2023 Meredith Tax Rate & Bills Coming Today

[Bittz]

https://www.meredithnh.org/sites/g/f...rate_final.pdf

[Biggd]

Finally got mine today.
My assessment went up 33% but my bill only went up 10%.
I'm happy!

[garysanfran]

Why does a 10% increase make you happy?

[Biggd]

Originally Posted by garysanfran

Why does a 10% increase make you happy?

It was actually under 10%, I rounded up.
I added a large screened in porch, thought it was going to be much higher.
Reading the Moultonborough thread, I was getting nervous!
Just read a real estate report yesterday about waterfront increases from 2022 to 2023, makes me feel really happy with 10%.
I bought my place 9 years ago, I could not afford it at today's prices.

[John Mercier]

Moultonborough had the buy down during the previous year. I don't think Meredith did.

The assessments have gone berserk... and I think that may happen again... but the amount to be raised was more level from year-to-year.

[garysanfran]

My Meredith tax payment in January 2023 was $6,385.13

My tax due January 8, 2024, is $11,201.55.

No improvements of any kind done during that time.

WHAT???

[WinnisquamZ]

Meredith tax payers feeling the pain us Laconia taxpayers felt last year


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[Biggd]

Originally Posted by garysanfran

My Meredith tax payment in January 2023 was $6,385.13

My tax due January 8, 2024, is $11,201.55.

No improvements of any kind done during that time.

WHAT???

So you wouldn't be happy with just a 10% increase? That would be $7,024.00

[John Mercier]

Meredith pays taxes in January?
Ours are always July 1st and then early December.

[garysanfran]

10% is outrageous, what I am being charged is extortion...For what?

This place has been in may family since 1961. I bought it about 6 yrs. ago.

Every property on my road has sold over those 62 years because the original owners could no longer afford or justify the tax.

So for this increase I get...

Increased congestion
Inadequate infrastructure
Intolerable boat traffic on weekends
A seasonable place not used during winter
No snow plowing service on a private road
No paved road
No town water
No kids in school
An increase in Massachusetts influenced politics

I can afford the new taxes...I'd rather throw tea into the harbor.

However...

To be continued.

[WinnisquamZ]

Welcome to the club


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[garysanfran]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Meredith pays taxes in January?
Ours are always July 1st and then early December.

Due 1/08, not late until July. Not concerned about the date, just the amount with no increase in anything positive.

[John Mercier]

Private road you would need to pave yourself.
Public sewer and water is actually paid for by a separate bill... not property tax.
And not sure what a Massachussets influenced politics would look like.

But look on the bright side... you could always sell out.
The increase is due to the desirability of your location.

[tis]

Originally Posted by garysanfran

10% is outrageous, what I am being charged is extortion...For what?

This place has been in may family since 1961. I bought it about 6 yrs. ago.

Every property on my road has sold over those 62 years because the original owners could no longer afford or justify the tax.

So for this increase I get...

Increased congestion
Inadequate infrastructure
Intolerable boat traffic on weekends
A seasonable place not used during winter
No snow plowing service on a private road
No paved road
No town water
No kids in school
An increase in Massachusetts influenced politics

I can afford the new taxes...I'd rather throw tea into the harbor.

However...

To be continued.

You just proved my point. Sooner or later at least SOME people are going to get tired of such high taxes even if they can afford them. I think the towns need to slow down on their spending.

[Biggd]

Originally Posted by garysanfran

10% is outrageous, what I am being charged is extortion...For what?

This place has been in may family since 1961. I bought it about 6 yrs. ago.

Every property on my road has sold over those 62 years because the original owners could no longer afford or justify the tax.

So for this increase I get...

Increased congestion
Inadequate infrastructure
Intolerable boat traffic on weekends
A seasonable place not used during winter
No snow plowing service on a private road
No paved road
No town water
No kids in school
An increase in Massachusetts influenced politics

I can afford the new taxes...I'd rather throw tea into the harbor.

However...

To be continued.

Maybe time to sell, take the money and run!

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by tis

You just proved my point. Sooner or later at least SOME people are going to get tired of such high taxes even if they can afford them. I think the towns need to slow down on their spending.

Biggd and Garysanfran are talking about property in the same town.
So it wasn't town spending.

Garysanfran must have property that is a lot more desirable to people willing to expend more for a property of that nature... so it pushed his assessment higher.

I doubt if he chose to sell at the new assessment level that the property would be on the market very long.

[4 for Boating]

So it looks to me that waterfront LAND in most cases doubled in value - the actual buildings/homes sort of stayed the same. Of course the actual tax rate went down BUT that in no way compensates for the double aspect - not even close.

In the example above from Gary > I'm rough estimating that he is paying some $5k to $6k more in taxes due to this per year now? As well as any other waterfront owners.

So given the above situation - the question is >> where is all that additional tax revenue going? To pay for spending that has increase for the town (if so for what exactly) OR did non-waterfront homeowners see a reduction in their taxes and more burden is being put on the waterfront owners? What exactly is the justification for such a large/disproportionate increase?

The money must be going somewhere as from a waterfront owner perspective - the increase cloud be close to 33%.

I used to live in a town many years ago where they could not raise the taxes on anyone more than 4% per year. This here seems like the Wild West.

[jeffk]

Originally Posted by 4 for Boating

So it looks to me that waterfront LAND in most cases doubled in value ...

So given the above situation - the question is >> where is all that additional tax revenue going? To pay for spending that has increase for the town (if so for what exactly) OR did non-waterfront homeowners see a reduction in their taxes and more burden is being put on the waterfront owners? What exactly is the justification for such a large/disproportionate increase? ...

You have answered your own question, the massive increase in lake front valuations, not only on land but also the buildings, is shifting the tax burden to those owners. This increase in valuation is based on actual sale prices of homes that is used as a yardstick for the tax valuations.

There is nothing mysterious here, this is the way the property tax system is DESIGNED to work. The "wealthy" property owners are expected to pay a bigger portion of tax than the more modest property owners.

As to towns spending more, in general, the towns have not gone on massive spending sprees. Consider that costs have gone up due to the cumulative 20% inflation over the last few years. (Gee, I wonder what caused that?) The town's costs, including school costs, are not immune from that. Plus, every town faces occasional big bills that have to be met. Maybe a few towns could afford to trim their budgets a bit but that is not what is pushing most of this tax increase onto lake front owners.

As to the concern expressed by some others that the high taxes (and high prices) are going to repel buyers, YES, eventually they will. The TELL on that will be when houses are sitting unsold for long periods of time and unsold inventory rises. (I don't think that is happening yet.) When that happens, people who need to sell will reduce their sales price to entice buyers, in spite of the tax concern. The lowered sale prices will eventually shift the tax burden away from lake front property owners. All these "market forces" are unpredictable in scope and timing because they are subject to individual decisions about buying and selling. The only thing we know for sure is that property markets WILL fluctuate and the prices of property drive the tax apportionment.

[Biggd]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Biggd and Garysanfran are talking about property in the same town.
So it wasn't town spending.

Garysanfran must have property that is a lot more desirable to people willing to expend more for a property of that nature... so it pushed his assessment higher.

I doubt if he chose to sell at the new assessment level that the property would be on the market very long.

I'm assuming Garysanfran has private waterfront, I only have water rights with a dock. I feel for the longtime waterfront owners that can't afford to keep family properties in the family, they are getting jammed up.
I was thrilled that my taxes went up less than 10% because I've seen the value of my property triple. I could not afford to buy my Meredith home today as a second home.
I hate to say it, but if I had a private waterfront home today, I would probably sell it, buy off the lake and invest the profit.
I understand that some properties have sentimental value, but you have to detach yourself from that if it becomes a financial burden.

[AC2717]

Originally Posted by WinnisquamZ

Meredith tax payers feeling the pain us Laconia taxpayers felt last year


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

and this year as well, Laconia hammered me again

[Biggd]

Originally Posted by AC2717

and this year as well, Laconia hammered me again

Unfortunately, the popularity of the NH lakes region is a blessing for some and a curse for others!

[AC2717]

I love my location and 828sqft of space for 18 years but now at $9k in taxes, my wife and I are in serious discussion of an exit strategy.

[Biggd]

Originally Posted by AC2717

I love my location and 828sqft of space for 18 years but now at $9k in taxes, my wife and I are in serious discussion of an exit strategy.

I see you're from Maynard, have you been to the Sanctuary? I went to dinner at Magnolia's and a concert at the Sanctuary about a month ago.

[AC2717]

Originally Posted by Biggd

I see you're from Maynard, have you been to the Sanctuary? I went to dinner at Magnolia's and a concert at the Sanctuary about a month ago.

yes, and they have a nice little bar in the back

[LIforrelaxin]

As I read the comments here I am left to ponder what I always ponder, is the way that the State of NH, funds itself proper at this point... Local cities and towns are left to raise funds to run there communities, there is very little state aid in that regard. Thus at times the towns have to levy a huge tax burden on its residents....

The reason that this is the case, is the NH State Goverment, is not properly funded, and thus is strapped to provide aid to towns, for projects that in most other state will get not only federal funding, but also state funding for similar improvements....

As I have always said, spread the pain... I know the people of NH think that a sales tax is criminal... but honestly it is how you can shift the pain, and also grab a tremendous amount of revenue for the tourism industry... That tax, then can be used to fund grants that local communities can apply to the state for to offset the costs, associated with building up infrustructure, and schools.... as they grow...

Or the state of NH can continue on it mary way, of become a Rich mans paradise, where no one can afford to own except the elite.... or Maybe that is what the state desires....

As another poster mentioned, I can pay the taxes, that isn't the issue, but at a certain point, I will start to feel like my money is better spent else where....

To counteract a point made either in this thread, or possiblely another, about the affordability of a home on a lake, being for the elite... Well that is true in NH, the are plenty of properties in other states available, that are more affordable cost wise, and have taxes that are minuscule when compared to
NH.... My point, the lakes region is a gem because of it location, and proximity to major cities like Boston, NY, and Hartford.... at a certain point the gem got recognized, and now we are where we are at today...... well another area will become a gem soon enough for those of us that don't need to be with all the city folks...

[WinnisquamZ]

Originally Posted by AC2717

I love my location and 828sqft of space for 18 years but now at $9k in taxes, my wife and I are in serious discussion of an exit strategy.

Same here. House has been in the family since 66. The wife and I will be the ones to move on from it. Current taxes is a wealth drain. Exit strategy is 4-6 years out and in good health. Oh course, when life kicks one in the groin plans change. Waiting on spring


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[Jeanzb1]

Our Gilford tax payment in July went from $2285 to $3114 this month. Big gulp.


Sent from my iPad using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[WinnisquamZ]

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

As I read the comments here I am left to ponder what I always ponder, is the way that the State of NH, funds itself proper at this point... Local cities and towns are left to raise funds to run there communities, there is very little state aid in that regard. Thus at times the towns have to levy a huge tax burden on its residents....

The reason that this is the case, is the NH State Goverment, is not properly funded, and thus is strapped to provide aid to towns, for projects that in most other state will get not only federal funding, but also state funding for similar improvements....

As I have always said, spread the pain... I know the people of NH think that a sales tax is criminal... but honestly it is how you can shift the pain, and also grab a tremendous amount of revenue for the tourism industry... That tax, then can be used to fund grants that local communities can apply to the state for to offset the costs, associated with building up infrustructure, and schools.... as they grow...

Or the state of NH can continue on it mary way, of become a Rich mans paradise, where no one can afford to own except the elite.... or Maybe that is what the state desires....

As another poster mentioned, I can pay the taxes, that isn't the issue, but at a certain point, I will start to feel like my money is better spent else where....

To counteract a point made either in this thread, or possiblely another, about the affordability of a home on a lake, being for the elite... Well that is true in NH, the are plenty of properties in other states available, that are more affordable cost wise, and have taxes that are minuscule when compared to

NH.... My point, the lakes region is a gem because of it location, and proximity to major cities like Boston, NY, and Hartford.... at a certain point the gem got recognized, and now we are where we are at today...... well another area will become a gem soon enough for those of us that don't need to be with all the city folks...

Disagree. The state reported they had a surplus again this year. Not remembering the figures, but 400 million comes to mind. Would like to see the city and towns keep more upfront then having to go back and beg for it.

[DickR]

Originally Posted by jeffk

...
There is nothing mysterious here, this is the way the property tax system is DESIGNED to work. The "wealthy" property owners are expected to pay a bigger portion of tax than the more modest property owners.

The property tax, based on likely selling price, is fundamentally a tax based on someone else's ability to pay it. However, it sure works to the benefit of towns with a lot of vacation property, owned by folks "from away" who have no say in spending and get little in the way of services from the town. It isn't likely to change, but it tends to force out long-term property owners.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by WinnisquamZ

Disagree. The state reported they had a surplus again this year. Not remembering the figures, but 400 million comes to mind. Would like to see the city and towns keep more upfront then having to go back and beg for it.

Since the State has a two year budget, having an excess one year does not equate to the budget being in surplus.
The State receives the majority of its funding from sales and income taxes that are irregular.

The State gas tax is partially refunded to the municipalities, along with the Meals & Rental tax, the two Business taxes generally fund the education grant system.

The cost of labor for the municipalities is rising, and that can be seen in each of the two budgets and the county budget. That rise in cost is due to a lack of labor in the area, and the inefficiency of the customer base.

[4 for Boating]

Putting aside the waterfront aspect for a second and just talking in general - I think it's more than a bit ridiculous for a tax bill for anyone to go up over 30% in one single year with no changes to the property.

Let's take for a moment that this was across the board > it would cripple most people. I understand raising taxes/higher costs and it looks to me that the Town (Meredith) has increased spending by some 8%? Again I look to the old days where I used to live where the tax amount raise per year was capped as to not cause a hardship on anyone.

Back to waterfront > going to be a bit of a shocker for those not seeing it coming...

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by DickR

The property tax, based on likely selling price, is fundamentally a tax based on someone else's ability to pay it. However, it sure works to the benefit of towns with a lot of vacation property, owned by folks "from away" who have no say in spending and get little in the way of services from the town. It isn't likely to change, but it tends to force out long-term property owners.

That is largely due to a change in their relative status.
The same happens on non-waterfront properties for individuals that do not save enough in retirement funding to cover the reality of their lifestyle.

I know someone that sold their lakefront cabin on Squam after inheriting it. His grandfather was a judge... he's a carpenter. The judge could afford the property, the carpenter can't. Different levels of status in society with different pay scales and pensions.

[tis]

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

As I read the comments here I am left to ponder what I always ponder, is the way that the State of NH, funds itself proper at this point... Local cities and towns are left to raise funds to run there communities, there is very little state aid in that regard. Thus at times the towns have to levy a huge tax burden on its residents....

The reason that this is the case, is the NH State Goverment, is not properly funded, and thus is strapped to provide aid to towns, for projects that in most other state will get not only federal funding, but also state funding for similar improvements....

As I have always said, spread the pain... I know the people of NH think that a sales tax is criminal... but honestly it is how you can shift the pain, and also grab a tremendous amount of revenue for the tourism industry... That tax, then can be used to fund grants that local communities can apply to the state for to offset the costs, associated with building up infrustructure, and schools.... as they grow...

Or the state of NH can continue on it mary way, of become a Rich mans paradise, where no one can afford to own except the elite.... or Maybe that is what the state desires....

As another poster mentioned, I can pay the taxes, that isn't the issue, but at a certain point, I will start to feel like my money is better spent else where....

To counteract a point made either in this thread, or possiblely another, about the affordability of a home on a lake, being for the elite... Well that is true in NH, the are plenty of properties in other states available, that are more affordable cost wise, and have taxes that are minuscule when compared to
NH.... My point, the lakes region is a gem because of it location, and proximity to major cities like Boston, NY, and Hartford.... at a certain point the gem got recognized, and now we are where we are at today...... well another area will become a gem soon enough for those of us that don't need to be with all the city folks...

The problem is, if they found another source for taxes, you and I both know that the property taxes wouldn't go down. They would just spend more.

[garysanfran]

Ironically? Or not...

In the same mail as my outrageous tax bill was a Christmas card from the top waterfront realtor in The Lakes Region.

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

I know someone that sold their lakefront cabin on Squam after inheriting it. His grandfather was a judge... he's a carpenter. The judge could afford the property, the carpenter can't. Different levels of status in society with different pay scales and pensions.

That is a scenario that Makes sense.....

My scenario however is where that falls apart.... My father a successful Engineer 30+ years retired early, and was able to by our property and maintain it in retirement... I am a successful Engineer with 25+ years, making more money then my father even thought about.... Yes I am able maintain the property well I am working, but realize that if I want to retire early I will need to sell the property, because it will be to much of a financial Drain....

Everything changes always does, it however is a shame that things have gotten so out of control in NH, that people are having to make decisions not because they don't want to continue to visit the same place, but because they are being Taxed out of their places, because a state doesn't want to evolve......

As I have said plenty of other places, for me to consider that are more affordable... My hope is to keep the Winnipesaukee property until I am ready to retire, because it is close to work and allows me to utilize it often.... But in retirement, it is likely off to Maine... or Vt. where I can buy a comparable property, and pay significantly less property Tax....

[Biggd]

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

That is a scenario that Makes sense.....

My scenario however is where that falls apart.... My father a successful Engineer 30+ years retired early, and was able to by our property and maintain it in retirement... I am a successful Engineer with 25+ years, making more money then my father even thought about.... Yes I am able maintain the property well I am working, but realize that if I want to retire early I will need to sell the property, because it will be to much of a financial Drain....

Everything changes always does, it however is a shame that things have gotten so out of control in NH, that people are having to make decisions not because they don't want to continue to visit the same place, but because they are being Taxed out of their places, because a state doesn't want to evolve......

As I have said plenty of other places, for me to consider that are more affordable... My hope is to keep the Winnipesaukee property until I am ready to retire, because it is close to work and allows me to utilize it often.... But in retirement, it is likely off to Maine... or Vt. where I can buy a comparable property, and pay significantly less property Tax....

I have a few friends that own lakefront in Maine and they complain about their tax bills also. I have others that own coastal property in Maine and their bills are outrageous! You can't escape the tax man.

[Bittz]

Ours up a little over 12%.

[Descant]

Originally Posted by Biggd

I have a few friends that own lakefront in Maine and they complain about their tax bills also. I have others that own coastal property in Maine and their bills are outrageous! You can't escape the tax man.

It's all relative. Lived in rural Maine when I was in the Navy in the 70's. Locals there were talking about moving to Nova Scotia because Maine was too crowded. People moving here from NY, NJ think everything here is wide open and cheap.

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by Biggd

I have a few friends that own lakefront in Maine and they complain about their tax bills also. I have others that own coastal property in Maine and their bills are outrageous! You can't escape the tax man.

You’re right you can't escape taxes... and I never said that Maine or Vermont would come with property tax. However in looking at property in those two locals, the property tax burden is far less then it is in NH...

Inflation happens, property taxes go up, value of property goes up... no doubt about that.... But the inconsistency in NH, couple with the poor funding model cause property tax swings that are unbelievable....

My beef has always been that NH could make it so much better if they would just decided to Levy sales tax.... but people are to afraid of that.... School funding etc. would stop being points of contention....

[ishoot308]

All you doom and gloomers...Unless you plan on moving to Alaska or Tennessee, NH is still #3 in the nation for state with the lowest overall tax burden! Yes our property taxes are high but when combined with all other taxes, NH is still a pretty dam good state to live in and still at #3 in the nation!!

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-sta...e-lowest-taxes

Live Free or Die!....or move!

Dan

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

Your right you can't escape taxes... and I never said that Maine or Vermont would come with property tax. However in looking at property in those two locals, the property tax burden is far less then it is in NH...

Inflation happens, property taxes go up, value of property goes up... no doubt about that.... But the inconsistency in NH, couple with the poor funding model cause property tax swings that are unbelievable....

My beef has always been that NH could make it so much better if they would just decided to Levy sales tax.... but people are to afraid of that.... School funding etc. would stop being points of contention....

NH has several sales taxes.

[gwhite13]

fortunate to winter in Fla. they go on and on about no income taxes here. as is the case everywhere it takes nearly the same to run a town,city,state.... relatively speaking. last week buying several mattresses from a well-known retailer i noticed the sales tax was disproportional to final price. was told tax is set on retail price, not sale price...yay. today went to best buy to replace warranted phone screen protector. free replacement cost $.31cents sales tax...so free is not always free. in Fla anyway... a cautionary tale

[tis]

Originally Posted by John Mercier;389913

NH has several sales taxes.

Yes. I don't know what you would call the NH Business Profits Tax and Business Enterprise Tax if not income taxes.

[jeffk]

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

... because a state doesn't want to evolve ...
and pay significantly less property Tax....

This is where I cannot agree. Instituting Sales and Income taxes to reduce property taxes is a DEVOLUTION. Most states have gone this route and it has solved NOTHING. It just shifts the tax burden around, often onto those who can least afford it.

Consider this, in NH if I want to avoid high taxes, I simply do not buy an expensive piece of property.

If I inherit one, I sell it and pocket a couple million dollars. At 5% earnings (NOT taxed by NH unless dividends and interest and even that is being phased out) on the $2 million you can take an annual $100,000 vacation anywhere in the world for the rest of your life.

Try avoiding a sales tax. It's built into much of what is bought in many states.

If you are not retired, income tax unavoidably gobbles up a chunk of your pay. In some states, high wage earners are "progressively" taxed at a higher rate.

And what do you get for your "evolved" tax structure? Usually, out of control spending because once politicians have a money pot to access they think of MANY ways to expand spending for "evolved" causes. Check in with Vermont, California, New York, ... where they are taxed through the roof, INCLUDING heavy property taxes, and they are STILL GOING BROKE. Further, since most of these "evolved" taxes are instituted at the state level, they are out of the range of local control. If you think it's tough to control local spending, controlling state spending of sales and income taxes is impossible. The federal government, where we are $33 TRILLION in debt, is FAR worse.

As others have pointed out, NH has one of the lowest overall tax burdens and, for the most part, it is funded by people who CHOOSE to buy/keep expensive property and CAN afford it and businesses who are making a profit.

If paying taxes like Vermont is "evolved", I would rather remain a property tax paying, devolved, monkey and keep more of my hard earned money. Please don't step on my tail.

[Irish mist]

No state has ever reduced spending by instituting a new tax stream. The state would just spend more.

[tis]

I agree. Name one state that has added an income or sales tax, etc. that has said they now have plenty of money. It doesn't happen.

[AC2717]

I think Tax burden is relative, as in yes you will always pay taxes, and you maybe should choose where to live based on real estate taxes and income taxes and sales taxes alike. One situation works better or worse for one vs the other. Being in Laconia and Maynard MA, relatively small towns/cities in the country and reviewing the budgets, and agreeing that town budgets the majority is made up in Labor - with benefits and pensions and being a large sum of money. Towns refuse to go to a 401k style retirement and they continue on benefits when you can retire after a short period of time and collect whether it's $200 a month or $1000 a month scale depending of course, but your benefits continue. This would kill a private business today and is why it has changed. It is an outrageous amount of spending for a town, and the larger departments get these numbers continue to go as for example the 45/50 year old retires and still receives benefit for the rest of their lives 30+ years.

Now would agree perks of the job, and pay is a little lower than the private sector but that is not the case much anymore. For example look at the post office. very large labor force that still has a pension program and benefits long after retirement, every year they are taking a larger and larger loss but the government looks at everything else instead of their number one loss leader - Labor costs, so they will just continue to price themselves out of mail/package delivery service.

As far as pricing out those like in my case somewhat long time property owners. The higher the taxes go, the more get priced out of the market of affordability. The buyers at these rates, are usually buyers with multiple properties and leads to less use of all their properties, which majority leads to less spending in the community whether "rich" or middle class due to their costs. I would leave with one thought, Gov's Island, how many of those properties are occupied during most of the year even the summer, how much money other than taxes are being spent in the area off of those homeowners???

[Biggd]

Originally Posted by AC2717

I think Tax burden is relative, as in yes you will always pay taxes, and you maybe should choose where to live based on real estate taxes and income taxes and sales taxes alike. One situation works better or worse for one vs the other. Being in Laconia and Maynard MA, relatively small towns/cities in the country and reviewing the budgets, and agreeing that town budgets the majority is made up in Labor - with benefits and pensions and being a large sum of money. Towns refuse to go to a 401k style retirement and they continue on benefits when you can retire after a short period of time and collect whether it's $200 a month or $1000 a month scale depending of course, but your benefits continue. This would kill a private business today and is why it has changed. It is an outrageous amount of spending for a town, and the larger departments get these numbers continue to go as for example the 45/50 year old retires and still receives benefit for the rest of their lives 30+ years.

Now would agree perks of the job, and pay is a little lower than the private sector but that is not the case much anymore. For example look at the post office. very large labor force that still has a pension program and benefits long after retirement, every year they are taking a larger and larger loss but the government looks at everything else instead of their number one loss leader - Labor costs, so they will just continue to price themselves out of mail/package delivery service.

As far as pricing out those like in my case somewhat long time property owners. The higher the taxes go, the more get priced out of the market of affordability. The buyers at these rates, are usually buyers with multiple properties and leads to less use of all their properties, which majority leads to less spending in the community whether "rich" or middle class due to their costs. I would leave with one thought, Gov's Island, how many of those properties are occupied during most of the year even the summer, how much money other than taxes are being spent in the area off of those homeowners???

Personally, I'd much rather see empty homes than homes filled with disruptive renters.
My neighborhood is so quiet in the winter, snowbirds fly South, I love it!

[LIforrelaxin]

No government or business is ever going to claim they have enough money, that isn't what changing the tax structure does. What you can do with a tax structure is change where buden lies.....

Examples

property tax -- Burden lies solely with the home owner

Rooms and Meals tax -- effects everyone residents / Homeowner pay meal tax along with tourists... Tourists pay for Rooms tax, as they don't have a place to stay...

Sales Tax -- effects everyone regardless of ownership and residency

The point people seem to continue to miss, is that I am not saying a Sales Tax is the answer, it is a way to shift burden.... And stabilize Property Tax... This doesn't mean that property tax and values still will not go up, and it doesn't mean that Sales Tax has to be outrageous.... it simple becomes a revenue stream that raises money and effects all people that enjoy the state equally....

When you look at something like a states total tax burden, which with out argument NH is low.... how is that being calculated? Is it based on # of declared residents?, is it based on Number of personal properties in the state? I mean just where does that number come from...

[Biggd]

I'd like to think that a sales tax would decrease our property taxes but like others have said, more revenue would just increase spending.
So, I say no to a sales tax and income tax!

[ishoot308]

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

When you look at something like a states total tax burden, which with out argument NH is low.... how is that being calculated? Is it based on # of declared residents?, is it based on Number of personal properties in the state? I mean just where does that number come from...

It comes from... "measured as total individual taxes paid divided by total personal income"...Pretty simple really.

Please tell me what state is doing it better than NH??....and PLEASE don't say Massachusetts!!...or Maine, or Vermont, or Connecticut...I could go on and on...

Enough talk about sales tax!! The people of NH have spoken about this many times and we do NOT want it here!

Dan

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

No government or business is ever going to claim they have enough money, that isn't what changing the tax structure does. What you can do with a tax structure is change where buden lies.....

Examples

property tax -- Burden lies solely with the home owner

Rooms and Meals tax -- effects everyone residents / Homeowner pay meal tax along with tourists... Tourists pay for Rooms tax, as they don't have a place to stay...

Sales Tax -- effects everyone regardless of ownership and residency

The point people seem to continue to miss, is that I am not saying a Sales Tax is the answer, it is a way to shift burden.... And stabilize Property Tax... This doesn't mean that property tax and values still will not go up, and it doesn't mean that Sales Tax has to be outrageous.... it simple becomes a revenue stream that raises money and effects all people that enjoy the state equally....

When you look at something like a states total tax burden, which with out argument NH is low.... how is that being calculated? Is it based on # of declared residents?, is it based on Number of personal properties in the state? I mean just where does that number come from...

We have sales and income taxes...
Would you like me to list them?

They cover State costs and get transferred to each school district, municipality, and county.

NH chose instead of using a general taxation with exemptions, to use a directed taxes with no exemptions. It is more tax efficient; and the property tax because of the mechanism of determining what must be spent - then raising only that amount - is stable and unlikely to cause tax creep caused by new programs.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by tis

Yes. I don't know what you would call the NH Business Profits Tax and Business Enterprise Tax if not income taxes.

The business taxes and the I&D are both income taxes.

But Meals & Rental, fuel, tobacco, communications, sand/gravel, timber, MET, RETT... these are all sales taxes.

BPT was instituted long ago to tax profits rather than the old system that would add equipment and even livestock to the property tax. But this money would flow to the State, as no really local services were being provided by it. Now some of it is return as education adequacy grants... which is why we even formulated the EFA to use the same sourcing. A well-educated workforce being to the benefit of business productivity. The BET was enacted due to businesses using excessive accounting gimmicks to overcome the BPT. A business pays the greater of the two... and thus it is not really worth the effort to arrange business processes to avoid a profit. Many of those tax avoidance processes using up product time and assets that should go towards growing top line revenue and seeking efficiencies to deliver it to bottom line results.

The desire to lower the BPT is largely to be competitive with other States... looking at more than New England and thinking of the northeast quadrant as our focus. Doing so has served us well.


The I&D was originally enacted on all interest and dividends earned outside NH. The purpose was to get more internal investment in our own growth rather than fuel the development of areas outside NH. It was found unconstitutional to do so and became universal on all interest and dividends. Which is why disposing of it is the correct action.

[tis]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

The business taxes and the I&D are both income taxes.


BPT was instituted long ago to tax profits rather than the old system that would add equipment and even livestock to the property tax. But this money would flow to the State, as no really local services were being provided by it. Now some of it is return as education adequacy grants... which is why we even formulated the EFA to use the same sourcing. A well-educated workforce being to the benefit of business productivity. The BET was enacted due to businesses using excessive accounting gimmicks to overcome the BPT. A business pays the greater of the two... and thus it is not really worth the effort to arrange business processes to avoid a profit. Many of those tax avoidance processes using up product time and assets that should go towards growing top line revenue and seeking efficiencies to deliver it to bottom line results.

I disagree a little bit. The BET was not because of "gimmicks" really. It was because owners took all their profits in income so professionals like attorneys and accountants who usually took all their profits in income would also have to pay a tax. A business/owner doesn't really pay the greater of the two, they pay BPT PLUS BET on the income they take. So they pay both.

[Irish mist]

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

No government or business is ever going to claim they have enough money, that isn't what changing the tax structure does. What you can do with a tax structure is change where buden lies.....

Examples

property tax -- Burden lies solely with the home owner

Rooms and Meals tax -- effects everyone residents / Homeowner pay meal tax along with tourists... Tourists pay for Rooms tax, as they don't have a place to stay...

Sales Tax -- effects everyone regardless of ownership and residency

The point people seem to continue to miss, is that I am not saying a Sales Tax is the answer, it is a way to shift burden.... And stabilize Property Tax... This doesn't mean that property tax and values still will not go up, and it doesn't mean that Sales Tax has to be outrageous.... it simple becomes a revenue stream that raises money and effects all people that enjoy the state equally....

When you look at something like a states total tax burden, which with out argument NH is low.... how is that being calculated? Is it based on # of declared residents?, is it based on Number of personal properties in the state? I mean just where does that number come from...

Connecticut tried just this in 1991. The last state to do so. They instituted an income tax with the promise that property taxes would go down, and they did, for several years...and then went right back up.

Their sales tax is almost 7%. They have 7 income tax brackets.

Opening up entire new tax streams never stays static...they always expand over time. NH voters by & large get this.

[John Mercier]

I didn't know that both had to be paid.
I was under the impression that one offset the other.

But it was to avoid a ''gimmick'' when Merrill signed it into law.
It meant business formation was more often being based on avoiding the BPT.
Avoiding taxations takes time and resources.

It is like a STR not having all the regulations, restrictions, and costs imposed on a motel. The avoidance of building motels has resulted in residential property... specifically in high demand areas... to skyrocket in value; and thus the situation being discussed.

[tis]

Originally Posted by Irish mist

Connecticut tried just this in 1991. The last state to do so. They instituted an income tax with the promise that property taxes would go down, and they did, for several years...and then went right back up.

Their sales tax is almost 7%. They have 7 income tax brackets.

Opening up entire new tax streams never stays static...they always expand over time. NH voters by & large get this.

I remember that and always think of Conn. when people talk about adding a tax.

[John Mercier]

I guess this Tax Attorney has it wrong.
https://www.devinemillimet.com/uploa..._m1608974_.pdf

Under 2f, he has a BET credit taken against the BPT. Which means one or the other would actually be paid.

[tummyman]

Frankly, I could care less about CT, sales taxes, or other schemes. If you ae concerned about your property taxes, there is one part of the equation that you can actually control and that is town/school EXPENSES!!! If more people got involved in the budget process and questioned needs, costs, increases, etc. then the outcome might be better. Longislander can fill in the blanks, but last year the M'boo Schools passed an increased budget at a town meeting that lasted under 10 minutes with few attendees. Question insurances and employee contribution rates, question added positions, question capital expenditures, etc. etc. All of these impact the tax rate but people just ignore the process. M'boro SAU recently dropped a $25M energy capital program out of the sky and wants voter approval in March. You could count the residents on you left hand that have attended any sessions about this. Stop bitching if you do not get involved, get informed, attend meetings and VOTE. Fix what you can and stop all the posturing about things you most likely cannot influence.

[Winilyme]

My situation's nearly exact what GarySanFran's is. I knew there'd be an increase but 72%? What a joke. Unclear what I'm getting for that. Maybe a decent fireworks display versus the fiasco this past July.

I don't care how the system works; in my mind it's flawed. I'll pay $23.6K annual for 1,500 SF seasonal. We'll make a bit of that up via reduced restaurant and other venue visits.

[John Mercier]

You are getting capital gains on your property.

Real Estate professionals say location! location! location!

Locations that have better police or fire service tend to be more highly valued. Reasonable road access increases value. And good schools increase value. But generally the lakes are creating the value.

But even nearby snowmobile trails can increase the value... that is why the Realtors promote those certain features.

[WinnisquamZ]

All this talk about capital gains and increased equity is infuriating. We want to enjoy the home. Just as our grandparents and parents did. We want to keep the property, not sell it. Many think it’s a good problem to have. While find it stressful


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[John Mercier]

Then you need to remove all the values that caused the area to be seen as a tourist attraction.

[tis]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

I guess this Tax Attorney has it wrong.
https://www.devinemillimet.com/uploa..._m1608974_.pdf

Under 2f, he has a BET credit taken against the BPT. Which means one or the other would actually be paid.

I'm not going to study your link but I can tell you we paid both every year.

[John Mercier]

You would.
You would pay the BET and deduct it from the BPT.

The NH DRA has a 2022 BET Credit Worksheet.
It deducts from the BPT owed the amount paid in BET.

The math in essence means that you would pay just the full amount of BPT.

If your BET was $100,000 and your BPT was $110,000.
You would pay BET of $100,000 and BPT of $10,000 totaling the $110,000

The higher sum.

If you paid both (no credits) the total would be $210,000

If your BET is $110,000 and your BPT is $100,000 then you pay $110,000 (Full Credit for the BPT); and carry over your BET credit for future years (up to eight in total). You still would not pay $210,000 - just the $110,000 of the higher BET.

[jeffk]

Originally Posted by Winilyme

... I don't care how the system works; in my mind it's flawed. ...

Ignorance of how government and taxation works is VERY dangerous. That is how a state ends up like Vermont, Massachusetts's, New York, California, ...

When people are unhappy, politicians will rush in to tell you there is a "easy" fix. They will add a general income or sales tax and lower the property tax. When the money starts flowing in, other "problems" will arise and some of the money will be diverted to "help". Then it becomes NECESSARY to raise all the new tax rates AND the property tax and business taxes. Soon you notice city and county taxes have appeared and weird taxes you have never heard of before. When the tax rate become painful, debt is allowed to build up. Businesses start leaving seeking lower tax rates. NEVER, NEVER, NEVER is spending significantly or permanently slashed.

THAT is how the system works. Voters are tempted by slick politicians and gobble up the tax slop like pigs at a troth, not knowing or caring to know that they are being raised for slaughter.

[Chimi]

Any TAXPAYER in a city or town should have the right to vote on the budgets for that particular city or town. This would not allow voting for elected officials in local state or federal elections, but rather just give the taxpayer a say in how their dollars are spent in the town to which the taxes are paid. Current system is bogus and flawed, and somehow must be challenged and changed.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t...esentation.asp

[ApS]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

You would.
You would pay the BET and deduct it from the BPT.

The NH DRA has a 2022 BET Credit Worksheet.
It deducts from the BPT owed the amount paid in BET.

The math in essence means that you would pay just the full amount of BPT.

If your BET was $100,000 and your BPT was $110,000.
You would pay BET of $100,000 and BPT of $10,000 totaling the $110,000

The higher sum.

If you paid both (no credits) the total would be $210,000

If your BET is $110,000 and your BPT is $100,000 then you pay $110,000 (Full Credit for the BPT); and carry over your BET credit for future years (up to eight in total). You still would not pay $210,000 - just the $110,000 of the higher BET.

NH DRA has changed all this for future payments:

The BET is now the DAT, and BPT is now the GON.

When your DAT is $110,000 and your GON is $100,000 then you pay $110,000 (Full Credit for the DAT); and carry over your DAT credit for future years (up to eight in total). You still would not pay $210,000 - just the $110,000 of the higher DAT. So now for 2023, the $110,000 is GON.

I'll bet you didn't know of DAT.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Chimi

Any TAXPAYER in a city or town should have the right to vote on the budgets for that particular city or town. This would not allow voting for elected officials in local state or federal elections, but rather just give the taxpayer a say in how their dollars are spent in the town to which the taxes are paid. Current system is bogus and flawed, and somehow must be challenged and changed.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t...esentation.asp

As a stockholder in most large corporations... and many more small ones... I am a taxpayer in thousands of towns/cities, counties, and even countries.
Do I get a vote in all of them?

As pointed out. The residents of the town that voted on the budget did not add additional costs that they did not need to add in accordance with local inflation... what occurred was the market value of some properties rose higher than others. That was not caused by the residents of the town... that was caused by the desire of non-residents.

The ''problem'', if such exists, is with non-residents.
Areas that have very little ''demand'' from non-resident generally see budgetary increases due to inflation, but do not see property valuations tilt.
Any homeowner can live here, and declare their residency here... so why aren't they doing it? The system is not stopping it... it is a choice of the property owner... so the system is not flawed; it provides a choice.

[Major]

We have a spending problem. The size of government on all levels has escalated at a geometric rate the last 50 years. Local government is not immune. Since I moved to Laconia 46 years ago, the size of Laconia has stayed the same (around 16,000 people). Schools, city departments, and social services are 3-4 greater than when I was a kid. Enrollment in schools across the Lakes Region is decreasing, yet budgets and personnel continue to increase. And mind you, these are competitive paying jobs with the private sector, with pensions! The dreaded private sector eliminated pensions 30+ years ago because the math doesn't work. City/state employees not only get paid well, they get pensions to boot!

The things that attracted people from states like Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut and New York to our great state was the lifestyle afforded by a minimalistic government that is funded without income and sales tax. However, these people are used to bloated governments, e.g., mandated and paid for pre-K and kindergarten, which was a great topic of conversation some time ago. In NH, state and local governments are supposed to be lean and mean. If you want services, live somewhere else. Don't change what made us attractive to you in the first place.

However, at the end of the day, as the demographics of the state change (let's face it we are blue, not purple), we will eventually vote in people who will comply with the popular beliefs that if only we had a sales tax and/or an income tax, all of our problems will be solved. We won't have the homelessness and addiction problems, we won't have any problems. Unfortunately, it is not a question of if, it is a question of when.

[Winilyme]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

As a stockholder in most large corporations... and many more small ones... I am a taxpayer in thousands of towns/cities, counties, and even countries.
Do I get a vote in all of them?

As pointed out. The residents of the town that voted on the budget did not add additional costs that they did not need to add in accordance with local inflation... what occurred was the market value of some properties rose higher than others. That was not caused by the residents of the town... that was caused by the desire of non-residents.

The ''problem'', if such exists, is with non-residents.
Areas that have very little ''demand'' from non-resident generally see budgetary increases due to inflation, but do not see property valuations tilt.
Any homeowner can live here, and declare their residency here... so why aren't they doing it? The system is not stopping it... it is a choice of the property owner... so the system is not flawed; it provides a choice.

A system that results in a 72% RE tax increase overnight and potentially results in longtime residents having no choice but to sell a lakefront home that's been in their family for 50 or more years is flawed.

It lacks humanity.

[John Mercier]

Switching from defined benefit to defined contribution was looked at.
Because the new employees would need to have accounts that are contributed to, those contributions and return on investment could not be used to offset the current system. The State, Counties, and cities/towns would all see major increases in their contributions... they are not allowed to declare bankruptcy and transfer the cost to PBGC.

The State of NH has only been controlled by Democrats for two years of the last one hundred. That largely happened because the Republicans that took an oath the State Constitution decided to ignore that oath when it did not suffice them.
The system is not inherently Democrat-controlled or problematic when reviewed in a relative manner.

We did have a problem with the Evergreen Clause placed into the system under Thompson, but that has been at least partially resolved.

Municipal power flows from the Legislature and is limited by the Legislature.
The tax rate for Laconia is historically low - in 1978 it was 23.40; it is currently 13.91

Many non-residents are seeing still seeing us as attractive. Unfortunately, because those are not families and working age non-residents, they are making the problems worse.

As I pointed out... anyone educated in NH that is paying attention realizes that we have State income and Sales taxes. An out-of-Stater moving here may fall for the ''No general sales or income tax'' quip, but it is a gimmick; psychological marketing tactics telling us that ''general'' would be overlooked. We just use a more inherently efficient manner of those taxes. We move those rates up and down in an attempt to balance state expenditures against competition from surrounding State and now more often the northeast quad (we can never meet the east-west corporate model that has been developing in the last two decades).

You will see this all play out again... and my guess is history repeat itself since politicians never learn (basically the general public doesn't do that well either) should the NHSC uphold the Superior Court findings.

But for Meredith, the focus of the thread, it is simply the push of non-residents to own lakefront. Those properties go up in value, and the other properties see the benefit of lower/stable taxation.

I was actually stunned when the younger next door neighbors moved here from San Fransisco to ''farm''. They have six acres - enough in our town to legally have domesticated livestock. The house is a bit oversized for them, but the cost of ripping it down is more than just maintaining and upgrading the energy efficiency. They could easily afford to live on the lake, but chose a more traditional NH path.

[tis]

Originally Posted by Major

We have a spending problem. The size of government on all levels has escalated at a geometric rate the last 50 years. Local government is not immune. Since I moved to Laconia 46 years ago, the size of Laconia has stayed the same (around 16,000 people). Schools, city departments, and social services are 3-4 greater than when I was a kid. Enrollment in schools across the Lakes Region is decreasing, yet budgets and personnel continue to increase. And mind you, these are competitive paying jobs with the private sector, with pensions! The dreaded private sector eliminated pensions 30+ years ago because the math doesn't work. City/state employees not only get paid well, they get pensions to boot!

The things that attracted people from states like Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut and New York to our great state was the lifestyle afforded by a minimalistic government that is funded without income and sales tax. However, these people are used to bloated governments, e.g., mandated and paid for pre-K and kindergarten, which was a great topic of conversation some time ago. In NH, state and local governments are supposed to be lean and mean. If you want services, live somewhere else. Don't change what made us attractive to you in the first place.

However, at the end of the day, as the demographics of the state change (let's face it we are blue, not purple), we will eventually vote in people who will comply with the popular beliefs that if only we had a sales tax and/or an income tax, all of our problems will be solved. We won't have the homelessness and addiction problems, we won't have any problems. Unfortunately, it is not a question of if, it is a question of when.

I agree with you, it' a spending problem, people moved her because they liked the way it was but now everybody wants more and more government. I would be very happy to have less services and live mean and lean government wise. And spending more money on education hasn't helped.

[Biggd]

Originally Posted by tis

I agree with you, it' a spending problem, people moved her because they liked the way it was but now everybody wants more and more government. I would be very happy to have less services and live mean and lean government wise. And spending more money on education hasn't helped.

News flash, nothing is the way it was. Change happens regardless of whether you want it to or not.
You either embrace it and adjust or move out of the way and complain about it.

[tis]

Originally Posted by Biggd

News flash, nothing is the way it was. Change happens regardless of whether you want it to or not.
You either embrace it and adjust or move out of the way and complain about it.

It's such fun to complain about it.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by tis

I agree with you, it' a spending problem, people moved her because they liked the way it was but now everybody wants more and more government. I would be very happy to have less services and live mean and lean government wise. And spending more money on education hasn't helped.

Mostly a local issue. It would suggest that Interlakes voters are more free with the purse than Belmont. The numbers do show that a bit. Belmont spent $18,442 per student to rank 41 out of 85, while Interlakes spent $26,510 per student to rank 43 out of 85 (at the high school level).

You did out rank us the year before coming in at 17 out of 85, compared to 28 out of 85.

It may be possible that it cost more for teachers and staff at Interlakes.
But that data should be available somewhere publicly.

I'm unaware of any dramatic new services that Meredith has added since I was born in the 60s.

[Sue Doe-Nym]

Originally Posted by Winilyme

A system that results in a 72% RE tax increase overnight and potentially results in longtime residents having no choice but to sell a lakefront home that's been in their family for 50 or more years is flawed.

It lacks humanity.

A 72% increase would have me appealing my assessment PDQ! That’s insane!

[Biggd]

Originally Posted by tis

It's such fun to complain about it.

But, it very rarely makes a difference.

[tis]

Originally Posted by Biggd

But, it very rarely makes a difference.

No but not much makes a difference. The only way to make a difference is to get lots of people to go to town meetings and vote against things that are wants but not needs.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Sue Doe-Nym

A 72% increase would have me appealing my assessment PDQ! ThatÂ’s insane!

Some of the increases in assessments seemed excess, so not bad advice.
But one should temper their reaction to any outcome.

Some towns overall valuations jumped pretty high... and certain categories went ballistic.

Meredith increased by 63% from 2020 (the last assessment).
The highest category was boat slips. Boat slips in general were up 71.73% with Bayshore being up 96.71%

Waterfront was up 70.05% in general, with Lake Wicwas at 82.99%, Lake Waukewan at 79.09%, Lake Winnisquam up 74.09%, Lake Winnipesuakee up 70.39%... and the only ones seeing less than the general increase being the Island category - up only 59.95%; meaning taxation got shifted away from them.

Non-waterfront Single Family did OK coming in at 55.46%, Multi-family at 38.59%, and Commercial/Industrial at 33.05%.

Vacant land took the biggest hit after waterfront at 86.20%, and even Manufactured Homes in a Park saw a slight increase at 64.31% compared to the 63% general valuation increase.

[jeffk]

Spending may indeed be elevated over the last 50 years but it's NOT the fault of local governments. Local spending increases are a response to larger forces.

Here's a tidbit:
"During the observation period from 1960 to 2022, the average inflation rate was 3.8% per year. Overall, the price increase was 903.96%. An item that cost 100 dollars in 1960 costs 1,003.96 dollars at the beginning of 2023. For November 2023, the year-over-year inflation rate was 3.1%."

The price of everything combined has gone up 10 fold since 1960. So looking back to inflating taxes since then and claiming local spending is "out of control" is mostly placing the blame in the wrong place. Inflation is mostly caused by ONE major factor, government spending beyond income from taxes, deficit spending. The fault for this lies largely with the Federal government and then with many state governments. Local governments are not immune to the effects. Saying that local governments should refuse to increase local spending to cover inflated costs is absurd. Could you get someone to plow the town roads for 1/10 the accepted modern costs? No. The roads would not get plowed. The kids would not get taught. You couldn't afford to buy new fire equipment or computers or police cars or hire anyone to do anything.

Mostly, local costs have been swept along in a rising inflationary tide that is irresistible.

That doesn't mean that local governments don't try to sneak in the occasional Taj Mahal purchase and citizens MUST be watchful. But the budgets will continue to increase and some required spending will spike a budget here and there. Knee jerk reactions against increased budgets are not helpful.

As to the canard that non residents should be able to vote locally, frankly, YOU don't live here. YOU don't HAVE to live here. YOU could vote down the school budget and YOUR kids wouldn't suffer. YOU could vote down the highway budget and not suffer too much from broken and poorly plowed roads. YOU wouldn't suffer too much from reduced fire and police coverage. RESIDENTS, impacted by these choices should and must make these decisions.

As a result, YOUR taxes will go up, proportionately more than many residents. The funny thing is, people ARE voting to do enter or stay within the existing tax situation. They are voting by making their highly inflated purchases of vacation property or continuing to remain owners of such property. The exploding prices of vacation real estate (and resulting shift of taxes to the owners of such property) and the rising taxes due to inflation have made this more painful but still they are here. That may slow and rebalance in the future as it has in the past. However, the driving forces of inflation will continue to raise local costs and budgets MUST rise to meet them.

[tis]

Jeffk, while it is true prices have gone crazy in 50 years there have been things added to town budgets that weren't around-at least in such crazy numbers-and one that comes to mind is recreation budgets for the towns. I would like to see a comparison of those from 50 year ago. Now before I get attacked, I love recreation but I question if the kind of taxes spent on it is really a need, not a want. Everybody has their pet projects and that is the issue.

[Major]

It's more than inflation. The size of government has grown exponentially since 1960. I've used the Laconia schools as examples before. Laconia Middle School has roughly three times the staff than when I went to Memorial Middle School 45 years ago, even though enrollment numbers are much lower. Every school is that way. And it doesn't end with schools, go to the town hall. It is chock-full of staff members toiling away on their computers. Same with the courts. I assisted my family with probating a family member's estate so I have become intimately familiar with the local probate court. The office is staffed by six or so people, and although they are very helpful and pleasant, it appears that one or two would be sufficient. Certainly, given that it takes at least two months to rule on anything indicates that there is an efficiency problem even though it seems more than adequately staffed.

At every level, the size of government has grown beyond what is needed. NH was a state that had limited government and limited resources. It used to heed to Ronald Reagan's famous line "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help.'" Government doesn't have a very good track record of solving society's problems.

So while I agree we must adapt to changing times, we must fight against bad change. There are too many examples of present-day government policies that are harming us to list. Those of us who want limited government must go out and vote or participate in the process.

[I.C.Isles]

I saw Deval Patrick speak at a corporate event once. He summed it up well in a candid way. He told us that while companies worked to be more efficient and have less people do the work to compete, the government worked to employ people and get votes.

So…bloated government offices with early retirees still on the payroll and dependent on the government is a good thing that the politicians strive to grow to generate more votes.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[Garcia]

Originally Posted by Major

It's more than inflation. The size of government has grown exponentially since 1960. I've used the Laconia schools as examples before. Laconia Middle School has roughly three times the staff than when I went to Memorial Middle School 45 years ago, even though enrollment numbers are much lower. Every school is that way. And it doesn't end with schools, go to the town hall. It is chock-full of staff members toiling away on their computers. Same with the courts. I assisted my family with probating a family member's estate so I have become intimately familiar with the local probate court. The office is staffed by six or so people, and although they are very helpful and pleasant, it appears that one or two would be sufficient. Certainly, given that it takes at least two months to rule on anything indicates that there is an efficiency problem even though it seems more than adequately staffed.

At every level, the size of government has grown beyond what is needed. NH was a state that had limited government and limited resources. It used to heed to Ronald Reagan's famous line "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help.'" Government doesn't have a very good track record of solving society's problems.

So while I agree we must adapt to changing times, we must fight against bad change. There are too many examples of present-day government policies that are harming us to list. Those of us who want limited government must go out and vote or participate in the process.

It's interesting that Reagan gets cited often when it comes to small government and fiscal responsibility. If you look at the numbers, the number of government employees (and not just the military as they account for about 1/4 of the growth) increases significantly. Moreover, the national debt went from about $900 billion to over $2.5 trillion. Not a criticism of the Reagan years, just an observation.

To me this is a large part of the problem as I am not wasteful nor are the politicians I support. Instead, it's everyone else and all the politicians I don't support...

As to allowing non resident property owners to vote, I say no. I am a non resident property owner in NH and while I would love to have a say, I don't want the wealthy, part-time non residents in my town to vote. I can't have it both ways, so come down on the side of allowing voting in the town (and state) where you are a resident.

[Biggd]

We are starting to move this thread into a political scrum.
We should stick to the initial thread of Meredith taxes.
Local politics should be restricted to their own thread and national politics should be restricted all together on the Winni forum, there are other forums for that.

[ishoot308]

This entire thread is getting taxing….

Dan

[Biggd]

Originally Posted by ishoot308

This entire thread is getting taxing….

Dan

We can expect these threads to get more taxing in the new year.

[Garcia]

Originally Posted by Biggd

We are starting to move this thread into a political scrum.
We should stick to the initial thread of Meredith taxes.
Local politics should be restricted to their own thread and national politics should be restricted all together on the Winni forum, there are other forums for that.

Not my intent and agree. Taxes, local or not, are a hot button issue. For me, I recognize how fortunate I am that a grandparent had the foresight to buy island property almost 100 years ago. Taxes have gone up as has the assessment. There is no way I could afford to buy today, so i am doing everything I can to fund a trust so my children will be able to enjoy the property without worrying about taxes and carrying costs.

[DEJ]

What's the over/under on who get's the last word in?

[Major]

Originally Posted by Garcia

Not my intent and agree. Taxes, local or not, are a hot button issue. For me, I recognize how fortunate I am that a grandparent had the foresight to buy island property almost 100 years ago. Taxes have gone up as has the assessment. There is no way I could afford to buy today, so i am doing everything I can to fund a trust so my children will be able to enjoy the property without worrying about taxes and carrying costs.

We may be on opposite sides of the political spectrum, but you are a good dude. That's a very nice thing to do for your kids and grandkids. I am sure it is a sacrifice, but well worth it in my opinion. Good job!

[John Mercier]

The tax collector always gets the last word in.

The assessment numbers are interesting because they show the ebb and flow of what the general population views as valuable through the window of the market.

[DEJ]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

The tax collector always gets the last word in.

When did you become a tax collector?

[Biggd]

Originally Posted by Garcia

Not my intent and agree. Taxes, local or not, are a hot button issue. For me, I recognize how fortunate I am that a grandparent had the foresight to buy island property almost 100 years ago. Taxes have gone up as has the assessment. There is no way I could afford to buy today, so i am doing everything I can to fund a trust so my children will be able to enjoy the property without worrying about taxes and carrying costs.

Very admirable, many properties change hands because families are split up all over the country and it places a financial burden on the ones that can't use it.

[Garcia]

Originally Posted by Biggd

Very admirable, many properties change hands because families are split up all over the country and it places a financial burden on the ones that can't use it.

I'm very fortunate that through good decisions by previous generations I am in a position to help the next generation. My thought is that by putting the property in an irrevocable trust, perhaps with a dissolution clause that can be enacted at some point in the future, with funding to cover the carrying costs, or at least a good portion of them, the property does not become a burden on the next generation and instead can be enjoyed by all.

I'm not smart enough to do this myself so am working with a lawyer who specializes in this type of thing. I figure it makes sense to do so now when everyone gets along!

[NHskier]

For those interested in researching historical town and school district spending, UNH hosts a repository of digitized annual reports which in some cases go back many years (Meredith from the mid 1920s).

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Winilyme

A system that results in a 72% RE tax increase overnight and potentially results in longtime residents having no choice but to sell a lakefront home that's been in their family for 50 or more years is flawed.

It lacks humanity.

I think you mean a 72% assessment increase...
A property that saw a 63% assessment increase in Meredith would be paying almost the same portion as it did before. The only increase would be what they voted for at town/school meeting and what the county had to procure. These being much lower than 72%

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Garcia

I'm very fortunate that through good decisions by previous generations I am in a position to help the next generation. My thought is that by putting the property in an irrevocable trust, perhaps with a dissolution clause that can be enacted at some point in the future, with funding to cover the carrying costs, or at least a good portion of them, the property does not become a burden on the next generation and instead can be enjoyed by all.

I'm not smart enough to do this myself so am working with a lawyer who specializes in this type of thing. I figure it makes sense to do so now when everyone gets along!

As you can see in the Meredith assessment averages, Island properties may have already reached their peak. The average growth in that category was lower than the average for the town.

It doesn't mean that taxes will not increase, but other then the outcome of the court hearings, the actual taxation should begin to moderate in years going forward.

Laconia's CPI-Urban tax cap helps limit exceptional budget growth even in the other towns within the county. CPI-Urban was unusually high; we hadn't seen that since the late 70s early 80s.

[Descant]

Originally Posted by Garcia

I'm not smart enough to do this myself so am working with a lawyer who specializes in this type of thing. I figure it makes sense to do so now when everyone gets along!

Garcia, May you live long and prosper. This is not a one year project, and now is the time to get grandchildren to fall in love with the lake. Happyu to chat offline.

[Winilyme]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

I think you mean a 72% assessment increase...
A property that saw a 63% assessment increase in Meredith would be paying almost the same portion as it did before. The only increase would be what they voted for at town/school meeting and what the county had to procure. These being much lower than 72%

No. Our assessment increased 97%. Pre-re-assessment annual RE taxes = $13.1K (paid in two installments/year). Post pre-re-assessment annual RE taxes = $11.5K (installment 1) + $11.1K (estimated installment #2) for a total of $22.6K or a 72% increase.

Our place is small. 92% of our assessment is based on the value of our land - .30A.