HB 1707 to Double property taxes

[DesertDweller]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

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

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

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

I think they might just fear that natural correction.

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

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

I think the seacoast may be built out.

Ok, I'll bite. To confirm, you are not talking people that are worth $10mm or more but rather people that have incomes of more than $10mm (which is what you said). The number of people worth more than $10mm is 2.3 million and the people that make more than $10mm is 23,000. That's a pretty select group.

[TiltonBB]

The New Hampshire House soundly defeated a bill that would have imposed a .75% tax on second homes worth over $500,000.
The New Hampshire Municipal Association estimated that the proposal could have generated at least $15 million per year. All receipts would go back to the city or town where the property is located.

[John Mercier]

Very select.
They tend to make appointments, or at least someone does for them.
So getting as much information as possible helps us not waste any of their time.

Mostly executives of large companies or in entertainment.
Lots of Europeans; and a few from Asian countries.

[Descant]

This is all pretty far away from anything to do with HB1707

[tis]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

The New Hampshire House soundly defeated a bill that would have imposed a .75% tax on second homes worth over $500,000.
The New Hampshire Municipal Association estimated that the proposal could have generated at least $15 million per year. All receipts would go back to the city or town where the property is located.

284-55 soundly!! I hope the rest of them go the same way and they get over it. Nobody wants any more property taxes. And if the receipts would all go back to the city or town where the property is located, why does the STATE need to charge it? So if you believe that it would be returned to the towns I have a bridge to sell you.

[John Mercier]

Current SWEPT stays with the cities and towns.
All the variations are about the same.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Descant

This is all pretty far away from anything to do with HB1707

Not really.
Customers in that range generally don't confide in me their intent.
But my guess would be that these are not primary homes.

Since I suspect that their staff is well aware of things that might affect value, they don't seem to be too worried about this.
Not even sure that taxes or insurance come into the picture at that level.

[tis]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Very select.
They tend to make appointments, or at least someone does for them.
So getting as much information as possible helps us not waste any of their time.

Mostly executives of large companies or in entertainment.
Lots of Europeans; and a few from Asian countries.

You're probably right, when they make multi millions of dollars a year what's another couple or few hundred thousand. Although I do remember Baer wasn't happy with his taxes when they were around 500,000 a year-maybe he didn't make as much as the you just mentioned above. But I think it's sad that only the world's very richest will be living on the lake. Very, very sad.

[4 for Boating]

Originally Posted by tis

284-55 soundly!! I hope the rest of them go the same way and they get over it. Nobody wants any more property taxes. And if the receipts would all go back to the city or town where the property is located, why does the STATE need to charge it? So if you believe that it would be returned to the towns I have a bridge to sell you.

So admittedly I'm a bit lost on the big picture here. Is this to say that the idea (additional taxes for non-residents) is completely dead or are there other bills trying to do the same thing still in play? When will we know the siege is over one way or another?

[tis]

Originally Posted by 4 for Boating

So admittedly I'm a bit lost on the big picture here. Is this to say that the idea (additional taxes for non-residents) is completely dead or are there other bills trying to do the same thing still in play? When will we know the siege is over one way or another?

I know there were a few I kept seeing, I think there might still be a couple in play. Maybe John can tell us. It's all Democrats as far as I can see that sponsor these bills so we would have to read their minds but they seems to love the idea of hitting us hard. However, since that bill was defeated so soundly as long as we have a Republican majority, I think we are ok for a while.

[tummyman]

These politicians are all cute. Most are from south of Concord and they know there is a large portion of NH property north of Concord owned by non-residents. By using the $500K threshold, it would exclude all those "resident" hunting/vacation camps up north that are not on big lakes. Designed specifically to hit all the expensive properties owned on the big lakes or ski areas. Sounds like Mamdani is getting a foothold in NH as well. I suspect his is not the end and we need to be very aggressive in the future to go to Concord and testify vociferously in person on any bills like this. Ned to flood their hearings to get media to report as well.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by tis

I know there were a few I kept seeing, I think there might still be a couple in play. Maybe John can tell us. It's all Democrats as far as I can see that sponsor these bills so we would have to read their minds but they seems to love the idea of hitting us hard. However, since that bill was defeated so soundly as long as we have a Republican majority, I think we are ok for a while.

Not Democrats in other States, and not all Democrat sponsors in ours.

I noticed it when "Yellowstone" became popular and the solution that the fictional "Governor John Dutton" came up with.
The population in that series was upset with all the non-residents moving in and changing the valley, raising assessments, and using it like it was a "playground".

So a lot of States are on that agenda.

The reason it seems all Democrats is they see "blood in the water".

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by tummyman

These politicians are all cute. Most are from south of Concord and they know there is a large portion of NH property north of Concord owned by non-residents. By using the $500K threshold, it would exclude all those "resident" hunting/vacation camps up north that are not on big lakes. Designed specifically to hit all the expensive properties owned on the big lakes or ski areas. Sounds like Mamdani is getting a foothold in NH as well. I suspect his is not the end and we need to be very aggressive in the future to go to Concord and testify vociferously in person on any bills like this. Ned to flood their hearings to get media to report as well.

Do you think that it isn't already happening?
The shift from non-waterfront properties to waterfront properties of taxation has been occurring ever since waterfront became popular and market value grew faster than other properties.

Most of this people come from families that own in the area - Coker is in Meredith - they just see the new money coming to the area pricing them out.

This is just some odd attempt to keep assessments of waterfront down.
It doesn't work.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by 4 for Boating

So admittedly I'm a bit lost on the big picture here. Is this to say that the idea (additional taxes for non-residents) is completely dead or are there other bills trying to do the same thing still in play? When will we know the siege is over one way or another?

It will never be over.
They are more about figuring out the legal method to do so, the political will of the voters, and a method that doesn't distort the economy.

Technically impossible.

[sky's]

Originally Posted by SAB1

Sounds like a little bit Massachusetts is slipping into NH…….

too much has "slipt in"

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by sky's

too much has "slipt in"

Reportedly, the 2020 Census indicates that 59% of NH residents were born outside NH. That's a lot of "slipt". Estimate for Mass is 48% born out of state. We are all in one big mixing bowl.

[TomC]

Some are assuredly trying to flee from the politics, which is OK. Its the ones trying to bring that north that are a concern.

[John Mercier]

Already north.
Natives do not think the way that some may suppose.

I really could care less about all the social agendas, or the absolute lack of critical thought on others.

[tis]

They never stop. Watch who you vote for, if you can vote in NH.

Sexton
Political Director
CONCORD, N.H. —
A new plan for an income tax to fund education in New Hampshire is being brought forward at the State House, and it's touching off a firestorm of debate and discussion.

Democratic lawmakers and progressive activists unveiled what they are calling their "3-3 Tax Savings Plan": a 3% income tax to fund education and a $3 statewide property tax, each raising $1 billion.

[tummyman]

The savior is that an income tax is a non starter. But it is always disheartening that politicians everywhere always take the safe route of raising more money, never attacking the root cause issues off out of control spending. If they are going to try something like this, it is time for SB2 to take effect everywhere to allow all voters a chance to weigh in on expenditures, not just those who can attend town meeting. The bloat is heavy and parents/educators hijack town meeting to approve budgets. The entire process is out of control.

[tis]

Originally Posted by tummyman

The savior is that an income tax is a non starter. But it is always disheartening that politicians everywhere always take the safe route of raising more money, never attacking the root cause issues off out of control spending. If they are going to try something like this, it is time for SB2 to take effect everywhere to allow all voters a chance to weigh in on expenditures, not just those who can attend town meeting. The bloat is heavy and parents/educators hijack town meeting to approve budgets. The entire process is out of control.

I agree. All of these bills have been proposed by Democrats but stopped by Republicans. So I worry if the Dems take over the state again, one of these could pass.

[phoenix]

Another reason we meed to keep the governorship

[John Mercier]

It isn't will. It is when.
Republicans in other States have already passed them.

The Democrats are just trying to get ahead of Republicans on the issue because they see voter angst.

For instance, Meredith Town Budget is proposing a 20.9% increase.
The STR issue is alive and well at the local level.

So getting on the right side of that before elections is what both sides are attempting to do.

Many Dems realize that an income tax would tax residents - their voters; and expanding sales taxes beyond the current scope is raging against the wind. So they just follow the wind.
Saw this coming. Even posted about it all those months ago when the fictional Governor Dutton proposed it on a show that is now run over and over again.

[Garcia]

Originally Posted by tis

I agree. All of these bills have been proposed by Democrats but stopped by Republicans. So I worry if the Dems take over the state again, one of these could pass.

I disagree. It's a political rather than party problem. The Republicans at the local, state, and federal level are just as bad (at the federal level, worse) as Democrats when it coms to over spending and running up deficits. Each party blames the other but when push comes to shove both keep spending and just come up with different ways to fund things - in ways that benefit their constituents.

[John Mercier]

State is overspending; but the major problem is downshifting.

It is unconstitutional in NH, but the Legislature can say the oath and have no real knowledge of what they just swore an oath to.

Most of their failures since Claremont has been the fact to not recognize that all mandates must be paid with State level taxation. Which is why they lose so many court cases and then try to "spin" it.

We saw this with the mandate on civics education.
All the schools teach it.

But the Legislature failed, and continues to fail, basic critical thought.

Since most of NH voting residents did not attend school in NH - never mind primary school - they never got an education on NH State level civics.

Same goes with our taxation policy. Actually pretty easy to see what is going to happen - but willful ignorance takes over until no other option presents itself.

They are either going to lose the "wants" or have to raise new revenue.
They may try to continually downshift it, but at a point that will no longer work.

[chaseisland]

Haven't read the entire thread, but a search today revealed that the bill was "killed in the house". Hopefully it will stay that way!

[Descant]

Originally Posted by chaseisland

Haven't read the entire thread, but a search today revealed that the bill was "killed in the house". Hopefully it will stay that way!

Yes killed. This thread moved away from the bill weeks ago.

[tis]

This is a new bill, not HB 1707.

The proposal, dubbed the “3-3 Tax Savings Plan,” would charge a 3% flat income tax and a “$3.00 true statewide property tax” to drum up an estimated $1 billion a year for public schools.

[Descant]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

State is overspending; but the major problem is downshifting.

It is unconstitutional in NH, but the Legislature can say the oath and have no real knowledge of what they just swore an oath to.

Most of their failures since Claremont has been the fact to not recognize that all mandates must be paid with State level taxation. Which is why they lose so many court cases and then try to "spin" it.

We saw this with the mandate on civics education.
All the schools teach it.

But the Legislature failed, and continues to fail, basic critical thought.

Since most of NH voting residents did not attend school in NH - never mind primary school - they never got an education on NH State level civics.

Same goes with our taxation policy. Actually pretty easy to see what is going to happen - but willful ignorance takes over until no other option presents itself.

They are either going to lose the "wants" or have to raise new revenue.
They may try to continually downshift it, but at a point that will no longer work.

All true, except:
Around 2010 we elected a truly conservative House and Senate and the budget was cut about 8%. It can be done.
Big swing in the other direction in 2012 with all sorts of new fees and taxes which then got repealed the next session.

IMHO the Claremont cases were never about education. Andru Volinsky and friends saw the issue as a way to force the state into income and sales taxes.

We should have built a huge casino and NFL stadium in Salem when there was still a rail line straight to Rockingham. The major gubernatorial candidates from both parties for 2026 have stated that they will veto a sales or income tax, including the hated I & D tax which mostly hurt retirees...

[John Mercier]

We were also ignoring the funding of mandates at that time.

Watch the proposed 20.9% municipal rate increase in Meredith be spun by talking about what the higher proposal was, but the "conservatives" stepped in and got it down to 20.9%. This is how the masses are fooled.

Belmont BOS is upset because they are almost certain that we will vote down our budget again this year. But we have no real cuts.
Our "conservatives" are trying to convince us otherwise.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by tis

This is a new bill, not HB 1707.

The proposal, dubbed the “3-3 Tax Savings Plan,” would charge a 3% flat income tax and a “$3.00 true statewide property tax” to drum up an estimated $1 billion a year for public schools.

Saw that. Even tried their calculator.

And even with that, they didn't figure in the cost of collection for a broad-based income tax. Seems like an awful lot of effort to go through to move around a few dollars.

[4 for Boating]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

We were also ignoring the funding of mandates at that time.

Watch the proposed 20.9% municipal rate increase in Meredith be spun by talking about what the higher proposal was, but the "conservatives" stepped in and got it down to 20.9%. This is how the masses are fooled.

Belmont BOS is upset because they are almost certain that we will vote down our budget again this year. But we have no real cuts.
Our "conservatives" are trying to convince us otherwise.

I wonder then if the town of Meredith is hoping the Girl Scout camp on Meredith Neck does in fact get sold as opposed to staying as a camp. I recall the project was talking about 8 to 10 new homes with a value of upwards of $10 million each. That would raise some ~$1 million dollars in additional taxes as I suspect they get nothing now from the Girl Scouts. I guess you can't have it both ways.

[Winilyme]

Originally Posted by 4 for Boating

I wonder then if the town of Meredith is hoping the Girl Scout camp on Meredith Neck does in fact get sold as opposed to staying as a camp. I recall the project was talking about 8 to 10 new homes with a value of upwards of $10 million each. That would raise some ~$1 million dollars in additional taxes as I suspect they get nothing now from the Girl Scouts. I guess you can't have it both ways.

But that's the same endless cycle we see repeated today:

- Raise $1M (which really isn't $1M since municipal services are required as a result of those new homeowners) and use some/all of the remaining dollars to fund more wants.
- Watch the cost of materials, labor, inflation, etc., to maintain the homeowner services and funded wants eventually overtake the original tax revenue benefit generated by those new homes.
- Then, you realize, you're in the same leaking boat wishing you had kept the Girl Scout camp as it was since at least it would have required relatively minimal municipal services in the long term, and the town wouldn't have been lured into unnecessary additional spending.

Round and round we go - where it stops - nobody knows.

[John Mercier]

Correct.
It will just further the cycle.

[Little Bear]

Originally Posted by Winilyme

But that's the same endless cycle we see repeated today:

- Raise $1M (which really isn't $1M since municipal services are required as a result of those new homeowners) and use some/all of the remaining dollars to fund more wants.
- Watch the cost of materials, labor, inflation, etc., to maintain the homeowner services and funded wants eventually overtake the original tax revenue benefit generated by those new homes.
- Then, you realize, you're in the same leaking boat wishing you had kept the Girl Scout camp as it was since at least it would have required relatively minimal municipal services in the long term, and the town wouldn't have been lured into unnecessary additional spending.

Round and round we go - where it stops - nobody knows.

Hello, Town of Alton? Are you listening? Pay attention to what this person said.

[4 for Boating]

Originally Posted by Winilyme

But that's the same endless cycle we see repeated today:

- Raise $1M (which really isn't $1M since municipal services are required as a result of those new homeowners) and use some/all of the remaining dollars to fund more wants.
- Watch the cost of materials, labor, inflation, etc., to maintain the homeowner services and funded wants eventually overtake the original tax revenue benefit generated by those new homes.
- Then, you realize, you're in the same leaking boat wishing you had kept the Girl Scout camp as it was since at least it would have required relatively minimal municipal services in the long term, and the town wouldn't have been lured into unnecessary additional spending.

Round and round we go - where it stops - nobody knows.

Yup - tricky situation. Which is worse, the 8 to 10 new $10M homes or continually raising taxes on family camps (which is any shed touching the water at this point) that then leads to owners or families selling - then they get knocked down and we are back to the $10M home. I have personally seen this exact thing play out 3 times in the last 2 years. I suppose one could argue that in either case, they are 2nd homes with likely no additional pressure on the school system. The cycle seems unsustainable to me but what to do. I vote sales tax as at least you have some control over what you buy and don't but I know that's not popular. Live free and die of taxes!

[garysanfran]

Originally Posted by Winilyme

But that's the same endless cycle we see repeated today:

- Raise $1M (which really isn't $1M since municipal services are required as a result of those new homeowners) and use some/all of the remaining dollars to fund more wants.
- Watch the cost of materials, labor, inflation, etc., to maintain the homeowner services and funded wants eventually overtake the original tax revenue benefit generated by those new homes.
- Then, you realize, you're in the same leaking boat wishing you had kept the Girl Scout camp as it was since at least it would have required relatively minimal municipal services in the long term, and the town wouldn't have been lured into unnecessary additional spending.

Round and round we go - where it stops - nobody knows.

Perhaps use the $1mm to widen Meredith Neck Rd. into a 4-lane highway bottle-necking at Pleasant St. and Rt. 25 resulting in the addition of Meredith's third traffic light.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by 4 for Boating

Yup - tricky situation. Which is worse, the 8 to 10 new $10M homes or continually raising taxes on family camps (which is any shed touching the water at this point) that then leads to owners or families selling - then they get knocked down and we are back to the $10M home. I have personally seen this exact thing play out 3 times in the last 2 years. I suppose one could argue that in either case, they are 2nd homes with likely no additional pressure on the school system. The cycle seems unsustainable to me but what to do. I vote sales tax as at least you have some control over what you buy and don't but I know that's not popular. Live free and die of taxes!

We have sales taxes. Lots of sales taxes.
At the State level, sales taxes almost provide as much revenue as business taxes.

[tis]

WE also have an income tax for business people, the Business Profits tax and the Enterprise Tax.

[dva]

Originally Posted by Little Bear

Hello, Town of Alton? Are you listening? Pay attention to what this person said.

Nobody will listen till it's to late and they have a MONSTER in there back yard!!

[John Mercier]

Build out - which is a function of property rights and demand - does not create the problem, nor can it resolve the problem.

The problem they are experiencing is a labor shortage.
The balance of seasonal to resident has tilted further over time reducing the workforce available. And the push toward lower children and residents in that child-bearing age group.

This was all discussed decades ago and ignored.

[Little Bear]

No, no, no….HELL NO!

https://www.businessnhmagazine.com/a...king-firestorm

[John Mercier]

Already posted.
That is what the 3-3 is.

[phoenix]

On the website this bill is listed as inexpedient to legislate which mens DOA . John what am i Missing ?

[tis]

Originally Posted by phoenix

On the website this bill is listed as inexpedient to legislate which mens DOA . John what am i Missing ?

I just added a new bill to this discussion, because it involves yet another state property tax and probably shouldn't have. It's a $3 per thousand property tax and and income tax both. Sorry to confuse you.

[John Mercier]

The 3-3 isn't a bill yet. I suspect that the promoters want to get it out for discussion long before the election cycle.

They usually do this to see polling - which I can't imagine will be good.

If they even imagine that it would be something, they will enter it as a Legislative Service Request in autumn.

[Little Bear]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Already posted.
That is what the 3-3 is.

Ok, so what? Do you have a problem with my posting of the link to this article from Business NH Magazine?

[Descant]

Originally Posted by Little Bear

Ok, so what? Do you have a problem with my posting of the link to this article from Business NH Magazine?

You can post whatever you want, but this thread hasn't been about HB1707 for a long long time. If you want people to learn about 3-3, you should start a new thread. New bill filing for this session, which ends June 30, was closed last December. The leading candidates from BOTH major parties have pledged to veto any sales or income tax. Nothing to see here, folks. Move along now.

[TiltonBB]

Possible 21% tax hike in Meredith.

The voters will decide tonight. Town Meeting takes place at 7 p.m. on Wednesday, March 11

From the Laconia Sun:

https://www.laconiadailysun.com/news...2d5d81b70.html

[Biggd]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

Possible 21% tax hike in Meredith.

The voters will decide tonight. Town Meeting takes place at 7 p.m. on Wednesday, March 11

From the Laconia Sun:

https://www.laconiadailysun.com/news...2d5d81b70.html

You will probably see an increase in homes for sale if it goes up that much.

[fatlazyless]

Originally Posted by Biggd

You will probably see an increase in homes for sale if it goes up that much.

To make a strong first impression to a potential buyer, you can redo the roof with Behr roof paint.

You know you ONLY get one opportunity to make a strong first impression ....!

[Garcia]

Originally Posted by Biggd

You will probably see an increase in homes for sale if it goes up that much.

Maybe, but all that will happen is that some who have inherited properties or bought second homes years ago and can no longer afford them will be bought by those who can. There will not be an overall shift of waterfront homes becoming more affordable. Moreover, the very people, the working class, that are essential in town will be forced out as their property taxes and expenses rise. I saw the very thing happen in my town/neighborhood over the past 20 years.

[WinnisquamZ]

This same thing is what Laconia experienced and is currently experiencing today


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by Garcia

Maybe, but all that will happen is that some who have inherited properties or bought second homes years ago and can no longer afford them will be bought by those who can. There will not be an overall shift of waterfront homes becoming more affordable. Moreover, the very people, the working class, that are essential in town will be forced out as their property taxes and expenses rise. I saw the very thing happen in my town/neighborhood over the past 20 years.

Stopping this is the general idea of the proposal to double the tax on second homes. The whole point is to stick it to wealthy second homers so that locals can get some relief. Even if you hate taxes, call it income redistribution, or whatever, it's easy to see the housing price increase over the past 10 years or so is kind of messed up

[Garcia]

Originally Posted by FlyingScot

Stopping this is the general idea of the proposal to double the tax on second homes. The whole point is to stick it to wealthy second homers so that locals can get some relief. Even if you hate taxes, call it income redistribution, or whatever, it's easy to see the housing price increase over the past 10 years or so is kind of messed up

I get the logic but my concern is the reality that will follow is all taxes go up, albeit perhaps at different rates. Over time affordable housing for the locals goes up and the very people looking for relief are priced out of the market and town. This is what I saw happen (and continues to happen) in my home town. Taxing your way out of a spending problem just doesn't work - but towns, states, and the federal government keep trying.

[John Mercier]

Sort of.
As we have less local labor force, the price of labor - even for the town and county - goes up.

But it isn't stopping Boomers from buying.

[Biggd]

NH is trying to stick it to out of staters anyway possible.
They are trying to tax them as they come over the border with an extra buck at the toll booths.

[John Mercier]

They need/want revenue.
But aren't sure how to achieve it.

[WinnisquamZ]

Need? The state has a spending issue. Nice to have items need to be eliminated.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[Garcia]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

Possible 21% tax hike in Meredith.

The voters will decide tonight. Town Meeting takes place at 7 p.m. on Wednesday, March 11

From the Laconia Sun:

https://www.laconiadailysun.com/news...2d5d81b70.html

Are there any results from the town meeting? A quick search did not turn anything up

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by WinnisquamZ

Need? The state has a spending issue. Nice to have items need to be eliminated.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

They have a lot of smaller items; but can't come to full consideration.

Dam maintenance, CB Mitigation, etc, etc...

Between recreational subsidies and mandates they don't want to pay for... it adds up very quickly.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Garcia

Are there any results from the town meeting? A quick search did not turn anything up

I still have not found Meredith's budget results.

[TiltonBB]

Originally Posted by Garcia

Are there any results from the town meeting? A quick search did not turn anything up

From the Laconia Sun:

https://www.laconiadailysun.com/news...f1830ec78.html

[jbolty]

Originally Posted by WinnisquamZ

Need? The state has a spending issue. Nice to have items need to be eliminated.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

fact. the problem is always too much government. It grows then needs to find things to do to justify it and in the meantime success of a government program is measured by the budget, not the results. The full time year round population of the town of moultonboro has just about doubled in the last 30 years but has about 20 times more employees.

[TomC]

Originally Posted by jbolty

fact. the problem is always too much government. It grows then needs to find things to do to justify it and in the meantime success of a government program is measured by the budget, not the results. The full time year round population of the town of moultonboro has just about doubled in the last 30 years but has about 20 times more employees.

that's outrageous!

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by jbolty

fact. the problem is always too much government. It grows then needs to find things to do to justify it and in the meantime success of a government program is measured by the budget, not the results. The full time year round population of the town of moultonboro has just about doubled in the last 30 years but has about 20 times more employees.

Subsidies.
Staying with the lake.
Just the two subsidies of Dam Maintenance and CB Mitigation seems like a small sum ~ $18 million. But if removed, then the dams would need to be breached. Not something the legislators are willing to support. Shifting it to a boat fee would be about $180 per registration. Not something that legislators are willing to support.

So those with countless other small subsidies go into the annual budget to be raised through general taxation.