HB 1707 to Double property taxes

[Major]

Originally Posted by tis

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

Understood. Both properties are in a trust, and she's the trustee. Giving up NH homestead rights is no big deal.

[Biggd]

I have some friends from Conn, very wealthy, that took up Florida residency even though they still own 3 homes in Conn. They have to prove they live in Florida for at least 6 months each year to avoid paying Conn income taxes.

[BroadHopper]

There at least one state, Texas?, where if you live on the property year round, you were allowed to deduct $2 to $5K off your property tax. If the folks from this state moves up here, god only know that they want that implemented here!

[John Mercier]

Probably all the States will end up doing it.
Scapegoating second home owners is just a bias that seem to be growing.

[tis]

You would think they would be happy to have people gone for part of the year. Think what our towns would be like if all the vacant houses are filled year round. Most hate the big population in the summer but this would now be year round. Wolfeboro/ Tuftonboro would have 30,000+people year round instead of 8 or 9 thousand.

No, I think all this is a money grab. They are banking on the fact that people won't care and still not live here year round.

[JayR]

Hopefully this reply will help me if I ever have to prove it in a court of law, but I hereby declare on January 16, 2026, that if this bill 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 tax!

A pox on those who constantly seek to extract more dollars from good taxpayers!

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by tis

You would think they would be happy to have people gone for part of the year. Think what our towns would be like if all the vacant houses are filled year round. Most hate the big population in the summer but this would now be year round. Wolfeboro/ Tuftonboro would have 30,000+people year round instead of 8 or 9 thousand.

No, I think all this is a money grab. They are banking on the fact that people won't care and still not live here year round.

What about all the other States doing the same thing?
My point is that it isn't just NH. Dozens of other States are now doing this.

[tummyman]

Maybe they should turn it around the other way...charge the residents more as they use the services full time !!! Same for the schools..they are the ones with kids in school...so why not pay for it ? Let's be honest...the year rounders get more services than the seasonal gang. Never going to happen but it felt good saying it !!

[tis]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

What about all the other States doing the same thing?
My point is that it isn't just NH. Dozens of other States are now doing this.

Dozens of state are doing what? Not allowing people to leave their homes empty, forcing them to rent their homes when not there? Or giving residents tax breaks? And what happens if there aren't enough people interested in renting your home when you are not there? What then? I just can't imagine the infrastructure of our rural area can accommodate a year round population like we have in the summer if that many people were even interested in doing it. And this is supposed to help ease the shortness of rentals? Are they thinking about how the working class looking for rentals can even pay the HEATING bill for most of these homes? Probably the next step is to allow use of your home rent free and pay all the expenses. After that people that occupy their homes year round would be forced to have families to live with them, share their house with them. And if island homes need to be rented, how are they going to get on and off the islands? Maybe free boat service in the summer, ice boats in the winter? Air boats when no ice? Free to them the renters of course.

Please excuse the rant, the whole thing just seems to be so ridiculous that thoughts fly out of my head with not a lot of organization.

[Descant]

Originally Posted by tis

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

I know a couple who have done it by one person claiming NH and the other claiming FL as primary residence. One gets FL homestead advantage, the other buys big things like cars in NH where they avoid sales tax. Another couple claims a lakes region town and one a southern NH town so they each have one vote in two NH towns.

[tis]

Originally Posted by Descant

I know a couple who have done it by one person claiming NH and the other claiming FL as primary residence. One gets FL homestead advantage, the other buys big things like cars in NH where they avoid sales tax. Another couple claims a lakes region town and one a southern NH town so they each have one vote in two NH towns.

As of now NH doesn't give any homestead relief but if that comes they will have to decide which state they want to take it in as you can only take it in one.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by tis

Dozens of state are doing what? Not allowing people to leave their homes empty, forcing them to rent their homes when not there? Or giving residents tax breaks? And what happens if there aren't enough people interested in renting your home when you are not there? What then? I just can't imagine the infrastructure of our rural area can accommodate a year round population like we have in the summer if that many people were even interested in doing it. And this is supposed to help ease the shortness of rentals? Are they thinking about how the working class looking for rentals can even pay the HEATING bill for most of these homes? Probably the next step is to allow use of your home rent free and pay all the expenses. After that people that occupy their homes year round would be forced to have families to live with them, share their house with them. And if island homes need to be rented, how are they going to get on and off the islands? Maybe free boat service in the summer, ice boats in the winter? Air boats when no ice? Free to them the renters of course.

Please excuse the rant, the whole thing just seems to be so ridiculous that thoughts fly out of my head with not a lot of organization.

Raising State level property taxes on homes that are not primary homes.
The exemption for the long term rentals are so that residents that could not afford a home do not see an increase in costs.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by tis

As of now NH doesn't give any homestead relief but if that comes they will have to decide which state they want to take it in as you can only take it in one.

That is what these bills are about.
Providing a homestead discount.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Descant

I know a couple who have done it by one person claiming NH and the other claiming FL as primary residence. One gets FL homestead advantage, the other buys big things like cars in NH where they avoid sales tax. Another couple claims a lakes region town and one a southern NH town so they each have one vote in two NH towns.

For some of the proposed bills, since the trusts would be the "owner", simply long term leasing it to the couple would meet the criteria in NH.

[tis]

John, it sounds like you support these taxes and think they would work??? So people that are paying $10,000-100,000 or more a year in property taxes should pay double? That ok with you? Hit 'em harder? Plus they not only pay double but let's force them to let somebody live in their house when they aren't there? I just don't see how anybody can think these are good bills.

And I think I have made myself clear. I guess if you get your wish we will see what happens.

[tummyman]

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.


I really don't understand this change. First, there is no such RSA 72:6-a. 72:6-a was repealed in 1995. There is a 72:6, but no -a. Don't these folks read the RSA's or did I miss something?? Second, if you own a property and it is occupied for over 6 months by a family member, does this mean it complies? And what is a long term rental if over 6 months is a short term rental. And what about renting to a family member for some nominal rent? That would comply? Or if my property is in a trust, then the trust could rent it to me for over 6 months and it would comply? And what would occupy mean...the power is turned on? This whole thing is so political. If there is a revenue issue and the state needs to raise that money through property taxes, then add some sosrt of rate on ALL PROPERTY...residential and commercial. Fair is fair, not this BS tax on selected folks. It is so bad. If it comes to be, I suggest a group of non resident sue the state for violation of taxation without representation...there was a famous tea party about that way back when... and take it all the way to the Supreme Court. After all, everything in government gets there these days, so why not fill the pot with this issue. Time for folks to stop taking these abusive items and fight back. People should take their rights back and stop bowing to these folks. Just my opinion....

[Biggd]

Just a new wrinkle to tax the wealthy, but wealth in this form is determined by property ownership instead of income.
Unfortunately, many NH property owners are not wealthy, they will most likely be cash poor with all these new fees and taxes!

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by tummyman

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.


I really don't understand this change. First, there is no such RSA 72:6-a. 72:6-a was repealed in 1995. There is a 72:6, but no -a. Don't these folks read the RSA's or did I miss something?? Second, if you own a property and it is occupied for over 6 months by a family member, does this mean it complies? And what is a long term rental if over 6 months is a short term rental. And what about renting to a family member for some nominal rent? That would comply? Or if my property is in a trust, then the trust could rent it to me for over 6 months and it would comply? And what would occupy mean...the power is turned on? This whole thing is so political. If there is a revenue issue and the state needs to raise that money through property taxes, then add some sosrt of rate on ALL PROPERTY...residential and commercial. Fair is fair, not this BS tax on selected folks. It is so bad. If it comes to be, I suggest a group of non resident sue the state for violation of taxation without representation...there was a famous tea party about that way back when... and take it all the way to the Supreme Court. After all, everything in government gets there these days, so why not fill the pot with this issue. Time for folks to stop taking these abusive items and fight back. People should take their rights back and stop bowing to these folks. Just my opinion....

Yes. We can rent to a family member or even someone that we have house sit.
Under 6 months is a STR and should have a Meals & Room tax id and pay the taxes - some people ignore that. Over 6 months is a long term rental, and so not subject to the increase found in this bill.

The NH Constitution has had this option in effect for over 50 years. Corporation/businesses in NH pay lots of taxes to the State, County, and Local... they have no "representation" as you would determine in most or any of these.

We get the choice, pay or move.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Biggd

Just a new wrinkle to tax the wealthy, but wealth in this form is determined by property ownership instead of income.
Unfortunately, many NH property owners are not wealthy, they will most likely be cash poor with all these new fees and taxes!

Not sure what the final change will be, and since it is an election year, likely most of these will be "ITL" with one or two going to "Interim Study" to either die or be taken up during the next session as they try to form a budget.

Pretty sure property owners in the other States doing this also are not wealthy.

We, as a population, for some time have been stating that the government should only do the necessary and not the wants.
So the States are moving to tax the wants.

Anything that I do, that is not necessary (basic) is going to have a tax. And some of the things I do that are basic are going to have fees to cover the cost of services provided me for the basics.

[DickR]

Originally Posted by Biggd

Just a new wrinkle to tax the wealthy, but wealth in this form is determined by property ownership instead of income.
Unfortunately, many NH property owners are not wealthy, they will most likely be cash poor with all these new fees and taxes!

As has been said before, given what a property assessment means and how it is determined, it is a measure of the wealth of someone with the means to buy the property, not that of the owner.

[John Mercier]

They are looking at changing that (can't remember the bill number); but not sure their method makes sense - replacement cost minus depreciation.

If you ask me what a window costs, even some basic specifications, the number derived can be vastly different... so I can't determine replacement cost.

Two homes built in adjacent lots can look a lot alike, but might cost a significant amount in difference.

[phoenix]

I have seen for years the highly paid legislators ($300-400 per year) file crazy bills that have little chance of passing. They get tabled to committee only to service again the following year. It is good to know what is up and hope members post progress (or defeat). This is similar to Arizona and i suspect many states

[John Mercier]

For NH, it is $100 per year.

Our State budget runs for two years.
The new budget started in July and is in about six month with accounting for the most part completed. NH is in the red.

This triggers "savings" proposed at the executive level, and revenue proposed at the legislative level.

The idea to end the budget either balanced or with a slight surplus that carries forward. If we end in a slight deficit, the "rainy day" fund usually completes the balance - though not always.

Deficits have to be made up in the next budget cycle.
We have capital funds that are bonded, but working those too heavy to support operations can result in some very bad outcomes in later years.

[retired]

There's no such thing as a fair tax. A fair tax is a tax the other guy pays.

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

There at least one state, Texas?, where if you live on the property year round, you were allowed to deduct $2 to $5K off your property tax. If the folks from this state moves up here, god only know that they want that implemented here!

Lets talk about the Texas Property Tax system, no that I have been around down here long enough it is actually pretty slick.... and advantageous....

1. Yes you get to declare your primary residence as your homestead, and it helps lower your taxes.......The do this by adjusting the taxable value of what you own.
2. You can apply for further exemptions if you are disabled, and over 65, to further reduce your tax burden....
3. They freeze taxes for people over X age, so that they don't become burdened with higher then expected taxes in retirement......
4. There is no ambiguity in where your tax dollars are going... There are line items for county, local and Schools.....
5. Before taxes can be raised for School funding it has to go before the voting public...

Overall the scheme used in Texas isn't to bad.... My Taxes in Texas when down by ~3K once I had the primary resident exemption in place....I realized there was a solid point to make here, the 3K difference comes from two areas, with my homestead declared my School funding (ISD) amount owed almost was cut in half.......my county Tax, was cut by 1/3, local taxes where almost not effected.....

[John Mercier]

NH is slightly different due to our Constitution.
Part First Article 28-a was adopted in 1982.

So exemptions have to be voted on at the local level.
Along with local expenditures for municipality and schools.
County is by representation.

State funding to schools or other mandates, have to be through a State level taxation. So only at that level could the State apply a homestead exemption.

Current State Property Tax Rate is 1.44 (???), so a full Homestead Exemption would only save the 1.44 per $1000 of assessment.

We have a constitutional amendment that allows them to treat different classifications of properties differently for local taxation, but that is only systematic prior to the 1982 amendment.

Even that is being questioned at the local levels, because the State changes some items after 1982, and causes judicial questions to arise under that amendment.

So the "doubling" of taxation on second homes is really a "doubling" (and then some) of taxation on all homes, with the Homestead Exemption being applied at 50% of total (or 100% of the increase) to primary homes and those rented long term (6 months or more).

[Mr_Marty]

Only a Democrat could come up with something as stupid as this.

We don't have a "housing shortage". We have a "people surplus". There are already too many people in NH. The roads are too crowded. You can't go to the State Parks anymore without being trampled by crowds. The lake is chaos in the summer. We need to dissuade people from coming here.

Property tax (and any tax) pays for services from the government. This is a tax rooted in spite and envy. For those of us with second homes on the lake we receive almost nothing in exchange for our property taxes as it is. We get police, fire and crappy roads. We aren't using the schools. Most of us don't even get our trash picked up.

We are paying property taxes on two properties but receiving effectively half the services per dollar. Now they want to reduce this to 1/3 the services per dollar.

So this "brilliant" law would punish people who are already being punished. Absolutely insane.

And if the bill passes it will force some people to have to sell their homes. The homes will be bought up by wealthy New Yorkers or whatever and it will not do a single thing to address the so-called "housing shortage" and aggravate an already lopsided wealth distribution.

Ridiculous. The sponsors of this bill should be publicly shamed.

[John Mercier]

So DeSantis is a Democrat.
What about Abbott? Did he switch sides without us knowing.

Don't remember Montana being a Democrat State.

[winterharbor59]

These bills were scheduled to be discussed in Executive Session yesterday. Is there any way to find out which way that went? I can’t find anything further?


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[John Mercier]

Not until after the report is posted.

[Descant]

Originally Posted by winterharbor59

These bills were scheduled to be discussed in Executive Session yesterday. Is there any way to find out which way that went? I can’t find anything further?

Go to NH.gov. Look up committee mmebers and call one. Let us know.

Otherwise, it takes a couple of days for committee reports to be written and entered into the calendar and docket listings on the web. If the committee holds a bill for "Interim Study" there won't be a report in the calendar until late fall, but that "hold" should be listed in the docket and later any scheduled study meetings. In this case, I recall reports that the huge contreoversy led the prime sponsor (who is also the committee chair) to indicate there would be significant changes. With that in mind, and as a courtesy to the chair and the two fellow committee member sponsors, I would expect "Interim Study". For the idea to go any further, somebody would have to file a new bill for the 2027 session, hence the phase noted earlier, "death with dignity".at least for this session. We'll see.
Edit: My error. The committee chair and fellow members filed the bicycle fee bill. The Prime sponsor for this propertry tsx bill is from Peterboro and serves on a different committee. The possibility of Interim Study is the same and could easaily apply to this properety tax bill.

[John Mercier]

Not listed on the dockets yet.

[winterharbor59]

Ok maybe someone can interpret. It looks like executive session of the house ways and means committee decided: hb1707 ITL (19-0) But hb1580 majorly majority opinion ITL (16-3). Minority opinion with an amendment OTP.
What happens next?


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[tis]

Originally Posted by winterharbor59

Ok maybe someone can interpret. It looks like executive session of the house ways and means committee decided: hb1707 ITL (19-0) But hb1580 majorly majority opinion ITL (16-3). Minority opinion with an amendment OTP.
What happens next?


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

Oh good, sounds like we are safe? ITL means basically vote to kill it I think.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by winterharbor59

Ok maybe someone can interpret. It looks like executive session of the house ways and means committee decided: hb1707 ITL (19-0) But hb1580 majorly majority opinion ITL (16-3). Minority opinion with an amendment OTP.
What happens next?


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

After the committee reports it goes to the Floor for a vote of the entire chamber.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by tis

Oh good, sounds like we are safe? ITL means basically vote to kill it I think.

That would be the committee recommendation.

[LIforrelaxin]

1580 looks to be pretty damaging as well..... the good new is there was a majority ITL, so hopefully that ends it but the idea that some think it OTP, is concerning....

[John Mercier]

They all get floor votes.

The minority report just suggests that it has a better chance of being removed from the Consent Calendar and voted on separately.

But even with an OTP/ITL, that can still happen.
Sometimes they just want the Roll Call for the next election.

[tummyman]

From House Calendar Feb 6th....HB 1580-FN-LOCAL, relative to the taxation of non-primary residences. MAJORITY: INEXPEDIENT TO
LEGISLATE. MINORITY: OUGHT TO PASS WITH AMENDMENT.
Rep. James Tierney for the Majority of Ways and Means. This bill proposes to tax non-primary residences.
Non-primary residences are defined as “any residential property, including single-family homes, condomini-
ums, or mobile homes, that is not the owner’s principal place of abode.” The test for residency is different
than residency in other statutes. Enforcing this proposed law could be difficult and problematic. Public tes-
timony was very much opposed to this bill. Why should a property owner have a higher tax simply because
he/she chooses to own investment property or a vacation home? Additionally, this may be unconstitutional,
as they would be taxed differently than other homes. Vote 16-3. Rep. Thomas Schamberg for the Minority
of Ways and Means. This bill seeks to open a new revenue stream by taxing non-primary residences valued
over $500,000 that are left unoccupied for more than 183 days out of the year at a rate of three quarters of a
percentage point. The minority of the committee recognizes the legislature looks to find alternative revenue
that shifts the tax burden away from the over-reliance on property tax. The minority believes that this is
a small step towards the goal of finding a new form of revenue that moves the state away from property
taxation without implementation of broad-based taxes. This bill mandates that all monies raised go directly
back to the community in which it was raised to be used for the specific purpose of reducing local municipal
taxes. The minority of the committee believes that at a time when many of our citizens can’t begin to afford
one home and our state is saddled by ever rising property taxation, a new revenue source from non-primary
residences left unoccupied for more than 183 days out of the year is appropriate.

[John Mercier]

Basically a homestead exemption like Florida and other States.

It would be constitutional though, just like an exemption for other factors.

I think the main point though is to get the legislators on record for the next election.

[jeffk]

HB1580
It seems to me that almost all lakefront homes would be subject to this surcharge tax since most everything on the lake is $500,000+. Many people who inherited land and struggle to pay property taxes already could be forced to sell, bringing in even more well off people to build mansions, who can pay the tax without care.

In addition, it seems to me the math in the bill is treating it as if the surcharge for each home is only $3975. But most home are worth well over that. I checked the value of my previously owned, modest house and it's about $1.5 million. The way the bill is written, it's .75% times ASSESSED VALUE. That's $11,250 surcharge for my old property, And this is for a modest sized house. And note that the Moultonborough 2025 property taxes on that house would be about $1,500,000/1000*$5.33 = $7995. The surcharge is more than the property tax. That's nuts!

A $5,000,000 home would be assessed for $37,500 annually. I'm not worried about the rich going broke but there is a question about fairness and gouging.

[TomC]

Clearly those who dream up these "revenue generating" schemes are wholly uninterested in fairness... These same properties often make little demand on town services (no kids in school, etc). And even ones whose owners do avail themselves of town services do so in a way that is disproportionate to the financial impact of their use (that's OK - that's the deal with ad valorem taxes). But treating them as bags of cash to exploit is wrong. Clearly the 183 day rule suggests an obvious loophole anyway: have someone occupy the place for a day and reset the clock. Its stupid legislation....

[jeffk]

I just realized this is exactly how car registrations are structured. The more expensive the car, the higher the registration cost. Yet, expensive cars have no impact on the cost to support vehicle traffic. They don't wear out the roads faster or require special stop signs or extra lanes to be built for roads.

Nor are those costs necessarily based on income. I, on a retirement income, might buy a car once every 20 years and save up a bit each year to buy a nice (expensive) one. Another, well off person, might buy a modest car every 5 years. Yet, I will, forever, pay a higher registration fee.

Why charge more? Because the state ALWAYS needs more money. NH is the king of nickel & dime taxes because they want to say they don't have an income tax. This 1580 tax goes well beyond dimes and you can be certain the money would get gobbled up for new initiatives and the legislators would soon be back at the trough in "need" of more. The only way to control spending is to control the taxes coming in.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by jeffk

HB1580
It seems to me that almost all lakefront homes would be subject to this surcharge tax since most everything on the lake is $500,000+. Many people who inherited land and struggle to pay property taxes already could be forced to sell, bringing in even more well off people to build mansions, who can pay the tax without care.

In addition, it seems to me the math in the bill is treating it as if the surcharge for each home is only $3975. But most home are worth well over that. I checked the value of my previously owned, modest house and it's about $1.5 million. The way the bill is written, it's .75% times ASSESSED VALUE. That's $11,250 surcharge for my old property, And this is for a modest sized house. And note that the Moultonborough 2025 property taxes on that house would be about $1,500,000/1000*$5.33 = $7995. The surcharge is more than the property tax. That's nuts!

A $5,000,000 home would be assessed for $37,500 annually. I'm not worried about the rich going broke but there is a question about fairness and gouging.

The way that it is written. If it was a second home, that was never rented, then the surcharge would kick in.
Not sure that catches as many as one may presuppose, and according to the statements... that would lower the property taxes for the remaining residents of Moultonborough.

So basically going after second home owners that can afford to leave the home empty.

[TomC]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

.. that would lower the property taxes for the remaining residents of Moultonborough.

Haha..as if

[John Mercier]

"The minority of the committee recognizes the legislature looks to find alternative revenue
that shifts the tax burden away from the over-reliance on property tax. The minority believes that this is
a small step towards the goal of finding a new form of revenue that moves the state away from property
taxation without implementation of broad-based taxes. This bill mandates that all monies raised go directly
back to the community in which it was raised to be used for the specific purpose of reducing local municipal
taxes."

It was in Tummyman's post.
Since the money doesn't go to Concord and stays in the community, as long as the community doesn't expend more, then the offset happens.

Not much different then current exemptions, where a property owner gets an exemption/deduction and that adds to the rate for the others.
Difference is instead of being like a veteran's discount, it is a resident's discount - basically a homestead exemption.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by jeffk

I just realized this is exactly how car registrations are structured. The more expensive the car, the higher the registration cost. Yet, expensive cars have no impact on the cost to support vehicle traffic. They don't wear out the roads faster or require special stop signs or extra lanes to be built for roads.

Nor are those costs necessarily based on income. I, on a retirement income, might buy a car once every 20 years and save up a bit each year to buy a nice (expensive) one. Another, well off person, might buy a modest car every 5 years. Yet, I will, forever, pay a higher registration fee.

Why charge more? Because the state ALWAYS needs more money. NH is the king of nickel & dime taxes because they want to say they don't have an income tax. This 1580 tax goes well beyond dimes and you can be certain the money would get gobbled up for new initiatives and the legislators would soon be back at the trough in "need" of more. The only way to control spending is to control the taxes coming in.

The variable portion of a vehicle registration does not go to the State; it remains with the municipality as a property tax.

[AC2717]

Funny on how none of them say - lets balance the budget first, and trim the fat so to speak

[John Mercier]

The State, county, and municipal budgets all by law must balance.

Fat trimming depends on the level of government.

Locally in towns (cities are by representation), we vote the budgets for the schools and town. The county is by representation of members in the NH House that represent that districts. The State includes all the NH House members and the NH Senate, with either a concurrence by the Governor or a veto.

Vehicle registrations property taxes goes to offset the sum to be raised by real estate property taxes, along with other transfer funds/etc, to lower the real estate property taxes.

Pretty simple system that they teach us here in primary school.

[tummyman]

This bill was originally created by a new 23 year old legislator from Peterborough who's claim was that government was of, by, and for corporations, not of, by, for the people and he wants to change that. Also claimed on his website that "People opened up about how they were being priced out of the home their family built, and how they wanted to ensure they could make sure it was there for the next generation." Huh??? So the strategy appears to be....screw the folks that are non residents and price only them out of their legacy property. Since the non residents cannot vote, he and his co-sponsors are safe. Glad better minds will toss this out, but don't be surprised to see it come back again. Also points out how this forum can be such a helpful resource to identify potential legislation that could adversely impact folks. And it also points out that people need to get their opinions out there to the legislators.

[garysanfran]

Originally Posted by tummyman

This bill was originally created by a new 23 year old legislator from Peterborough who's claim was that government was of, by, and for corporations, not of, by, for the people and he wants to change that. Also claimed on his website that "People opened up about how they were being priced out of the home their family built, and how they wanted to ensure they could make sure it was there for the next generation." Huh??? So the strategy appears to be....screw the folks that are non residents and price only them out of their legacy property. Since the non residents cannot vote, he and his co-sponsors are safe. Glad better minds will toss this out, but don't be surprised to see it come back again. Also points out how this forum can be such a helpful resource to identify potential legislation that could adversely impact folks. And it also points out that people need to get their opinions out there to the legislators.

Also makes me think about the residents of Peterborough!

[John Mercier]

Corporations would lease/rent the property.
So this 1580 as amended would not apply.

Some of the other bills long term leases would not apply.

So not really a factor.

Homes are being lost because the families can no longer afford them - maybe even couldn't in the first place.
It isn't unusual for a senior flush with retirement money to purchase something and then not be financially sound enough to afford the ongoing carrying costs.

This should have been noted when I posted that recent studies suggest that a retiree must have seven times the value of their home to remain comfortable.
More than one home, those numbers need to be added together.

[TomC]

Originally Posted by tummyman

This bill was originally created by a new 23 year old legislator from Peterborough ...

There ought to be a "life experience minimum" to be a legislator... This person is at most a year or two out of university. They can't possibly know what it is like to make their own way in the real world...

[tis]

Originally Posted by tummyman

This bill was originally created by a new 23 year old legislator from Peterborough who's claim was that government was of, by, and for corporations, not of, by, for the people and he wants to change that. Also claimed on his website that "People opened up about how they were being priced out of the home their family built, and how they wanted to ensure they could make sure it was there for the next generation." Huh??? So the strategy appears to be....screw the folks that are non residents and price only them out of their legacy property. Since the non residents cannot vote, he and his co-sponsors are safe. Glad better minds will toss this out, but don't be surprised to see it come back again. Also points out how this forum can be such a helpful resource to identify potential legislation that could adversely impact folks. And it also points out that people need to get their opinions out there to the legislators.

He didn't understand this bill would hurt more than help. They are so naive. Somebody who knows how should have made a post so we could have contacted them and told them what we think.

[John Mercier]

Maybe.
He may be noticing that a lot of people can no longer afford their properties after a generation or two as the market value rises beyond the point of covering the carrying costs.

Probably thought this was a means to stop the demand to keep assessments in check.

Homestead Exemptions are happening in every States, and he may be just following along with DeSantis and the others.
Suggesting age or party affiliation with the issue is just a matter of ignoring the macro environment.

[tis]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Maybe.
He may be noticing that a lot of people can no longer afford their properties after a generation or two as the market value rises beyond the point of covering the carrying costs.

Probably thought this was a means to stop the demand to keep assessments in check.

Homestead Exemptions are happening in every States, and he may be just following along with DeSantis and the others.
Suggesting age or party affiliation with the issue is just a matter of ignoring the macro environment.

So you think having a homestead exemption is going to save people a lot of money? Maybe on a $100,000 dollar home but there aren't too many of them around any more.

[DesertDweller]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

The way that it is written. If it was a second home, that was never rented, then the surcharge would kick in.
Not sure that catches as many as one may presuppose, and according to the statements... that would lower the property taxes for the remaining residents of Moultonborough.

So basically going after second home owners that can afford to leave the home empty.

So do all of the property owners need to submit personal financial statements and those that can afford to pay additional additional property taxes can pay them. I was always under the impression that property taxes were based on the value of the property not how much you could pay. I hope these folks realize that New Hampshire doesn't have a monopoly on lakeside real estate and there are plenty of options in Maine, Vermont, etc.

[CTYankee]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Maybe.


Homestead Exemptions are happening in every States, and he may be just following along with DeSantis and the others.
Suggesting age or party affiliation with the issue is just a matter of ignoring the macro environment.

I don't see where the language in either of these bills refers to the creation of a homestead exemption for primary homes. If that is the intent of the legislature than it should be expressed in the language of the bills. If you are referring to a de facto creation of a homestead exemption that is not at all what is proposed.

The bills as proposed create classes of property owners. They are very clearly aimed at those who own second or vacation homes. Many seasonal camps where I am on Bear Island in Meredith are generational free of mortgage and not owned by wealthy families. These families fall squarely within the crosshairs of these bills. The value of the properties has gone up over the years once the monied class became willing to pay fantastic prices.

The real effect of this misguided legislation is the gentrification of New Hampshire. They would create forces requiring many families to sell to make room for the wealthy who really don't care about surtaxes. This is the macro environment that will be created. These bills are not about a homestead exemption. They are about creating classes of citizen taxpayers. They are especially aimed at property owners that can't vote, very unamerican.

[Wolfe-man]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Maybe.
He may be noticing that a lot of people can no longer afford their properties after a generation or two as the market value rises beyond the point of covering the carrying costs.

Probably thought this was a means to stop the demand to keep assessments in check.

Homestead Exemptions are happening in every States, and he may be just following along with DeSantis and the others.
Suggesting age or party affiliation with the issue is just a matter of ignoring the macro environment.

The homestead exemption in Florida is worth about $700 a year (no tax is payable on the first $50k of value at about 13 mills). Florida also has a 3% yearly cap on assessed value increases (the save our homes provision), with the cumulative savings being portable when a resident sells his or her residence and establishes a new one. You’re talking a few grand a year max. A higher yearly cap exists for commercial and non homestead properties (10%/year, I believe). One can debate whether this is good policy or bad, as it raises the bar for new homeowners at the expense of long term residents and non home owners, but the scope in Florida is decidedly different from what is being proposed here. I have an old camp on a very nice piece of land that I couldn’t reside in even if I wanted to; and I don’t want to. Assuming they would seek to close the lease-back loophole in the final version, adding another $25k to my already outrageous tax bill on a property where no one could live there anyway, when I have no say in the matter, would drive us away from NH just as a matter of principle - and I suspect I would not be alone. No one needs to feel sorry for me, of course, but whether I can afford that robbery is irrelevant. The local marina would lose $10k/year; the local restaurants and businesses another $10k minimum. Money spent on property manager, tradesman, cleaners, maintenance people, boat registration fees, thousands of dollars in rental tax for when we do rent it, etc., gone. The lake is beautiful, of course, but there are limits. I’m glad to see that cooler heads seem to be prevailing on this one. Excuse my ranting - I don’t often post here but this one struck me.

[camp guy]

Home ownership is possibly the greatest single driver in a local economy, in that home owners are always needing something at the local hardware store, do retail and food shopping locally, generally use local trades for work to be done in and around their home, and enjoy the benefit of building equity through the passage of time. Non-home owners, renters, probably do none of the above. Renters are generally told not to drive nails into the walls, not to do home maintenance by themselves, and each month monthly rent check goes to "someone", not to building equity for them. A home is someplace to live, a rent is someplace to reside (for now). Towns should do whatever they can to encourage home ownership - it benefits not only the homeowner, but the local economy.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by tis

So you think having a homestead exemption is going to save people a lot of money? Maybe on a $100,000 dollar home but there aren't too many of them around any more.

The bill is an open-ended homestead exemption.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by DesertDweller

So do all of the property owners need to submit personal financial statements and those that can afford to pay additional additional property taxes can pay them. I was always under the impression that property taxes were based on the value of the property not how much you could pay. I hope these folks realize that New Hampshire doesn't have a monopoly on lakeside real estate and there are plenty of options in Maine, Vermont, etc.

The legislation reads that a second home that is rented doesn't pay.
So they can afford to leave the home unrented.
The bill does not designate any property based on location just residency and value.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by CTYankee

I don't see where the language in either of these bills refers to the creation of a homestead exemption for primary homes. If that is the intent of the legislature than it should be expressed in the language of the bills. If you are referring to a de facto creation of a homestead exemption that is not at all what is proposed.

The bills as proposed create classes of property owners. They are very clearly aimed at those who own second or vacation homes. Many seasonal camps where I am on Bear Island in Meredith are generational free of mortgage and not owned by wealthy families. These families fall squarely within the crosshairs of these bills. The value of the properties has gone up over the years once the monied class became willing to pay fantastic prices.

The real effect of this misguided legislation is the gentrification of New Hampshire. They would create forces requiring many families to sell to make room for the wealthy who really don't care about surtaxes. This is the macro environment that will be created. These bills are not about a homestead exemption. They are about creating classes of citizen taxpayers. They are especially aimed at property owners that can't vote, very unamerican.

A homestead exemption, even de facto, would mean aiming taxes at second and vacation homes.

NH does things a bit differently, but the end results are the same. The bill would raise taxes from second homes that did not meet the exemptions in the bill, and with that amount being deducted from the amount that is to be raised to cover the budgets, lower the taxation on the other properties.

The current situation is that wealth will cause the market value to rise, and thus the assessments of like properties, shifting taxation to those properties within the classification - regardless of ownership status.

NH has been "American" since the beginning, and has had differing property classes since its founding.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Wolfe-man

The homestead exemption in Florida is worth about $700 a year (no tax is payable on the first $50k of value at about 13 mills). Florida also has a 3% yearly cap on assessed value increases (the save our homes provision), with the cumulative savings being portable when a resident sells his or her residence and establishes a new one. You’re talking a few grand a year max. A higher yearly cap exists for commercial and non homestead properties (10%/year, I believe). One can debate whether this is good policy or bad, as it raises the bar for new homeowners at the expense of long term residents and non home owners, but the scope in Florida is decidedly different from what is being proposed here. I have an old camp on a very nice piece of land that I couldn’t reside in even if I wanted to; and I don’t want to. Assuming they would seek to close the lease-back loophole in the final version, adding another $25k to my already outrageous tax bill on a property where no one could live there anyway, when I have no say in the matter, would drive us away from NH just as a matter of principle - and I suspect I would not be alone. No one needs to feel sorry for me, of course, but whether I can afford that robbery is irrelevant. The local marina would lose $10k/year; the local restaurants and businesses another $10k minimum. Money spent on property manager, tradesman, cleaners, maintenance people, boat registration fees, thousands of dollars in rental tax for when we do rent it, etc., gone. The lake is beautiful, of course, but there are limits. I’m glad to see that cooler heads seem to be prevailing on this one. Excuse my ranting - I don’t often post here but this one struck me.

"(5) Properties that are not habitable during the winter months due to lack of
winterization, such as the absence of adequate heating, insulation, or plumbing designed for sub
freezing temperatures, as certified by the owner or a qualified inspector."
The proposed amendment covers that.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by camp guy

Home ownership is possibly the greatest single driver in a local economy, in that home owners are always needing something at the local hardware store, do retail and food shopping locally, generally use local trades for work to be done in and around their home, and enjoy the benefit of building equity through the passage of time. Non-home owners, renters, probably do none of the above. Renters are generally told not to drive nails into the walls, not to do home maintenance by themselves, and each month monthly rent check goes to "someone", not to building equity for them. A home is someplace to live, a rent is someplace to reside (for now). Towns should do whatever they can to encourage home ownership - it benefits not only the homeowner, but the local economy.

Labor. Though the initial may have been someone concerned about the rising assessments shifting taxes to long held properties, and looking to dissuade further demand creating even higher assessments; others have been looking at the labor force issue.

Operating margins must cover labor. So businesses must have higher prices to handle that increased labor cost; and government must have higher taxation to pay the higher salaries/wages necessary to compete for the dwindling amount of workforce.

Greenspan through Reagan and O'Neil warned us in the mid-80s that the entire US was going to suffer the demographics of fewer workers for each retiree. NH went whole hog, full speed ahead for the cliff.

Now we hear government complaints that 26% of our resident population is 60 or older statewide. But the local pockets of residents is higher, and with non-residents added to the mix; the percentage is very high.

The only ways to overcome a shortage of labor is to work more hours - not easy to get that to happen in a tourist area, increase productivity - this is where customer efficiency in the service sector comes into play, or to lower the demand.

They believe that they will achieve it by lowering demand (less "tourists") and increasing the supply of the scarcity (more units for rent/sale).

[tis]

Originally Posted by Wolfe-man

The homestead exemption in Florida is worth about $700 a year (no tax is payable on the first $50k of value at about 13 mills). Florida also has a 3% yearly cap on assessed value increases (the save our homes provision), with the cumulative savings being portable when a resident sells his or her residence and establishes a new one. You’re talking a few grand a year max. A higher yearly cap exists for commercial and non homestead properties (10%/year, I believe). One can debate whether this is good policy or bad, as it raises the bar for new homeowners at the expense of long term residents and non home owners, but the scope in Florida is decidedly different from what is being proposed here. I have an old camp on a very nice piece of land that I couldn’t reside in even if I wanted to; and I don’t want to. Assuming they would seek to close the lease-back loophole in the final version, adding another $25k to my already outrageous tax bill on a property where no one could live there anyway, when I have no say in the matter, would drive us away from NH just as a matter of principle - and I suspect I would not be alone. No one needs to feel sorry for me, of course, but whether I can afford that robbery is irrelevant. The local marina would lose $10k/year; the local restaurants and businesses another $10k minimum. Money spent on property manager, tradesman, cleaners, maintenance people, boat registration fees, thousands of dollars in rental tax for when we do rent it, etc., gone. The lake is beautiful, of course, but there are limits. I’m glad to see that cooler heads seem to be prevailing on this one. Excuse my ranting - I don’t often post here but this one struck me.

You are not alone I believe. Unintended consequences.

[Wolfe-man]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

"(5) Properties that are not habitable during the winter months due to lack of

winterization, such as the absence of adequate heating, insulation, or plumbing designed for sub

freezing temperatures, as certified by the owner or a qualified inspector."

The proposed amendment covers that.

I appreciate that clarification. Doesn’t much change my thoughts about the breadth of the injury long term (how could I justify investing in this community and building a second home on that land, which we have been contemplating, if such a proposal were to become law?). I suppose the main issue for me is that the size of the proposed increase is absurdly large - essentially a penalty rather than a homestead exemption- and would negatively impact much of the waterfront property in the Lakes Region. Others will have different opinions, of course, and I concede I have not fully studied the matter. In its current form, it does seem targeted more to puffery than to a proposal intended to be enacted.

[tis]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

"(5) Properties that are not habitable during the winter months due to lack of
winterization, such as the absence of adequate heating, insulation, or plumbing designed for sub
freezing temperatures, as certified by the owner or a qualified inspector."
The proposed amendment covers that.

And how many people would be able to afford to rent a house on the mainland that IS winterized and accessible? Most renters probably couldn't even pay for the heat.

John are you sure this bill was not your idea? You are certainly defending it with your life.

[WinnisquamZ]

Or each city and town could spend less.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[DesertDweller]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

The legislation reads that a second home that is rented doesn't pay.
So they can afford to leave the home unrented.
The bill does not designate any property based on location just residency and value.

Ok, so I will go ahead and rent my home from September to June when I am not there to a family of five and they can enroll their three children in the Moultonborough school system. I save a bunch of money on property taxes and collect some rent and the school system gets burdened with the costs of educating more kids. Where is the return? The money they spend at Hannaford's on food? Help me understand the logic. Really failing to see it.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by tis

And how many people would be able to afford to rent a house on the mainland that IS winterized and accessible? Most renters probably couldn't even pay for the heat.

John are you sure this bill was not your idea? You are certainly defending it with your life.

These bills will keep coming up because they exist in so many States, and are expanding in more.
It isn't the only bill. As I have stated, this is in several bills in several formats.

Personally, I like the system as is.
Higher wages/salaries.

I don't gain anything from watching second homes' become less desirable.
Less earnings, and less increases in their assessments resulting in tax shifting to me.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Wolfe-man

I appreciate that clarification. Doesn’t much change my thoughts about the breadth of the injury long term (how could I justify investing in this community and building a second home on that land, which we have been contemplating, if such a proposal were to become law?). I suppose the main issue for me is that the size of the proposed increase is absurdly large - essentially a penalty rather than a homestead exemption- and would negatively impact much of the waterfront property in the Lakes Region. Others will have different opinions, of course, and I concede I have not fully studied the matter. In its current form, it does seem targeted more to puffery than to a proposal intended to be enacted.

Depending on which bill is being discussed.
All are different.

But basically, I think their thoughts is that the size of the penalty is the only way for them to actually impact the market. No one likes higher taxes, but if the sum is meager, then we just accept it. If it is horrendous, then we either think about selling or not purchasing.

The islands, except those with bridges, historically where second homes.
Lots of other homes historically were summer rentals - like the cottage colonies - since those have been privatized, and some are still STR, the change was minor.
But the STR movement has made housing in areas that historically have never seen that usage come into play.

When they look locally, lets say Laconia, same resident population as ~1980 with a multiple in housing units added to the mix - but still a tight market.

So more housing is STR and second homes than ever before.
That has been pushing the assessments, so taxes, and creating the discomfort for families that passed down their properties from generation to generation - but never developed liquid wealth. So the higher taxes get to the point that without liquid wealth, they have to sell.
It angers them.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by WinnisquamZ

Or each city and town could spend less.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

There is room in any budget for some curtailment.
I find that too many look at curtailing a line item rather than just crossing it out.

But the labor in each of the cities and towns will see increases in costs.
No way around that. Police, fire, road, those workers are all going to expect increases in pay due to the tight labor force. Just basic supply and demand.

They see costs in materials, so on and so on; for the same reason.

I believe that it is Newfound that is looking to get rid of sports.
So we will have to wait and see if that becomes a trend in cost savings or the voters decide that higher property taxes are acceptable.

[tis]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

So more housing is STR and second homes than ever before.
That has been pushing the assessments, so taxes, and creating the discomfort for families that passed down their properties from generation to generation - but never developed liquid wealth. So the higher taxes get to the point that without liquid wealth, they have to sell.
It angers them.

Yes, because as taxes went so high many had to rent to keep them and that's when others saw a business model and bought solely to rent.

[John Mercier]

Summer rentals has been a model since before I was born.

All those cottage colonies were summer rentals.

Does it make a difference if I own one larger piece of property with twelve rentals on it, or twelve smaller ones with one rental on each.

Not really. Just semantics.

More tourism to the area made the difference.
The returns were noticeable enough so that real estate rather than other investments made sense.

Same reason the marinas are being bought up.

[tis]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Summer rentals has been a model since before I was born.

All those cottage colonies were summer rentals.

Does it make a difference if I own one larger piece of property with twelve rentals on it, or twelve smaller ones with one rental on each.

Not really. Just semantics.

More tourism to the area made the difference.
The returns were noticeable enough so that real estate rather than other investments made sense.

Same reason the marinas are being bought up.

I agree and mentioned the cottage colonies before. But it was taxes and the rise in property prices that made people sell them. They just weren't cost effective any more.

[tummyman]

Feels like Mamdani has made it to NH !!! So if this is all about housing, then why exclude all those properties under $500K ? All these under $500K properties owned by RESIDENTS could also be used as rentals....like second homes of residents. So why the exclusion? Can't they participate in making more housing available? No reasonable rationale in my mind. What about land...why not force people to build something? It is all BS!!!!! Just a way to have more redistribution of wealth against a class of people who will get screwed with more taxes but have no voice. There will be so many people getting creative to NOT pay this abusive tax that the towns will have to hire people to try and enforce. Take a $1M property that gets hit with a $7500 tax because it is not occupied for 7 months.. That is a penalty of just over $1000 per month. Now add that to a rent to cover costs, income taxes since you live in another state, federal taxes on income, utility costs, etc. etc. of maybe $2000 per month for a total of $3000. What if you cannot find anyone willing to pay that rent for 7 months and the have to move out because you want to use the property? Are you now supposed to not cover your costs? And will you then not be eligible to avoid the penalty? Time for non residents to REVOLT and hold a protest !!!!!!!!!

[tis]

Originally Posted by tummyman

Feels like Mamdani has made it to NH !!! So if this is all about housing, then why exclude all those properties under $500K ? All these under $500K properties owned by RESIDENTS could also be used as rentals....like second homes of residents. So why the exclusion? Can't they participate in making more housing available? No reasonable rationale in my mind. What about land...why not force people to build something? It is all BS!!!!! Just a way to have more redistribution of wealth against a class of people who will get screwed with more taxes but have no voice. There will be so many people getting creative to NOT pay this abusive tax that the towns will have to hire people to try and enforce. Take a $1M property that gets hit with a $7500 tax because it is not occupied for 7 months.. That is a penalty of just over $1000 per month. Now add that to a rent to cover costs, income taxes since you live in another state, federal taxes on income, utility costs, etc. etc. of maybe $2000 per month for a total of $3000. What if you cannot find anyone willing to pay that rent for 7 months and the have to move out because you want to use the property? Are you now supposed to not cover your costs? And will you then not be eligible to avoid the penalty? Time for non residents to REVOLT and hold a protest !!!!!!!!!

Well said. I totally agree with you. What is the live free or die state becoming?

[tummyman]

This is how the minority on the Ways and Means committee thinks....This bill seeks to open a new revenue stream by taxing non-primary residences valued
over $500,000 that are left unoccupied for more than 183 days out of the year at a rate of three quarters of a
percentage point. The minority of the committee recognizes the legislature looks to find alternative revenue
that shifts the tax burden away from the over-reliance on property tax. The minority believes that this is
a small step towards the goal of finding a new form of revenue that moves the state away from property
taxation without implementation of broad-based taxes. This bill mandates that all monies raised go directly
back to the community in which it was raised to be used for the specific purpose of reducing local municipal
taxes. The minority of the committee believes that at a time when many of our citizens can’t begin to afford
one home and our state is saddled by ever rising property taxation, a new revenue source from non-primary
residences left unoccupied for more than 183 days out of the year is appropriate.

Imagine even stating the goal is to reduce reliance on property taxes. What the hell does this bill do ???? Nothing to reduce the reliance on property taxes...it is still the same reliance, just shifts the burden around to other classes of property taxpayers. Oh, and now cannot have any broad based taxes because that would hurt the "residents'. Got to protect their voters. I think the non-residents from MA ought to appeal to the MA governor to install toll booths on every major highway coming in from NH and impose a MA non-resident TOLL at $10 each way to let the NH "residents" pay for the use of MA highways. NH registration plates pay $10 each way. MA plates $1. NH Easy Pass I think has a reduced rate for NH drivers. MA could do the same...a $9 discount for MA drivers. Watch the tears flow then!!!

We own a seasonal property that has no central heat and cannot be lived in during the winter. As a non resident, to not pay the tax. we would have to install central heat, insulate, replace windows for energy savings, etc. etc., just so we can rent it for some ridiculous amount for 7 months and then kick them out to the curb??? Stupid is as stupid does !!

[CTYankee]

Originally Posted by tis

What is the live free or die state becoming?

Unfortunately, New Hampshire's "Live Free or Die" motto seems to be supplanted by "Live Free and Screw Everyone Else." Perhaps we will see the change on new registration plates.

The argument that "other states have similar schemes" is lame. New Hampshire has long refused to address the issue of broad-based taxation. Instead, the state now looks to those who get no say in taxation policy to give to those who do have a say. Even in high tax Connecticut out of state property owners can vote on tax issues.

The proposals are nothing more than a socialist wealth re-distribution ploy. New Hampshire residents should keep a sharp lookout. This sort of government scheme can always be expanded to bite you in the wallet. Socialist ideas have a way of doing that.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by CTYankee

Unfortunately, New Hampshire's "Live Free or Die" motto seems to be supplanted by "Live Free and Screw Everyone Else." Perhaps we will see the change on new registration plates.

The argument that "other states have similar schemes" is lame. New Hampshire has long refused to address the issue of broad-based taxation. Instead, the state now looks to those who get no say in taxation policy to give to those who do have a say. Even in high tax Connecticut out of state property owners can vote on tax issues.

The proposals are nothing more than a socialist wealth re-distribution ploy. New Hampshire residents should keep a sharp lookout. This sort of government scheme can always be expanded to bite you in the wallet. Socialist ideas have a way of doing that.

Really. What argument was made to end vehicle inspections? Ahh... yes, other States that don't have such a program.

And why is it socialist in NH, but not in the other 22 States and the ones currently looking to do so?

As for Broad-based taxes... there is only three formats of taxation. Income, Sales, and Property.

NH taxes income through the business taxes - those equate to just under half of the State taxation.
It has countless sales taxes rather than one broad one and a bunch of exemptions - they equate to roughly 3/5th of the State revenue.
It has a non-redistributed State Property tax, that lowers the property tax in your municipality and is even on second home - that equates to about 15% of State revenue (but not really because it stays local).

So do you want to tax businesses more heavily, because that will equate to higher local costs for services and products - further increasing the labor wages/salaries to be paid by your property taxes?

Increase sale taxes, because those also are a pass through that for most parts get absorbed by the same higher labor wage/salary gains and the property taxes?

In the past, we would build supply to the point to meet, slightly overcome, demand. That option doesn't exist. We tried with a bill that would allow manufactured homes on all residential property in the State. That would allow builders, electricians, plumbers, and other tradesman in States far from here to add to the local housing supply.
It didn't go anywhere.

Most sponsoring these bills are coming to a realization that incoming wealth with the scarcity of supply is going to push the assessments to a point that they can no longer afford their home.

Some are old enough to realize that their dependence on two benefit check Social Security as a primary means of retirement income guarantees that future.

[TomC]

Originally Posted by CTYankee

Unfortunately, New Hampshire's "Live Free or Die" motto seems to be supplanted by "Live Free and Screw Everyone Else.

Fleecing non-resident taxpayers/out-of-staters is a time honored tradition in NH (and other places)....

[tummyman]

Time for another Boston Tea Party right on the shores of Lake Winni !!!! Need to send a loud message to Concord !!!!!

[BroadHopper]

The only broad based tax system, I feel will benefit all and is fair and equitable is the VAT system. (Value Added Tax). 120+ countries used this system so it is not new. You only get tax when you purchase goods and services. Your income is for savings. (no IRA, Kehoe, 401K etc to deal with. Save $ on administration.) If your wealthy you buy more and pay more tax. If your poor, you spend less, thus less tax. Simple as that! No tax forms to deal with, less administrative overhead.

Of course our representative don't want this as they will pay their share. It's not going to happen.

[phoenix]

Well are any of these bills likely going to pass . These threads get wrapped up in personal views. As Jack Friday said “ just the facts mame”

[AC2717]

Originally Posted by camp guy

Home ownership is possibly the greatest single driver in a local economy, in that home owners are always needing something at the local hardware store, do retail and food shopping locally, generally use local trades for work to be done in and around their home, and enjoy the benefit of building equity through the passage of time. Non-home owners, renters, probably do none of the above. Renters are generally told not to drive nails into the walls, not to do home maintenance by themselves, and each month monthly rent check goes to "someone", not to building equity for them. A home is someplace to live, a rent is someplace to reside (for now). Towns should do whatever they can to encourage home ownership - it benefits not only the homeowner, but the local economy.

I Would tend to disagree with this as I know many non residents that spend their weekends at the hardware store every year fixing their camps/houses and using local contractors or doing the work themselves. Many properties are old and need constant maintenance, and also those McMansions need locals to maintain them and landscape and what not.

[John Mercier]

What your saying is true.
But they don't add to the labor force.

Without additions to the labor force, prices go higher and higher... something that seniors have issues with. I think everyone has issues with it, but seniors seem to notice it more and vote.

I find it strange that Greenspan was pointing this out in the early 80s, that I had to sit through a televised speech by Reagan and O'Neil in the Rose Garden, and here we are wondering how this ever happened?

[gilford232]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

What about all the other States doing the same thing?
My point is that it isn't just NH. Dozens of other States are now doing this.

You seem to be rationalizing this proposal by saying other states do it. That should hardly be a reason to accept this. Should we accept sales and income tax because other states are doing it?

[John Mercier]

We rationalized getting rid of vehicle inspection on that basis.
What makes you think that won't be an issue?

The rational behind it is simple. Property taxes are high.
The elderly that make up most of the population are feeling strained.
And they are looking for a new source of revenue to either alleviate that or at least slow it.

Same reason the other States are going in that direction.

The only thing we know is that assessments and taxes will continue to rise as the forward projection of the labor pool is to worsen for some time to come.

[Biggd]

With the federal government cutting back on doling out funds to the States, they will all be looking to raise revenue!

[lakewinnie]

Originally Posted by TomC

Fleecing non-resident taxpayers/out-of-staters is a time honored tradition in NH (and other places)....

Of course - non-residents don't vote, so the nutjob legislators that dream up these proposals have nothing to lose when they face re-election.

People seem to always have two battles to fight - the actual public policy issue, and the issue of politicians who are more interested in getting re-elected than anything else.

The story of our lives...

[CTYankee]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

We rationalized getting rid of vehicle inspection on that basis.
What makes you think that won't be an issue?

The rational behind it is simple. Property taxes are high.
The elderly that make up most of the population are feeling strained.
And they are looking for a new source of revenue to either alleviate that or at least slow it.

Same reason the other States are going in that direction.

The only thing we know is that assessments and taxes will continue to rise as the forward projection of the labor pool is to worsen for some time to come.

The problem with rationalizing is that it is most often used to mask what the real motivation is for some action taken either by an individual, group of individuals, or, in this case, by a government entity. This results in even the proponents not truly understanding the true reason(s).

I agree with Mr. Mercier that property taxes are high. I also agree that property values have dramatically increased since the pandemic. I do not agree that increased property values should necessarily result in higher property taxes. With an across the boards increase in property valuations as reflected by periodic reevaluations the mill rate should correspondently decrease.

I also disagree that a majority of New Hampshire residents are elderly. Approximately 21.5% are over sixty-five, not that sixty-five is considered elderly.

New Hampshire assesses property tax on 100% of valuation. Perhaps a graduated percentage could be adopted whereby property taxes are assessed on a lessor percentage for the elderly or disabled. This would constitute a homestead provision.

I'm not sure what property values and taxes have to do with the labor pool. The way New Hampshire seems to be going the only people who are going to be living here are professionals and well monied.

In any event governments need to learn to live within the means of the people they serve. People in government should stop rationalizing and start dealing with the limited resources of the people. The people should not simply accept the fallacious rationalization arguments put forth by those in power.

[phoenix]

So the argument is that if we need money find anyway especially to raise taxes who cant vote

[tummyman]

Nobody here is talking about the other side of the equation...cost of government. School spending is out of control at least for administration and all the classroom assistants. Insurance coverages far exceed what business offers today. Answers to problems seem to aways be add more people instead of looking for ways to be more productive. Nobody ever gets laid off. And productivity is low and not measured. Leaders just want zero problems and if that means more hires, so be it. They look the other way and just want to be voted back in at any cost. Always looking at what voters may think of any actions they take. Yes, taxes are high but the role of government is not to redistribute income. Nobody said they had to play RobinHood. They are supposed to be fair, not punitive. And yes, as a prior poster said, if what other states do is the barometer for NH, then why no sales tax, why no income tax ? I get it, leaders would rather tax those who cannot vote and seek ways to lower their burden at the expense of others.

[Descant]

It appears the Ways and Means committee voted unanimously Inexpedient To Legislate and agreed to put the bill on the Conse3nt Calendar. That is, it probably will get voted on in one vote with dozens of other bills, no floor debate. For those who think people with second homes don't get to vote, look around. Many, many NH residents own a ski or lake second home or a hunting camp.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by tummyman

Nobody here is talking about the other side of the equation...cost of government. School spending is out of control at least for administration and all the classroom assistants. Insurance coverages far exceed what business offers today. Answers to problems seem to aways be add more people instead of looking for ways to be more productive. Nobody ever gets laid off. And productivity is low and not measured. Leaders just want zero problems and if that means more hires, so be it. They look the other way and just want to be voted back in at any cost. Always looking at what voters may think of any actions they take. Yes, taxes are high but the role of government is not to redistribute income. Nobody said they had to play RobinHood. They are supposed to be fair, not punitive. And yes, as a prior poster said, if what other states do is the barometer for NH, then why no sales tax, why no income tax ? I get it, leaders would rather tax those who cannot vote and seek ways to lower their burden at the expense of others.

There are no more hires.
Very hard to find help in this labor market.

And as I have stated... NH has income and sales taxes.
Income taxes provide about half of the State's revenue. Sale taxes about 3/5th and the remainder is a property tax.

Whereas anyone can choose to make NH their primary residence. Change their DL, vehicle and voting registration, etc.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Descant

It appears the Ways and Means committee voted unanimously Inexpedient To Legislate and agreed to put the bill on the Conse3nt Calendar. That is, it probably will get voted on in one vote with dozens of other bills, no floor debate. For those who think people with second homes don't get to vote, look around. Many, many NH residents own a ski or lake second home or a hunting camp.

Anyone could pull it off the CC.
But I don't think the point was to get it passed.

Because of the several bills out there, I think the point is to get it on record and get it discussed.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by CTYankee

The problem with rationalizing is that it is most often used to mask what the real motivation is for some action taken either by an individual, group of individuals, or, in this case, by a government entity. This results in even the proponents not truly understanding the true reason(s).

I agree with Mr. Mercier that property taxes are high. I also agree that property values have dramatically increased since the pandemic. I do not agree that increased property values should necessarily result in higher property taxes. With an across the boards increase in property valuations as reflected by periodic reevaluations the mill rate should correspondently decrease.

I also disagree that a majority of New Hampshire residents are elderly. Approximately 21.5% are over sixty-five, not that sixty-five is considered elderly.

New Hampshire assesses property tax on 100% of valuation. Perhaps a graduated percentage could be adopted whereby property taxes are assessed on a lessor percentage for the elderly or disabled. This would constitute a homestead provision.

I'm not sure what property values and taxes have to do with the labor pool. The way New Hampshire seems to be going the only people who are going to be living here are professionals and well monied.

In any event governments need to learn to live within the means of the people they serve. People in government should stop rationalizing and start dealing with the limited resources of the people. The people should not simply accept the fallacious rationalization arguments put forth by those in power.

They have it for the poor elderly and disabled.

But taking further from the poor young to fund the poor elderly isn't rational.

[garysanfran]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

There are no more hires.
Very hard to find help in this labor market.

And as I have stated... NH has income and sales taxes.
Income taxes provide about half of the State's revenue. Sale taxes about 3/5th and the remainder is a property tax.

Whereas anyone can choose to make NH their primary residence. Change their DL, vehicle and voting registration, etc.

"Very hard to find help in this labor market"...

In my experience "nepotism" breeds future government employees.

[John Mercier]

Not sure what that means.
Labor in the open market has a strong hand due to supply/demand.

So the State is wondering how do we get more supply or less demand.

Either one I think is just interceding in natural market forces that tend to self-correct over time.

I think they might just fear that natural correction.

The new entries into the area have significantly more income and wealth than we dealt with before or even during covid except in some very rare cases.

Starting to see customers with appointments that have annual household incomes measured in tens of millions become more of a regular occurrence.

I think the seacoast may be built out.