Winnipesaukee Forum - View Single Post

John Mercier · 04-11-2026, 08:02 PM

Couple of basics.

Income taxes cannot be "graduated" in NH; our State Constitution does not allow for it.
Also the tax would fall on residents, while non-resident property owners would see tax relief.

Not a very bright idea to win elections.

As for the Florida proposal...

"HJR 203: Phased Elimination Over 10 Years
PASSED HOUSE 80-30 (Feb 19, 2026) | Died in Senate (Mar 13) | Special Session Apr 20
Sponsor: Rep. Monique Miller (R-Palm Bay)

Potential Impact: This proposal takes a gradual approach, increasing the homestead exemption by $100,000 annually for ten years, reaching complete elimination of non-school taxes by January 1, 2037. For a homeowner with a $400,000 assessed value, they'd see incremental savings growing each year - potentially $1,000-1,500 in year one, increasing annually until reaching full elimination of non-school taxes in year ten. The phased approach spreads the revenue impact over a decade, giving local governments and the state time to develop alternative revenue sources and adjust spending."

Not sure this would be found constitutional in NH either, as it would affect local financing and may violate Part First Article 28-a.

The State legislature could remove by exemption under a homestead-style plan the SWEPT on residents. But it would need to be crafted to protect renters, businesses, etc or have a much larger impact than intended.

Even then, the SWEPT is so low as to not provide an exceptional level of tax reduction even to those that found relief under it.

The relatively low levels of State taxation would require them to raise the rate and then implement such a plan; again with much more of an impact than they might intend.

This is why several "targeted" proposals rather than a "general" taxation with exemptions is what the State Legislature discusses.

I did see a private citizen write to the Berlin Daily Sun suggesting an "enhanced" taxation for tourism *Meals & Room*; but I think that if the State could just enforce the current rate on STRs, that may accomplish more than one thinks.

They could also remove mandates so they would not need to keep making testimony before the courts that they are not fully funding mandates as required by Part First Article 28-a. Not sure how anyone can take an oath before God and then willing ignore that article; maybe Hell isn't as bad as I imagine it to be.

04-11-2026, 08:02 PM	#7
John Mercier Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2021 Posts: 3,983 Thanks: 3 Thanked 678 Times in 561 Posts	Couple of basics. Income taxes cannot be "graduated" in NH; our State Constitution does not allow for it. Also the tax would fall on residents, while non-resident property owners would see tax relief. Not a very bright idea to win elections. As for the Florida proposal... "HJR 203: Phased Elimination Over 10 Years PASSED HOUSE 80-30 (Feb 19, 2026) \| Died in Senate (Mar 13) \| Special Session Apr 20 Sponsor: Rep. Monique Miller (R-Palm Bay) Potential Impact: This proposal takes a gradual approach, increasing the homestead exemption by $100,000 annually for ten years, reaching complete elimination of non-school taxes by January 1, 2037. For a homeowner with a $400,000 assessed value, they'd see incremental savings growing each year - potentially $1,000-1,500 in year one, increasing annually until reaching full elimination of non-school taxes in year ten. The phased approach spreads the revenue impact over a decade, giving local governments and the state time to develop alternative revenue sources and adjust spending." Not sure this would be found constitutional in NH either, as it would affect local financing and may violate Part First Article 28-a. The State legislature could remove by exemption under a homestead-style plan the SWEPT on residents. But it would need to be crafted to protect renters, businesses, etc or have a much larger impact than intended. Even then, the SWEPT is so low as to not provide an exceptional level of tax reduction even to those that found relief under it. The relatively low levels of State taxation would require them to raise the rate and then implement such a plan; again with much more of an impact than they might intend. This is why several "targeted" proposals rather than a "general" taxation with exemptions is what the State Legislature discusses. I did see a private citizen write to the Berlin Daily Sun suggesting an "enhanced" taxation for tourism Meals & Room; but I think that if the State could just enforce the current rate on STRs, that may accomplish more than one thinks. They could also remove mandates so they would not need to keep making testimony before the courts that they are not fully funding mandates as required by Part First Article 28-a. Not sure how anyone can take an oath before God and then willing ignore that article; maybe Hell isn't as bad as I imagine it to be.