HUB status in Moultonborough

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by tis

Maybe we need to start letting the people that want all these goodies pay for them!!

Define ''goodie''.
Recreation is always an extra... and mostly collectivized.

Lake Winnipesaukee is owned by all the residents of NH, but Moultonborough residents benefit from it more than say Franklin residents... how would we make that fair to Franklin residents?

Imagine that the lakes went non-motorized, or worse, what effect would that have on Moultonborough?

Life is never ''fair''.

[tis]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Define ''goodie''.
Recreation is always an extra... and mostly collectivized.

Lake Winnipesaukee is owned by all the residents of NH, but Moultonborough residents benefit from it more than say Franklin residents... how would we make that fair to Franklin residents?

Imagine that the lakes went non-motorized, or worse, what effect would that have on Moultonborough?

Life is never ''fair''.

But people on the lake certainly pay more taxes than most of those in Franklin! We choose to live on the lake and know we will pay more taxes. If you vote for the wants of a town, not needs, maybe those who vote for them should pay more. Seems fair to me.

[thinkxingu]

Originally Posted by tis

But people on the lake certainly pay more taxes than most of those in Franklin! We choose to live on the lake and know we will pay more taxes. If you vote for the wants of a town, not needs, maybe those who vote for them should pay more. Seems fair to me.

Way too slippery a slope there, tis—by that same rationale, people without kids in the schools shouldn't have to pay taxes for schools.

While I agree there's a line between "necessary" services like water, safety, and education and "goodies" like recreation centers, that line is supposed to be defined (by an honest process) by the citizens in the town.

I don't think there's any question that the HUB would be cool to have in town; the question is whether the process is honest, and if it's fair to taxpayers/worth the overall cost to the overall constituency.

Sent from my SM-G990U1 using Tapatalk

[tis]

Originally Posted by thinkxingu

Way too slippery a slope there, tis—by that same rationale, people without kids in the schools shouldn't have to pay taxes for schools.

While I agree there's a line between "necessary" services like water, safety, and education and "goodies" like recreation centers, that line is supposed to be defined (by an honest process) by the citizens in the town.

I don't think there's any question that the HUB would be cool to have in town; the question is whether the process is honest, and if it's fair to taxpayers/worth the overall cost to the overall constituency.

Sent from my SM-G990U1 using Tapatalk

I think they should help me out with my taxes on my lakefront property? Why should I pay so much? (tongue in cheek of course)

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by tis

But people on the lake certainly pay more taxes than most of those in Franklin! We choose to live on the lake and know we will pay more taxes. If you vote for the wants of a town, not needs, maybe those who vote for them should pay more. Seems fair to me.

But the property owners/residents of Franklin that also own the lake do not make out the way that Moultonborough residents do... you don't transfer those taxes to Franklin.

But using the lake is using their property.

[tis]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

But the property owners/residents of Franklin that also own the lake do not make out the way that Moultonborough residents do... you don't transfer those taxes to Franklin.

But using the lake is using their property.

The”donor” towns pay a lot to Franklin for schools since you’re using Franklin.

[John Mercier]

There is no such thing currently as a donor town.
There is a group looking to recreate the donor towns.

https://newhampshirebulletin.com/202...ding-solution/

[tis]

Technically no, but we the richer towns still pay a lot more toward state education than the poorer towns. That's why I put the word donor in quotes.

[John Mercier]

Doesn't work that way.

The money raised by the SWEPT is kept in Moultonborough and used to offset what would be listed as the local school tax rate.

None if it ever goes to the State... it all stays local.

[longislander]

https://www.nhbr.com/new-school-fund...ax-inequality/


https://www.moultonboroughnh.gov/sit..._history_0.pdf


https://indepthnh.org/2022/06/28/new...unding-system/


https://www.seacoastonline.com/story...s/10059076002/

[tis]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Doesn't work that way.

The money raised by the SWEPT is kept in Moultonborough and used to offset what would be listed as the local school tax rate.

None if it ever goes to the State... it all stays local.

Sorry, you are wrong. We pay a local school tax and a state school tax.

[John Mercier]

And the receipts from both go right into the Moultonborough school system.
None of it is transferred to another municipality or school district.

It has not been transferred since 2011.

If we change back, then the SWEPT would be collected and redistributed... and since it would not all go back into the Moultonborough system... the local school taxes to be raised would need to make up for the difference.

The State figures the districts educational grant, minuses the SWEPT, and then should the district still need more, provides that money with the Lottery revenue (much like the Augenblick Formula) and covers the difference using unallocated funds... since the money from tobacco is drying/dried up... that is largely business taxes.

So if a district raises more than the total of its grant... it doesn't get any extra funding... but it doesn't send any money anywhere else. It is all used to offset the local school tax portion.

[Sue Doe-Nym]

This thread started as a commentary on the HUB. We are not now a donor town, but the threat is always there because we are known as a tax rich town. We spend in excess of $30k each year for each child attending our schools. What this has to do with the HUB is probably this: when is enough enough?
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[loonguy]

I have never viewed Moultonborough as a tax rich town. Rather it is a low tax rate town, which is one of many reasons why I choose to live here, and likely would continue to be a low tax rate town even with the addition of the HUB.

[tis]

It's complicated because it doesn't actually go to the state but it raises more school money and in the richer towns cuts the amount the state gives them. It is still a mandatory STATE tax.

[John Mercier]

All State taxes are mandatory.
But since there is no ''donation'', it isn't a donor town to Franklin.

And since the Education Trust Fund grant money that does go to the other districts comes from mostly business taxes... that also would not be a significant factor in Moultonborough.

Moultonborough went from a farming community to a bedroom community, and it did so in about on half century.

But what does the next half century look like? That is the question that town voters will need to answer.
They may not get it right, but it almost certainly will not be what it is today.

Franklin was a huge mill town (city)... and it was doubtful that the voters at that time realized that the mills would not be there in the future. So it has suffered while it looks to rebuild on a different path.

What will Moultonborough be a half century from now? Right now, they are riding the Boomer Wave.

[tis]

Here’s what you need to know:

SWEPT is part of a home or business property tax bill, which means it is remitted to the home or business owner’s town or city. The town or city does not give SWEPT money to the state, despite being called a “state tax.”
Since it is a “state tax,” it appears on the state budget as a part of the education trust fund. In practice and for accounting purposes, SWEPT money is counted as state funds. In reality, these funds are all locally raised dollars.
State law has required NH property owners to raise $363 million per year in SWEPT funds since 2005.
Whatever a town raises in SWEPT, is deducted from what the state would pay the town in adequate education grants and stabilization grants for their schools.
Most communities have additional local education taxes, since SWEPT funding and state funding (including adequate education grants and stabilization grants) do not cover the total cost for their local schools.
There is a legislative proposal this year to eliminate SWEPT all together.

[John Mercier]

I don't see a LSR for that...
Where did you find it?

Removal of SWEPT would require the State to raise an addition $363 million dollars through another format.

Which format are they proposing to do that through?

[tis]

https://reachinghighernh.org/2019/02...-locally-kept/

[John Mercier]

That was a 2019 legislative proposal...

It was voted down as the money would need to come from another tax source.
It is unlikely to be brought up, as we are attempting to lower taxation in other areas.

[tis]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

That was a 2019 legislative proposal...

It was voted down as the money would need to come from another tax source.
It is unlikely to be brought up, as we are attempting to lower taxation in other areas.

You just asked me where i got the info about where the money goes and so I sent you the link.

If you look at your tax bill you will see you are charged for:

Town Tax
County Tax
Local School Tax
State School Tax

That is all I am saying. I do not like to argue.

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by loonguy

I have never viewed Moultonborough as a tax rich town. Rather it is a low tax rate town, which is one of many reasons why I choose to live here, and likely would continue to be a low tax rate town even with the addition of the HUB.

Moving back on topic--this is a fundamental point--Moultonborough has had very low tax rates for a long time. We can debate whether that's good or bad, or whether HUB is good or bad. But there's no question that HUB runs against the traditional approach/values of the town, an approach that current homeowners had in mind when they moved in.

As you might have sensed from some of my other posts (haha), I like change, progress, etc. But this kind of thing always rubs me the wrong way. I don't like it when people move to woodsy areas and cut down trees, or put in strip malls and shopping centers, or crank up the tax base on folks who just want to be left alone.

[tis]

Originally Posted by loonguy

I have never viewed Moultonborough as a tax rich town. Rather it is a low tax rate town, which is one of many reasons why I choose to live here, and likely would continue to be a low tax rate town even with the addition of the HUB.

You might not have viewed it as a tax rich town but the state considered it to be one when we had the donor town taxes. Yes the tax rate is low, but the value of the town is high, thus a donor town. Little towns like Freedom which doesn't even have a school was a donor town and was contributing to town likes Manchester (not a donor town). Moultonboro, Tuftonboro, Wolfeboro, Alton---most if not all towns around the lake were donor towns. I can't remember if Laconia was or not.

[Sue Doe-Nym]

Originally Posted by loonguy

I have never viewed Moultonborough as a tax rich town. Rather it is a low tax rate town, which is one of many reasons why I choose to live here, and likely would continue to be a low tax rate town even with the addition of the HUB.

If the HUB becomes a reality…UGH…. I don’t know how you can think that Moultonborough would remain a low tax town, given $20 million +/- for construction, plus annual maintenance costs, which will not be inexpensive.
My guess is the proponents of this will not want to charge for usage, but will want everything to be borne by the taxpayers.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Sue Doe-Nym

If the HUB becomes a reality…UGH…. I don’t know how you can think that Moultonborough would remain a low tax town, given $20 million +/- for construction, plus annual maintenance costs, which will not be inexpensive.
My guess is the proponents of this will not want to charge for usage, but will want everything to be borne by the taxpayers.

Based on bonding, probably increase the tax rate by 50 cents to $1...
that would still place Moultonborough in the bottom half of tax rates for the State.

I think the average tax rate is somewhere around $20/$21.

Not suggesting that the HUB is a reasonable expenditure; just that the low tax rate would still be a valid statement.

[thinkxingu]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Based on bonding, probably increase the tax rate by 50 cents to $1...
that would still place Moultonborough in the bottom half of tax rates for the State.

I think the average tax rate is somewhere around $20/$21.

Not suggesting that the HUB is a reasonable expenditure; just that the low tax rate would still be a valid statement.

$1 isn't a huge sum, of course, but it would be something like a 14% increase on its own.

My biggest concern is that I just don't see it being useful to enough people. There are only two or three very small gyms in the area and what courts we have nearby are never busy.

I just don't see a need for meeting space and pools in such a small, seasonal town.

Sent from my SM-G990U1 using Tapatalk

[tis]

Originally Posted by thinkxingu

$1 isn't a huge sum, of course, but it would be something like a 14% increase on its own.

My biggest concern is that I just don't see it being useful to enough people. There are only two or three very small gyms in the area and what courts we have nearby are never busy.

I just don't see a need for meeting space and pools in such a small, seasonal town.

Sent from my SM-G990U1 using Tapatalk

And when these towns want to push the passage of something, they always say it will only cost .05 a thousand or .10 a thousand. But you take 400 thousand or for lake front a million and add a lot of other pet projects that only add a nickel or a dime or a dollar per thousand and it adds up.

[longislander]

NH tax rates
See "total rate".

https://www.revenue.nh.gov/mun-prop/...-tax-rates.pdf

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by tis

And when these towns want to push the passage of something, they always say it will only cost .05 a thousand or .10 a thousand. But you take 400 thousand or for lake front a million and add a lot of other pet projects that only add a nickel or a dime or a dollar per thousand and it adds up.

To FS's point, how many of the voting residents have million dollar lake homes?

The appeal from either side needs to be toward the voting center. They will be the ones that actually make such a decision.
In any of the voting districts, those are the people that actually set the policy and spending for the future.

So the $400K home owner that votes, may not want to spend $200 to $400 per year for something they feel they will never use.

Its all about appealing to the voters.

[ITD]

The problem with stuff like this is once that door is opened the flood gates are loosed. Give them an inch....

[ITD]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Imagine that the lakes went non-motorized, or worse, what effect would that have on Moultonborough?

Life is never ''fair''.

Clear water year round?