants to double the RE TAX on second/vacation homes to reduce taxes on state residents. As far as the fireboat goes - while the fire department response may actually save a mainland property, the fireboat, not so much. But islanders probably are more than happy to pay for it but would consider an abatement for the school portion of taxes fair.

It's a pretty big stretch to say "The state wants" when a kid from Peterborough files one bill because he saw the idea on Yellowstone and modified it. It varies from town to town, but island properties make up a substantial portion of a town's total tax base. The fireboats also respond to shorefront emergencies, medical/rescue as well as fire, and to similar needs on boats in the middle of the lake. These aren't your grandfather's cellar savers anymore. Businesses can't vote or send kids to school but they pay taxes. Around the lakes region, shorefront/second homes are the "business". BTW, many camps, hunting, skiing, snowmobile or waterfront in NH are owned by residents of NH, not folks from out of state.

[John Mercier]

Well, Gianforte and DeSantis are not kids.
And they are using the same approach.

The only real question is will it be absorbed at the State level or local.

[TomC]

Originally Posted by The Real BigGuy

It is different in that the state of NH wants to double the RE TAX on second/vacation homes to reduce taxes on state residents. As far as the fireboat goes - while the fire department response may actually save a mainland property, the fireboat, not so much. But islanders probably are more than happy to pay for it but would consider an abatement for the school portion of taxes fair.

My point was that many believe there are expenditures that they do not benefit from. People with no children pay for schools, the fire boat example, people who have never set foot in the library, etc. At some point society agreed that the best approach for town taxes is a common pot of money collected from all tax payers which is then spent on a general budget - not the Chinese menu approach where various services are selected or declined...

[retired]

What we have now is working. If it ain't broke don't fix it. The key is to limit government spending. That will keep taxes low. Keep the bureaucracy from getting bloated.

[John Mercier]

Technically, it is broke.
Just no one is sure of the fix.

[Biggd]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

If you read the notes to the bill... NO.
Taxes would go down on residents of the State, and up on all other properties to make up the difference.

The budgets would remain the budgets... just the tax rate on the remaining taxable properties would surge.

But the budgets go up! They have to because of inflation!

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Biggd

But the budgets go up! They have to because of inflation!

That would be a further increase in the rate against the taxable properties.

It is a very bad idea, but one that seems to be making the rounds.

[camp guy]

Budgets are made up of dollars and cents, when, in fact, they should be made up of dollars and sense.

[Descant]

Originally Posted by Garcia

NH has decided to collect money through property tax and maintain no income or general sakes tax - and thus is in the top 5 of the states with the highest property tax. Florida's property tax is in the middle of the states, about average. BUT FL has a statewide sales tax of 6% and allows local surtaxes creating an effective rate of 6.5%-7%.

DeSantis does not have a real proposal yet to eliminate property tax, it's more of an idea. To make up the lost revenue, guess what has to go up? Sales tax.

Curious for your source putting NH in the top 54. Yesterday morning Fox business listed NJ, NY, CT, MA and CA as the top five.

[Biggd]

Originally Posted by Descant

Curious for your source putting NH in the top 54. Yesterday morning Fox business listed NJ, NY, CT, MA and CA as the top five.

NH is always in the top five for property taxes!

[Garcia]

Originally Posted by Descant

Curious for your source putting NH in the top 54. Yesterday morning Fox business listed NJ, NY, CT, MA and CA as the top five.

Here's one, https://www.rocketmortgage.com/learn...taxes-by-state

[Biggd]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

No. The latest numbers for tourist is $4.2 billion. About the same number we had in 2000. When inflation is taken into account we are actually way down.

In 2000, tourism was about 8% of the economy, today it is about 3.5%

That may be true, but a sales tax still makes out of staters contribute to the tax burden instead of levying it all on residents. Also, I'm curious as to how they measure tourism. Do they count the second homeowners who may stay in their summer homes all summer and have to make purchases all summer long? There has been a significant increase in those tourists since 2000, I'm one of them!
When I make expensive purhaces I make them in NH or have them delivered to my home in NH.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Biggd

That may be true, but a sales tax still makes out of staters contribute to the tax burden instead of levying it all on residents. Also, I'm curious as to how they measure tourism. Do they count the second homeowners who may stay in their summer homes all summer and have to make purchases all summer long? There has been a significant increase in those tourists since 2000, I'm one of them!
When I make expensive purhaces I make them in NH or have them delivered to my home in NH.

UNH does it by a mixture of the revenue generated by the Meals & Room taxes along with direct surveys to the communities that make up most of it.

They count everything whether you come here for the weekend, the season, or even live here.

What they may be missing is things like miniature golf.

And we do have sales taxes. I pointed that out.
It is why I do not pay a tax at the market for food that I will prepare at home (a need) as compared to the restaurant will the prepared food (a want).
Other State apply a general sales tax and then an exemption for the market; which just direct the sales tax.

[Biggd]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

UNH does it by a mixture of the revenue generated by the Meals & Room taxes along with direct surveys to the communities that make up most of it.

They count everything whether you come here for the weekend, the season, or even live here.

What they may be missing is things like miniature golf.

And we do have sales taxes. I pointed that out.
It is why I do not pay a tax at the market for food that I will prepare at home (a need) as compared to the restaurant will the prepared food (a want).
Other State apply a general sales tax and then an exemption for the market; which just direct the sales tax.

If more people bought second homes, the meals and room taxes would be affected negatively. That could be why the numbers have decreased because it sure seems busier in the Lake's Region, the White Mountains, and along the coastal resort towns than it was in 2000!
People that own second homes aren't renting rooms and eating out as much. I'd be curious as to what the increase in second home purchases has been since 2000.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Biggd

If more people bought second homes, the meals and room taxes would be affected negatively. That could be why the numbers have decreased because it sure seems busier in the Lake's Region, the White Mountains, and along the coastal resort towns than it was in 2000!
People that own second homes aren't renting rooms and eating out as much. I'd be curious as to what the increase in second home purchases has been since 2000.

We think some of the effect is that STRs are not paying the tax as required.
We knew this for years as many would rent their homes for Bike Week, but never file a Meals & Room taxation form. That removes the money from the hotel/motel, but doesn't substitute out at the State treasury.

Laconia's change to require that, hopefully with the penalty being tax evasion and some time in prison, may get that back under control. As other municipalities will follow.

Whether they rent the whole structure or just a room for just a day, a weekend, a week, or a month will make no difference... they all must file and pay the tax.

The reason for the drop is largely snowmobiling. Snowmobiling accounted for roughly 25% of the number in 2000. It peaked at 78000 registrations around 2003. It has declined by more than 50% of users, and revenue is even lower.

About 80% of the revenue was from residents and second home owners in NH going all the way back to 2000. That hasn't changed much.