How about those property taxes?

Skip · 08-29-2007, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deepwaters

This has been an interesting thread...Jeff's straight-forward logic and very simple examples have actually silenced the emotional knee-jerk responses that were populating this topic. - Well Done!!

I agree wholeheartedly!

And just to once again show that no matter how many or how high your taxes are - it is never enough to satisfy the government...this timely article from the Herald referencing the financial plight of our good friends and neighbors just south of the Granite State border:

How much & which new tax do we need?

Rose · 08-30-2007, 12:25 PM

My husband and I were watching an episode of Chronicle (Boston edition) about the bridge situation in Mass (and it's similar elsewhere in the country). The secretary of transportation sited the rule of five...if you don't pay to maintain a bridge now, you'll pay five times as much to do it later. It's always driven me totally insane that keeping up the maintenance on a building, bridge, roadway, etc. never seems to added into the cost equation when it's being built, and maintenance seems to be one of the first things cut in the budget when there's a crunch.

vrrooom · 08-30-2007, 01:19 PM

There have been numerous research projects which have studied the relationship between spending per pupil and student performance. They all agree, spending more does not result in highter levels of student performance. Parental involvement is the best driver of student preformance acording to these studies. Look at Gilford, one of the highest levels of per pupil spending in the state and only average student performance. Leadership with dollars

not, apparently follow the money leads to the administrators

not to the students.

Ropetow · 09-06-2007, 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vrrooom

There have been numerous research projects which have studied the relationship between spending per pupil and student performance. They all agree, spending more does not result in highter levels of student performance. Parental involvement is the best driver of student preformance acording to these studies. Look at Gilford, one of the highest levels of per pupil spending in the state and only average student performance. Leadership with dollars

not, apparently follow the money leads to the administrators

not to the students.

Not to sound pompous, but I have my Ph.D. in education administration and am a college professor of teacher education, have done extensive consulting and research and.....you are right...there is no proven link between spending and student achievement. Like any function, government or private sector, the key is spending money wisely. If spending-per-pupil equated acaemic achievement, then Boston and Washington, DC would have the highest-achieving students on the nation. That being said, states have implemented curriculum frameworks so that each fifth-grade student in a state would have the same curriculum. This cannot be done on a nation-wide basis....because the Constitution places the responsibility for education at the state level.

jeffk · 09-07-2007, 12:36 AM

So if we DID want to address the property tax issues by changing the tax structure would it be possible to:

Define a level of adequate education (AE) that is reasonable and wouldn’t grossly expand the current educational funding levels (<15% increase??)
Are not children already getting an adequate education in the state? I'm not really sure why more would need to be spent.

Constitutionally (to keep it away from constant meddling)
1. Create a state income tax for the sole purpose of funding an AE.
2. LOCK the rate at (for example) 4%, an amount that would fund the states obligation.
3. State that this level of funding shall constitute coverage of an AE (so that cost can’t be inflated by mucking with the definition of AE in the future) (this clause also gets the courts out of the debate)
4. Require that any excess revenue beyond that required for AE must be refunded to the taxpayer.
5. Eliminate the state property tax
6. Require that local property taxes be reduced by the amount that would now be provided by the state.
7. Cap future local property tax increases to 4% unless overridden by local supermajority votes.
8. Besides providing the funding and the guidelines for an adequate education the control of education shall remain in the hands of the local educational authorities

Would this be possible?
Would this address concerns about out of control educational and general spending and local control?
Has any state ever done something like this?
Would we want a complete shift to an income tax or some type of mix? Perhaps keep the current state property tax ($2 - $3 per $1000) and fund any new spending with an income tax at say 3%? I don’t like a sales tax because it is impossible to refund excess revenue.

Pineedles · 09-07-2007, 06:15 AM

You are correct when you said " NH is a low-tax state to live in for most of her residents". I don't think I am using fiction though to get my point across. Perhaps it is a more emotional appeal, than a call to totally overhaul the tax structure in NH. I guess the thing that makes me the maddest is that there is no ability for those folks that are contributing the larger share of taxes to be represented (for those living out of state). We consume the least amount of services, yet have no say in how the money is spent. I like JeffK's latest post as an alternative. But for what it is worth, I don't think that this small forum is going to have any effect on what is legislated in Concord.

tis · 09-07-2007, 06:45 AM

Jeff. You must not make income in NH or you wouldn't want an income tax. Do you honestly think ANY gov. could keep a tax at a certain percent ? No, it would eventually go up, even if the law had to be changed to do it. And so would the property tax. As others have said here, adding a NEW tax, never,ever, in the long run reduces another. And you said "any excess" beyond that needed for the AE should be returned to the taxpayer. Do you honestly believe there would ever be any returned to the taxpayer?

Don't tax you, don't tax me, tax that man behind the tree.

Weirs guy · 09-07-2007, 11:08 AM

Property taxes are great for this reason:

Does everyone in the state work in the state (or work at all?): No.
Does everyone in the state shop in the state: No.
Does everyone in the state live in the state: Yep.

While I sympathize with both the out of staters "taxation without representation" and older residents not being able to pay their property taxes, its still those individuals choices to live where they live. No mater what tax we have it will be unfair to someone, but at the end of the day life's not fair.

Rag Top Daze · 09-07-2007, 04:05 PM

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know of any state that allows non-residents to vote in town elections if they have a vacation home? Is NH so unusual in this area? Are we the only state where the vacation people complain about taxation without representation?

Pineedles · 09-07-2007, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rag Top Daze

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know of any state that allows non-residents to vote in town elections if they have a vacation home? Is NH so unusual in this area? Are we the only state where the vacation people complain about taxation without representation?

Just a quick google search says the question of non-resident voting rights are being considered.

Delaware:

Nonresident property owners in Delaware’s resort towns are no longer eligible to vote by absentee ballot in municipal elections, although in the past they could cast absentee votes in Rehoboth Beach, Dewey Beach, Henlopen Acres, Bethany Beach and South Bethany. An election law, passed last year by the General Assembly, had no provision for nonresidents to vote by absentee ballot.
While no municipal elections have been affected by the law, elections are coming up this summer in the resort towns. Without amending last year’s revisions, nonresident property owners will not be eligible to vote, unless they go to the polls.

Rhode Island:

STATE HOUSE – Three State Senators from South County have announced their opposition to bills that have been approved, separately, by the Senate and the House of Representatives to ask voters in Westerly to allow owners of residential property in the community, even though they are not town or state residents, to vote on election referenda questions involving capital expenditures by the town.

I won't post other Countries, but they too are looking at voting rights. Afetr all the original rights to be able to vote included propert ownership.

lakershaker · 09-10-2007, 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rag Top Daze

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know of any state that allows non-residents to vote in town elections if they have a vacation home? Is NH so unusual in this area? Are we the only state where the vacation people complain about taxation without representation?

Connecticut allows non-resident land owners to vote budget related votes.

Mr. V · 09-10-2007, 09:44 AM

What is wrong with basing taxes on a person's ability to pay?

Some form of a "net worth" tax could be developed, to shift the burden to those who can most readily afford it, i.e. the rich.

The more you have, the more you pay: simple.

It has always seemed unfair to me that the wealthiest members of our society seem to pay a disproportionately lesser amount of taxes.

Lower and middle class folks really get clobbered with a sales and/or income tax, but the rich seem to have ways to help minimize the sting, e.g. trusts and sharp lawyers / lobbyists / loopholes.

Sure, let the wealthy benefit from their wealth, but as a matter of public policy, they should pay more for The Common Good than they are.

Then again, I suppose that a real property tax could be considered a form "net worth" tax, but I envision a tax based on a person's overal "net worth."

jrc · 09-11-2007, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. V

...
Then again, I suppose that a real property tax could be considered a form "net worth" tax, but I envision a tax based on a person's overal "net worth."

NH effectively has a net worth tax. If you're rich where do you keep your money? Real estate, cash in a bank, or stocks and bonds. NH has property taxes (real estate), nh has a tax on interest (bank accounts and bonds) and dividends (stocks).

So unless you hide your money in a mattress, NH will tax it.

Deepwaters · 09-11-2007, 06:48 PM

Quote:

It has always seemed unfair to me that the wealthiest members of our society seem to pay a disproportionately lesser amount of taxes.

Sure, let the wealthy benefit from their wealth, but as a matter of public policy, they should pay more for The Common Good than they are.

You seem to feel that you pay an unfair share of taxes and that "wealthly" people should pay more. News flash - If you own a valuable piece of property on the lake then congrats, you are wealthly! Perhaps you should start paying more to help out others that don't have such a valuable assets.

The fact is you are Wealthy, its just that you are Land Rich! and for some reason you don't feel that you should pay taxes like other rich folk. Its OK to soak the other rich guys but you are different because your house appreciated quickly or maybe someone left you the house and it has personal value to you.

Obviously, no tax situation will work for everyone, but the vast majority of the voting residents like soaking the people from MA. and the only way to do it is through property tax. They don't care about you. - in fact they think "that wealthly people like you should pay more for the common good".

Its all about your prespective - everyone has a good reason why they should get what's best for them and why someone else should pay. you need to look at how others look at you. - they see a $1M house and don't understand your problem. Bottom line is this is America, we were founded on the principle that that the majority rules and things are not always fair. Most people in NH aren't willing to pay more so a guy with an expensive house can stay in it. Its sad in a way but its part of what makes us American. If this was the old USSR we would pay no taxes and we would all get the same crappy house - then everything would be fair.

idigtractors · 09-11-2007, 07:18 PM

Quote:
It has always seemed unfair to me that the wealthiest members of our society seem to pay a disproportionately lesser amount of taxes.

Sure, let the wealthy benefit from their wealth, but as a matter of public policy, they should pay more for The Common Good than they are.

I really would appreciate that you wouldn't say the above statement as I might just be one of those people someday. Who knows I just might hit the big one.

Lucky2Bhere · 09-11-2007, 07:57 PM

Any investment whether it is business, stock, or property pays tax in this country if it makes a profit. If your stock took off and you had a huge capital gain you'd sell it and not complain. If your business is busting at the seams you'd pay a business profits tax and not complain. If your home appreciates it may be a tough decision but you either sell or stay and pay.

Personally, I'd rather be concerned about the trillion dollars we're spending in Iraq than than the comparatively small community expenses in the lakes region that effect tax rates. I'm thankfull that I moved to NH from MA tax wise and my friends in NY, NJ, and PA agree.

ITD · 09-11-2007, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by idigtractors

Quote:
.........The Common Good ........

Whenever you hear this statement put your hand on your wallet because money is about to be extracted. I'm appalled at the number of people who want more taxes, either in other forms (income) or on other people ( the "rich"). The problem is how the money is being spent people, trying to solve a too high tax problem with more taxes is like trying to put out a fire with gasoline. It won't work.

Irish mist · 09-11-2007, 10:02 PM

Lol, stop making sense ITD

It seems you can explain, and prove time & time again that the problem is SPENDING......but people just don't want to hear it. Which is why we are in the situation we are in.
________
Mazda R360 History

SIKSUKR · 09-12-2007, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by idigtractors

Quote:
It has always seemed unfair to me that the wealthiest members of our society seem to pay a disproportionately lesser amount of taxes.

[FONT="Arial Narrow"][I][COLOR="Red"]]

This is the biggest Democratic calling card MYTH there is.In fact,it is just the opposite.Check your facts people before continuing the democratic cry of "poor me".
Oh I forgot FLL,Judd Gregg doesn't pay any taxes.

AC2717 · 09-12-2007, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

This is the biggest Democratic calling card MYTH there is. In fact, it is just the opposite. Check your facts people before continuing the democratic cry of "poor me".
Oh I forgot FLL, Judd Gregg doesn't pay any taxes.

just because some are lucky work hard or inherit money does not mean they should paid more than you and mine. if I bust my butt and you do not, does not mean I should pay more than you. I hate this reasoning. I do not have money by any means and still feel this way. It should be equal for all. unfortunately it will never happen that way when those that are super rich have the control and those that are too lazy to do anything, get hand outs. Now take this the right way I said those that are lazy, NOT those that have no control because they are handicapped or physically unable to work We stuck in the middle get the short end because we have no control.

SIKSUKR · 09-13-2007, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AC2717

just because some are lucky work hard or inherit money does not mean they should paid more than you and mine. if I bust my butt and you do not, does not mean I should pay more than you. I hate this reasoning. I do not have money by any means and still feel this way. It should be equal for all. unfortunately it will never happen that way when those that are super rich have the control and those that are too lazy to do anything, get hand outs. Now take this the right way I said those that are lazy, NOT those that have no control because they are handicapped or physically unable to work We stuck in the middle get the short end because we have no control.

What does this have to do with my post.I was pointing out that the Dems cry of the "richest pay the least taxes" is absolutely false.Read JeffK's post before mine.

Ropetow · 09-12-2007, 11:19 AM

Whenever someone from MA says that taxes need to be higher, ask them if they voluntarily pay a higher rate on their state income tax. Some year back when a citizen's initiative petition reduced the state income tax rate from 5.85% to 5.3% (I think those are the correct percentages...if not they are close), taxpayers were given the option on their state income tax return to pay the old, higher, rate. Now, with the predictions of doom from all the Payroll Patriots, you'd think that tens-of-thousands of MA residents would be paying the higher rate. Yet, the number who actually do is annually in the hundreds. The liberal mantra regarding taxes, property and other: Do as I say, not as I do.

Weirs guy · 09-12-2007, 11:19 AM

Here's an idea for those that believe its unfair to burden people with higher property taxes on homes that have been handed down for generations.

Lets say that when mom and dad leave you the lake house, you assume the property at its currently assessed value ($100,000 for the sake of argument). That assessed value remains unchanged for the entire time you own that property, thus eliminating any major escalations in property tax that you may or may not be able to afford. Then when you either sell the home or hand it down again, you "sell" the house for its current market value ($1M for arguments sake again), you pocked your original investment ($100,000) and the remainder goes to the state to make up for past tax bills.

Sound fair now?

ossipeeboater · 09-12-2007, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Weirs guy

Here's an idea for those that believe its unfair to burden people with higher property taxes on homes that have been handed down for generations.

Lets say that when mom and dad leave you the lake house, you assume the property at its currently assessed value ($100,000 for the sake of argument). That assessed value remains unchanged for the entire time you own that property, thus eliminating any major escalations in property tax that you may or may not be able to afford. Then when you either sell the home or hand it down again, you "sell" the house for its current market value ($1M for arguments sake again), you pocked your original investment ($100,000) and the remainder goes to the state to make up for past tax bills.

Sound fair now?

Wouldn't that be a great idea, would give people something to think about since they always want the best of both world, low taxes while there alive and the value of the property when they die.

Rattlesnake Guy · 09-12-2007, 10:00 PM

Jeffk,
A big sincere thank you for your post. Well said.

MJM · 10-19-2007, 06:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by idigtractors

Sure, let the wealthy benefit from their wealth, but as a matter of public policy, they should pay more for The Common Good than they are.

Socialism is an ugly beast. Redistribution of wealth by Government is not how this country works.

I have two brothers. One worked all through high school, paid his way through college, studied so hard he got a scholarship to graduate school, now works very hard and earns an excellent living. The other drank beer all through high school, never went to college, doesn't work hard at his low-paying job, and makes just enough to party and go to concerts.

Shouldn't they both pay the same PERCENTAGE of their income in taxes? Why should the first brother get to keep a smaller PORTION of his hard-earned money?

ApS · 10-19-2007, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJM

"...Redistribution of wealth by Government is not how this country works..."

Just stumbled upon this quote this morning...

Quote:

"There is no force in the physical universe as simultaneously unstoppable and destructive as the implacable need people have to feel better about themselves at the expense of others."

jrc · 10-19-2007, 09:29 AM

"There is no force in the physical universe as simultaneously unstoppable and destructive as the implacable need people have to feel better about themselves at the expense of others."

Maybe I live in a different world than you, but the very few people I've met with this "implacable need" were idiots and universally shunned. The people I know tend to believe a "rising tide raises all ships"

MJM · 10-19-2007, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jrc

"There is no force in the physical universe as simultaneously unstoppable and destructive as the implacable need people have to feel better about themselves at the expense of others."

How sad. I know there are people who feel that way, but I sure hope it's a small minority. I feel sorry for anyone who lives their life that way.

jeffk · 09-11-2007, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jrc

NH effectively has a net worth tax. If you're rich where do you keep your money? Real estate, cash in a bank, or stocks and bonds. NH has property taxes (real estate), nh has a tax on interest (bank accounts and bonds) and dividends (stocks).

So unless you hide your money in a mattress, NH will tax it.

I can buy stock or mutual funds that pay no dividends and reap capitol gains when I sell and NH takes nothing from me.

With the generous deduction provided I can have assets of around $100,000 before I generate enough interest and dividends to have to pay the 5% tax. Another way to look at it is I can make $5000 interest and dividends without paying tax.

jeffk · 09-11-2007, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. V

What is wrong with basing taxes on a person's ability to pay?
...
It has always seemed unfair to me that the wealthiest members of our society seem to pay a disproportionately lesser amount of taxes.
...
Sure, let the wealthy benefit from their wealth, but as a matter of public policy, they should pay more for The Common Good than they are.
...

I won't say that some smarmy, well off people find some loopholes to exploit but in general the "rich" pay much more than their fair share in supporting the public agenda.

This link http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html shows the US income taxes paid by percent of the total payees. For tax year 2004, about 130 million individual returns were filled. The top 1% of filers, about 1.3 M, paid about 37% of the total tax from individuals at a tax rate of 23.5%. The top 10%, 13 M payees, paid 68% of all individual tax, at a avg. 18.6% rate. The lowest 50% of earners, 65 M payees, paid 3.3% of all individual taxes at an avg rate of about 3%. Since 1980 the Amount of taxes paid by the top 1% of highest earners has gone from 19% to 37% of the total paid while the lowest 50% of earners has dropped from 7% of the total in 1980 to 3.3% in 2004.

In short, the highest earners shoulder the vast majority of the individual income tax burden and have have significantly increased the portion of the total that they pay since 1980!

In New Hampshire the more valuable the property (wealth) the higher the property tax.

A high earner living in NH and working in MA would be paying 23.5% fed income, 6% state, 6% Social Security, plus say 5% in property taxes for a total of 40.5%. Isn't this enough? How much more "common good" must be supported before it is "fair"?

People can always find something "good" to spend money on when it isn't their money. Wouldn't it be great to walk into a car dealership looking for a mid grade car and in walks a rich person and you turn to the dealer and say "Give me the upscale model and charge the extra to the rich guy". Why is it "good" or "fair" for government to do this? Everyone seems to want Cadillac education for the Chevy price and to "Send the bill to the rich guy".

GWC... · 09-12-2007, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeffk

Since 1980 the Amount of taxes paid by the top 1% of highest earners has gone from 19% to 37% of the total paid while the lowest 50% of earners has dropped from 7% of the total in 1980 to 3.3% in 2004.

In short, the highest earners shoulder the vast majority of the individual income tax burden and have have significantly increased the portion of the total that they pay since 1980!

Perhaps you forget why President Ronald Reagan played so much golf and what he did about it when President.

Not to worry, the Clintons made your thesis possible and true.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/52.html

Rattlesnake Guy · 09-14-2007, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeffk

(Snip). Since 1980 the Amount of taxes paid by the top 1% of highest earners has gone from 19% to 37% of the total paid while the lowest 50% of earners has dropped from 7% of the total in 1980 to 3.3% in 2004. (Snip)

Jeffk,
I sometimes get the crazy thought that if the top 50% raised their tax burden by 3.3% and told the bottom 50% they don't have to pay a cent, if the reality of the current situation would have a chance of sinking in.

tis · 09-14-2007, 06:17 PM

Some people believe everything they hear. "The rich don't pay their fair share." How many times have you heard that?

jeffk · 09-14-2007, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rattlesnake Guy

Jeffk,
I sometimes get the crazy thought that if the top 50% raised their tax burden by 3.3% and told the bottom 50% they don't have to pay a cent, if the reality of the current situation would have a chance of sinking in.

There are people who know exactly how the system works and don’t care because pontificating on how the “rich pay no taxes” is how they get elected. It’s a power game. They want power and this is how they get it. Since there are more mid to low earners than high earners they can build a winning vote this way. They create the impression that an inequity exists and they are going to “fix” the problem. People who are struggling to make ends meet see the inequity as cruelly unfair and strongly support such a person, even though the basis for that support is untrue.

Other people are socialists in their world view and believe that everyone should be afforded equal financial positions and look at the tax system as a way to “fairly” redistribute equal income to all. The person making a 6 figure salary has no right to it in the first place and so we will tax it right out of him.

It seems to me I read somewhere that the founders of this country did not want too strong of a money generating capability for the central government because the temptation to use money to buy favor with the voters would prove too sore a temptation for most. How tempting to turn to the “common man” and say “Look here. I’ll provide this benefit for you and it will cost you nothing. I will take the funds from the wealthy. Simply vote for me and I will provide this for you.” Since the Income Tax was established in 1913, only because the “common man” thought it was to be only a “rich man’s” tax

, this is exactly what has happened. The only problem is that the “common man” has been taken along for the rich man’s tax ride because all the rich man’s money in the country is not enough to satiate the longing for money and power in the federal government.

tis · 09-15-2007, 07:17 AM

jeff. Are you running for president? I want to vote for you!

tis · 09-18-2007, 12:20 PM

At first I thought this was funny...then I realized the awful truth of it.
Be sure to read all the way to the end!

Tax his land,
Tax his bed,
Tax the table
At which he's fed.

Tax his tractor,
Tax his mule,
Teach him taxes
Are the rule.

Tax his cow,
Tax his goat,
Tax his pants,
Tax his coat.

Tax his ties,
Tax his shirt,
Tax his work,
Tax his dirt.

Tax his tobacco,
Tax his drink,
Tax him if he
Tries to think.

Tax his cigars,
Tax his beers,
If he cries, then
Tax his tears.

Tax his car,
Tax his gas,
Find other ways
To tax his a..

Tax all he has
Then let him know
That you won't be done
Till he has no dough.

When he screams and hollers,
Then tax him some more,
Tax him till
He 's good and sore.

Then tax his coffin ,
Tax his grave,
Tax the sod in
Which he's laid.

Put these words
upon his tomb,
" Taxes drove me to my doom..."

When he's gone,
Do not relax,
Its time to apply
The inheritance tax.

Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Excise Taxes
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax

Flush Tax (in MD.)
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax (42 cents per gallon)
Gross Receipts Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marr iage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Personal Property Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service Charge Tax
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Tax
Sales Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax

STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY?
Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago,
and our nation was the most prosperous in the world.
We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.

What the hell happened? Can you spell "politicians!"

And I still have to "press 1" for English.

I hope this goes around THE USA at least 100 time

(For those of you who may not have seen this before!)

wifi · 09-18-2007, 12:51 PM

"...And I still have to "press 1" for English...."

Be glad its still "1"

-Rich

vrrooom · 09-19-2007, 06:29 AM

Not at the Miami Airport, where all announcments are first made in the Majority Language then English.

We should not allow any other language or signs or whatever in anything but english. My grandparents were immigrants, who spoke no english when they came to he US in the late 1800's, they learned english and forced their 8 children to do the same. English was produly spoken at home by the old folks for their entire lives. So why have we incurred the costs of Bi Lingual everything here, you won't see that in Europe by the by.

Pineedles · 09-10-2007, 07:37 PM

LAKERSHAKER

I had no idea that CT allowed this.. SO? It appears that even the conservative state of CT allows non-resident voters? Time to start a political action committee? After all, if there are so many of us with moderate means, then a small contribution could add up to a huge PAC! Who's interested? Stop bitchen if you want real change!

Lucky2Bhere · 09-11-2007, 07:52 AM

A "net worth tax" would tax the same money every year. Hardly fair! A flat tax which has been proposed nationally would lower rates overall but eliminate all deductions.

B&D · 10-23-2007, 07:33 AM

Today's federal funding = federal mandates, which = 21 school days of testing per year,....time spent the kids are not receiving an education. Want more of that for your kids?
Alton has decreed that they are operating on the basis of evaluating your property based on when it was at it's highest, vice it's advertised "Present Value"(which is today's value, not yesterday or tomorrow, which requires the tax folks to stay current on values), then added a surtax for water front property. Guess it's time to roll back the taxes on a state wide basis (like Prop 13), and force the local admin types to stay within a budget (like the rest of us). If you want your kids educated better then what is locally avaluable you have a couple of clear choices - move somewhere else, or work with the school.

08-30-2007, 12:25 PM	#2
Rose Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 498 Thanks: 62 Thanked 71 Times in 32 Posts	paying now cause we didn't pay before My husband and I were watching an episode of Chronicle (Boston edition) about the bridge situation in Mass (and it's similar elsewhere in the country). The secretary of transportation sited the rule of five...if you don't pay to maintain a bridge now, you'll pay five times as much to do it later. It's always driven me totally insane that keeping up the maintenance on a building, bridge, roadway, etc. never seems to added into the cost equation when it's being built, and maintenance seems to be one of the first things cut in the budget when there's a crunch.

08-30-2007, 01:19 PM	#3
vrrooom Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Gilford Posts: 50 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	School funding and preformance There have been numerous research projects which have studied the relationship between spending per pupil and student performance. They all agree, spending more does not result in highter levels of student performance. Parental involvement is the best driver of student preformance acording to these studies. Look at Gilford, one of the highest levels of per pupil spending in the state and only average student performance. Leadership with dollars not, apparently follow the money leads to the administrators not to the students.

09-07-2007, 12:36 AM	#5
jeffk Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Center Harbor Posts: 1,170 Thanks: 205 Thanked 434 Times in 251 Posts	Food for thought, for very cautious consideration So if we DID want to address the property tax issues by changing the tax structure would it be possible to: Define a level of adequate education (AE) that is reasonable and wouldn’t grossly expand the current educational funding levels (<15% increase??) Are not children already getting an adequate education in the state? I'm not really sure why more would need to be spent. Constitutionally (to keep it away from constant meddling) 1. Create a state income tax for the sole purpose of funding an AE. 2. LOCK the rate at (for example) 4%, an amount that would fund the states obligation. 3. State that this level of funding shall constitute coverage of an AE (so that cost can’t be inflated by mucking with the definition of AE in the future) (this clause also gets the courts out of the debate) 4. Require that any excess revenue beyond that required for AE must be refunded to the taxpayer. 5. Eliminate the state property tax 6. Require that local property taxes be reduced by the amount that would now be provided by the state. 7. Cap future local property tax increases to 4% unless overridden by local supermajority votes. 8. Besides providing the funding and the guidelines for an adequate education the control of education shall remain in the hands of the local educational authorities Would this be possible? Would this address concerns about out of control educational and general spending and local control? Has any state ever done something like this? Would we want a complete shift to an income tax or some type of mix? Perhaps keep the current state property tax ($2 - $3 per $1000) and fund any new spending with an income tax at say 3%? I don’t like a sales tax because it is impossible to refund excess revenue.

09-07-2007, 06:15 AM	#6
Pineedles Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Moultonborough & CT Posts: 2,542 Thanks: 1,072 Thanked 667 Times in 366 Posts	Irish Mist You are correct when you said " NH is a low-tax state to live in for most of her residents". I don't think I am using fiction though to get my point across. Perhaps it is a more emotional appeal, than a call to totally overhaul the tax structure in NH. I guess the thing that makes me the maddest is that there is no ability for those folks that are contributing the larger share of taxes to be represented (for those living out of state). We consume the least amount of services, yet have no say in how the money is spent. I like JeffK's latest post as an alternative. But for what it is worth, I don't think that this small forum is going to have any effect on what is legislated in Concord.

09-07-2007, 11:08 AM	#8
Weirs guy Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Weirs Beach, NH Posts: 1,067 Thanks: 0 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post	Property taxes are great for this reason: Does everyone in the state work in the state (or work at all?): No. Does everyone in the state shop in the state: No. Does everyone in the state live in the state: Yep. While I sympathize with both the out of staters "taxation without representation" and older residents not being able to pay their property taxes, its still those individuals choices to live where they live. No mater what tax we have it will be unfair to someone, but at the end of the day life's not fair. __________________ Is it bikeweek yet? Now?

09-07-2007, 06:45 AM	#7
tis Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 6,722 Thanks: 752 Thanked 1,457 Times in 1,014 Posts	Jeff. You must not make income in NH or you wouldn't want an income tax. Do you honestly think ANY gov. could keep a tax at a certain percent ? No, it would eventually go up, even if the law had to be changed to do it. And so would the property tax. As others have said here, adding a NEW tax, never,ever, in the long run reduces another. And you said "any excess" beyond that needed for the AE should be returned to the taxpayer. Do you honestly believe there would ever be any returned to the taxpayer? Don't tax you, don't tax me, tax that man behind the tree.

09-07-2007, 04:05 PM	#9
Rag Top Daze Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Moultonborough Posts: 119 Thanks: 11 Thanked 13 Times in 9 Posts	Is NH Alone? Just out of curiosity, does anyone know of any state that allows non-residents to vote in town elections if they have a vacation home? Is NH so unusual in this area? Are we the only state where the vacation people complain about taxation without representation? __________________ I live for a rag top day

09-10-2007, 09:44 AM	#12
Mr. V Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: the left coast (Portland)and West Alton Posts: 1,394 Thanks: 63 Thanked 256 Times in 174 Posts	What is wrong with basing taxes on a person's ability to pay? Some form of a "net worth" tax could be developed, to shift the burden to those who can most readily afford it, i.e. the rich. The more you have, the more you pay: simple. It has always seemed unfair to me that the wealthiest members of our society seem to pay a disproportionately lesser amount of taxes. Lower and middle class folks really get clobbered with a sales and/or income tax, but the rich seem to have ways to help minimize the sting, e.g. trusts and sharp lawyers / lobbyists / loopholes. Sure, let the wealthy benefit from their wealth, but as a matter of public policy, they should pay more for The Common Good than they are. Then again, I suppose that a real property tax could be considered a form "net worth" tax, but I envision a tax based on a person's overal "net worth."

09-11-2007, 07:18 PM	#15
idigtractors Senior Member Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 248 Thanks: 6 Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts	Life is unfair at times Quote: It has always seemed unfair to me that the wealthiest members of our society seem to pay a disproportionately lesser amount of taxes. Sure, let the wealthy benefit from their wealth, but as a matter of public policy, they should pay more for The Common Good than they are. I really would appreciate that you wouldn't say the above statement as I might just be one of those people someday. Who knows I just might hit the big one.

09-11-2007, 07:57 PM	#16
Lucky2Bhere Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Moultonboro & SE Florida Posts: 94 Thanks: 3 Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts	Any investment whether it is business, stock, or property pays tax in this country if it makes a profit. If your stock took off and you had a huge capital gain you'd sell it and not complain. If your business is busting at the seams you'd pay a business profits tax and not complain. If your home appreciates it may be a tough decision but you either sell or stay and pay. Personally, I'd rather be concerned about the trillion dollars we're spending in Iraq than than the comparatively small community expenses in the lakes region that effect tax rates. I'm thankfull that I moved to NH from MA tax wise and my friends in NY, NJ, and PA agree.

09-11-2007, 10:02 PM	#18
Irish mist Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 683 Thanks: 127 Thanked 85 Times in 49 Posts	Lol, stop making sense ITD It seems you can explain, and prove time & time again that the problem is SPENDING......but people just don't want to hear it. Which is why we are in the situation we are in. ________ Mazda R360 History Last edited by Irish mist; 02-27-2011 at 09:58 PM.

09-12-2007, 11:19 AM	#22
Ropetow Senior Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Rochester, NH / Bartlett, NH Posts: 322 Thanks: 228 Thanked 33 Times in 13 Posts	Whenever someone from MA says that taxes need to be higher, ask them if they voluntarily pay a higher rate on their state income tax. Some year back when a citizen's initiative petition reduced the state income tax rate from 5.85% to 5.3% (I think those are the correct percentages...if not they are close), taxpayers were given the option on their state income tax return to pay the old, higher, rate. Now, with the predictions of doom from all the Payroll Patriots, you'd think that tens-of-thousands of MA residents would be paying the higher rate. Yet, the number who actually do is annually in the hundreds. The liberal mantra regarding taxes, property and other: Do as I say, not as I do.

09-12-2007, 11:19 AM	#23
Weirs guy Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Weirs Beach, NH Posts: 1,067 Thanks: 0 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post	Proposal Here's an idea for those that believe its unfair to burden people with higher property taxes on homes that have been handed down for generations. Lets say that when mom and dad leave you the lake house, you assume the property at its currently assessed value ($100,000 for the sake of argument). That assessed value remains unchanged for the entire time you own that property, thus eliminating any major escalations in property tax that you may or may not be able to afford. Then when you either sell the home or hand it down again, you "sell" the house for its current market value ($1M for arguments sake again), you pocked your original investment ($100,000) and the remainder goes to the state to make up for past tax bills. Sound fair now? __________________ Is it bikeweek yet? Now?

09-12-2007, 10:00 PM	#25
Rattlesnake Guy Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 1,254 Thanks: 423 Thanked 366 Times in 175 Posts	Jeffk, A big sincere thank you for your post. Well said.

10-19-2007, 09:29 AM	#28
jrc Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: NH Posts: 2,689 Thanks: 33 Thanked 439 Times in 249 Posts	"There is no force in the physical universe as simultaneously unstoppable and destructive as the implacable need people have to feel better about themselves at the expense of others." Maybe I live in a different world than you, but the very few people I've met with this "implacable need" were idiots and universally shunned. The people I know tend to believe a "rising tide raises all ships"

09-14-2007, 06:17 PM	#34
tis Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 6,722 Thanks: 752 Thanked 1,457 Times in 1,014 Posts	Some people believe everything they hear. "The rich don't pay their fair share." How many times have you heard that?

09-15-2007, 07:17 AM	#36
tis Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 6,722 Thanks: 752 Thanked 1,457 Times in 1,014 Posts	jeff. Are you running for president? I want to vote for you!

09-18-2007, 12:20 PM	#37
tis Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 6,722 Thanks: 752 Thanked 1,457 Times in 1,014 Posts	At first I thought this was funny...then I realized the awful truth of it. Be sure to read all the way to the end! Tax his land, Tax his bed, Tax the table At which he's fed. Tax his tractor, Tax his mule, Teach him taxes Are the rule. Tax his cow, Tax his goat, Tax his pants, Tax his coat. Tax his ties, Tax his shirt, Tax his work, Tax his dirt. Tax his tobacco, Tax his drink, Tax him if he Tries to think. Tax his cigars, Tax his beers, If he cries, then Tax his tears. Tax his car, Tax his gas, Find other ways To tax his a.. Tax all he has Then let him know That you won't be done Till he has no dough. When he screams and hollers, Then tax him some more, Tax him till He 's good and sore. Then tax his coffin , Tax his grave, Tax the sod in Which he's laid. Put these words upon his tomb, " Taxes drove me to my doom..." When he's gone, Do not relax, Its time to apply The inheritance tax. Accounts Receivable Tax Building Permit Tax CDL license Tax Cigarette Tax Corporate Income Tax Dog License Tax Excise Taxes Federal Income Tax Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA) Fishing License Tax Flush Tax (in MD.) Food License Tax Fuel Permit Tax Gasoline Tax (42 cents per gallon) Gross Receipts Tax Hunting License Tax Inheritance Tax Inventory Tax IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax) Liquor Tax Luxury Taxes Marr iage License Tax Medicare Tax Personal Property Tax Property Tax Real Estate Tax Service Charge Tax Social Security Tax Road Usage Tax Sales Tax Recreational Vehicle Tax School Tax State Income Tax State Unemployment Tax (SUTA) Telephone Federal Excise Tax Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax Telephone State and Local Tax Telephone Usage Charge Tax Utility Taxes Vehicle License Registration Tax Vehicle Sales Tax Watercraft Registration Tax Well Permit Tax Workers Compensation Tax STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY? Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, and our nation was the most prosperous in the world. We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids. What the hell happened? Can you spell "politicians!" And I still have to "press 1" for English. I hope this goes around THE USA at least 100 time (For those of you who may not have seen this before!)

09-18-2007, 12:51 PM	#38
wifi Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Lakes Region Posts: 1,321 Thanks: 282 Thanked 287 Times in 169 Posts	"...And I still have to "press 1" for English...." Be glad its still "1" -Rich

09-19-2007, 06:29 AM	#39
vrrooom Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Gilford Posts: 50 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Press One Not at the Miami Airport, where all announcments are first made in the Majority Language then English. We should not allow any other language or signs or whatever in anything but english. My grandparents were immigrants, who spoke no english when they came to he US in the late 1800's, they learned english and forced their 8 children to do the same. English was produly spoken at home by the old folks for their entire lives. So why have we incurred the costs of Bi Lingual everything here, you won't see that in Europe by the by.

09-10-2007, 07:37 PM	#40
Pineedles Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Moultonborough & CT Posts: 2,542 Thanks: 1,072 Thanked 667 Times in 366 Posts	Another State HEard From! LAKERSHAKER I had no idea that CT allowed this.. SO? It appears that even the conservative state of CT allows non-resident voters? Time to start a political action committee? After all, if there are so many of us with moderate means, then a small contribution could add up to a huge PAC! Who's interested? Stop bitchen if you want real change!

09-11-2007, 07:52 AM	#41
Lucky2Bhere Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Moultonboro & SE Florida Posts: 94 Thanks: 3 Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts	A "net worth tax" would tax the same money every year. Hardly fair! A flat tax which has been proposed nationally would lower rates overall but eliminate all deductions.

10-23-2007, 07:33 AM	#42
B&D Junior Member Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 4 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Federal funding & taxes Today's federal funding = federal mandates, which = 21 school days of testing per year,....time spent the kids are not receiving an education. Want more of that for your kids? Alton has decreed that they are operating on the basis of evaluating your property based on when it was at it's highest, vice it's advertised "Present Value"(which is today's value, not yesterday or tomorrow, which requires the tax folks to stay current on values), then added a surtax for water front property. Guess it's time to roll back the taxes on a state wide basis (like Prop 13), and force the local admin types to stay within a budget (like the rest of us). If you want your kids educated better then what is locally avaluable you have a couple of clear choices - move somewhere else, or work with the school.