How about those property taxes?

[Weirs guy]

Originally Posted by Weekend Pundit

I've seen plenty of school systems in a number of states with very high per student spending that have very poor performance. That shows that they're spending it unwisely. It's no different here in New Hampshire.

See, they just need a better education!

I posted hastily and worded my thoughts terribly, and at the risk of not getting too much off topic, my point was when we move our children from one school district to another the curriculum should be the same. Something as important as education shouldn't be left up to local funding (I understand that the parents choice dictates whether the child goes to a "good" school or a "bad" school, but isn't that punishing the child who has no choice?). Could Franklin spend wiser (the city has a new ladder/fire truck that has a boom bigger then any building north of Manchester and a brand new police station with lots of neat new things to lock up the little delinquents who don't stay in school, cause their educations sub standard...)? Absolutely. Should the children of those not wise enough to know better be punished?

I agree with you, it all comes back to spending tax dollars WISELY.

[Rose]

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

[vrrooom]

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

[jeffk]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

I would expect 5% fluctuations to occur.

What happens when your neighbor's cottage gets torn down, the lot split in two, and two McMansions get built in the place of one residence?

This apparently hasn't happened to you, but it's quietly happening elsewhere.

Unforeseen, it would throw a monkey wrench into your carefully considered lakeside retirement plans, and only then one might see the unfairness built into in this system. Friends have told me of McMansions being torn down to be replaced with $4M McMansions (in another state).

You've suggested that you would sell your Winnipesaukee home if your retirement plans didn't work out. Would you be as satisfied retired in Arizona?

I'm hearing that it's a "dry" heat.

So my 2 neighbors rebuild their $1 million houses into McMansions worth, for example, $2.5 million. My property value, by virtue of being in such illustrious company, goes to $1.75 million. My wealth just increased by 3/4 of a million dollars off the sweat of my neighbor’s brow. That’s so unfair!

Now my property tax has also gone up so I face some choices.

If, as you propose, I’ve had my head in the lake for the last 30 years or more, then I would be totally unprepared for such an occurrence and would need to cash in my $1.75 million house and move off the lake and spend the rest of my life bereaving my loss. BTW, for anyone that doesn’t realize lake property escalates in value and that means your property taxes are going to go up; It will be winter soon. It’s going to get very cold. Buy yourself a warm coat, gloves, and a hat.

Maybe I’m not quite as obtuse as you think and the property tax increase is painful but manageable, if I watch my spending. However I really like to travel and eat at fine restaurants. If I keep the house and pay the additional property tax I’ll need to give some of that up. Huummmm????? OK, I’ve decided to sell and get my $1.75 million and salve my pain by vacationing in Italy, Canada, France, Lake Tahoe, Martha’s Vineyard, and other wonderful places. And OH, the food. Yummmm. I visit the lake from time to time, usually I rent for a month every summer, and sometimes have a sense of loss. But did I mention the food? And the Virgin Islands??

Maybe I decide, regrettably, to sell my non lake home, which I have always planned I might have to (see, I’m getting smarter all the time). This provides ample money to cover my property taxes for the foreseeable future and now I can upgrade the lake house a bit too. I really regret having to sell my other house. No wait; I wanted the lake house so I guess I’m happy. This is getting sooo confusing.

Or, maybe I didn’t plan my retirement on a razor’s edge and I can absorb the tax increase without significant pain. I get to have it all. I’m deliriously happy. Isn’t that how life is supposed to be? I have it right here, it’s a little golden form. One GUARANTEE to a 100% SATISFIED life, no planning or contribution required. No bumps in the road or chop on the lake. Just sit back and enjoy. What?? No one else got one of these guarantees?? THAT’S why I’m so confused.

By the way, you imply that I’m a hypocrite by stating that when it happens to me ONLY THEN will I realize the unfairness of the property tax system and change my views. I am not that shallow.

In life, stuff happens; some of it not very pleasant. Stuff is then called something else. Some of it has happened to me, as I am sure to most people. I didn’t ask for special treatment when it did because I had planned for up and downs. I picked myself, dusted myself off and got on with it.

I point out a very significant fact. Almost everyone that struggles with high property taxes does so because they have a valuable property. They are not destitute. They have a favorable financial situation. No one has a guarantee to a house, let alone a valuable lake property. Neither do they have a guarantee to a car, or nice clothes. Gas prices have doubled in the past 13 years. Shouldn't someone be buying us gas?

I’ve been to Arizona, very flat for the most part, kind of boring. My wife doesn’t like hot climates so I guess we won’t go there, thanks. But there are LOTS of New Hampshire towns that are nice to live in. If I sold the lake house I’d be able to afford a VERY nice place almost anywhere else. Guess I’ll stay here. Unless things change. Somehow they usually do.

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by jeffk

Gas prices have doubled in the past 13 years. Shouldn't someone be buying us gas?

I wish...

[Pineedles]

jeffk,

Stuff happens and you seem to have a plan for any eventuality. I read through your post twice, just to be sure I understood your mindset. Problem is, that not everybody is willing to lose the lake house they have inherited and move, as well as some can't sell because of multiple owners. You sound like YOUR future is set. I wish mine and others were so concrete.

[Eki]

I have been trying to read this and stay quiet... but that is not possible...

I mentioned it in previous threads, and I'll say it again...

Those reports on NH tax burden are so [full of it].

We got fed up with NH taxes. we were payng $15000/year.
We moved to Scottsdale, AZ, have been here for a year, and our RE tax bill is $400/year for like valued property. Yes, thats $400 with 2 zero's.

I worked in MASS, actually still do, and so I paid an extra $180/yr in income tax to AZ... big whoop.

what's left?

sales tax ... wow, I would have to go on quite the spending spree, to make up $14000 in sales tax

The point I am trying to make is; if you own property of any significant value in NH ... you are taking it up the poop shute paying the NH taxes.

if you have a 6 digit income ... kewl for you... pay those taxes. But when you retire, I hope the market was good to you, because if your income falls from 6 digites to 4 digits - there goes your savings, right into the hands of the 30 or 40 people who actually show up to vote on how to spend it.

[Dickie B from HB]

Hooray for you Eki-

You made the point that I was making in my earlier posts. Property owners in NH are getting reamed.

If Jeff and all the others are so happy about paying exhorbitant RE taxes, then I say that they are welcome to them. But we both know that there are better solutions.

DB

[jeffk]

Originally Posted by Dickie B from HB

If Jeff and all the others are so happy about paying exhorbitant RE taxes, then I say that they are welcome to them. But we both know that there are better solutions.

DB

I wasn't going to respond to Eki because the information doesn't make sense and I didn't want to get into a messy debate. I want to make VERY CLEAR that I am not doubting EKi's tax bill. Instead I am pointing out that it is not in sync with publicly available information. Either the property is under assessed or we are comparing Arizona oranges to New Hampshire apples.

Here is a pointer to the Scottsdale, Arizona web site RE property taxes. http://www.scottsdaleaz.gov/taxes/realproptax.asp

Here is the pertinent info:
Residential: A home with an Assessor’s full cash value of $100,000 is multiplied by the assessment ratio to determine the assessed value. The residential assessment ratio is 10%, so the assessed value would be $10,000. Applying the current rate of $8.4766 per $100 of assessed value, the approximate tax would be $847.66 based on $8.4766 x ($10,000 / $100).

In summary, Scottsdale says it gets about $850 tax on a $100,000 house.

If Eki is only paying $400 then the property value must be less than $50,000 if a fair assessment was done. A property worth $50,000 would be taxed in the ball park of $340 in Moultonborough (2006 rate $6.71 per $1000). In Laconia the tax would be about $780 ($15.51 per $1000). This is hardly an exorbitant difference, and my town is actually a better deal. The NH median tax rate for 2006 is about $17.41 per $1000 for a tax of $870. The highest tax in NH would be $1950 in Newport which has a $38.93 per $1000 tax rate (OUCH). I wouldn't want to live in Newport.

In addition, Arizona's sales tax is about 8% and income tax goes from about 2.6% to 4.6% depending on what bracket you're in. I don't know about Arizona's dividend taxes, capital gains tax, and estate taxes, none of which apply in New Hampshire.

As to working in Massachusetts and paying their state income tax, I do as well. Mass doesn't allow an offset for NH property taxes even they are now collected at the state level. Why not? They have a good deal and don't want to give it up. They would probably be very unhappy to lose the income from all the NH residents if we did institute a state income tax. However, these are Mass taxes, not NH taxes. By working in Mass you get the worst of both worlds. However, I would venture to guess that most NH people do not work out of state and do not pay state income tax.

So, overall it seems that the more money you earn and the more you purchase the less benefit you get from Arizona's "better" property tax.

[Irish mist]

Good job jeffk exposing such nonesense. I too did no want to waste any time on such fiction......but the internet is a wonderful thing, and with the right tools it's easy these days to track down the "real" stats, and state your case.
________
Yamaha xv920

[Pineedles]

Point is though, that there are good people that are losing their land. You may be rich and can accomodate the issue of increased taxes, but others feel helpless and want us to know that simple people are being forced off their land!

[Irish mist]

We all understand Pineedles that there are isues......but using "fiction" to get your point across is not the proper way to win people over to your side. There are vested interests that want and income tax, sales tax, or both, and they will use any means to push that agenda. NH is a low-tax state to live in for most of her residents.....that's a fact.

One answer to the property tax issue is for NH state government to set up more exemptions for the elderly like they do in Texas & Florida, and perhaps some kind of homested act for residents. What we should not do is change the whole tax strcture of the state.

This thread has been a case study in why I'm comfortable still using the property tax as the main source of income in NH. At least we can hold our local elected officals to account if we want to change things. Once Concord gets an income or sales tax we will never be able to control spending.
________
RELIANT

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by Pineedles

Point is though, that there are good people that are losing their land. You may be rich and can accomodate the issue of increased taxes, but others feel helpless and want us to know that simple people are being forced off their land!

Point is:

Depends on what the definition of is, is...

You're a nice person; but if you spend the day in a bathing suit on Weirs Beach in January and the air temp is 20 below zero F, do not expect me to feel sorry for you should you experience frostbite.

Dress appropriately for the season's climate.

Property owners need to do likewise, financial climate-wise.

Plan your financial future or endure the consequences.

Is/was your pay the same as your parent's or grand parent's?

Did you pay the same as they did when you purchased a home?

Times change and expenses increase. Welcome to a capitalistic country.

People always seem to be happy when their income increases and unhappy when their expenses increase. Remember, your expenses are someone's income and your income is someone's expenses.

Life is choices and challenges...

[Ropetow]

Originally Posted by vrrooom

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

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

[jeffk]

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

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

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

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

[Pineedles]

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

[tis]

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


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

[Weirs guy]

Property taxes are great for this reason:

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

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

[Rag Top Daze]

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

[Pineedles]

Originally Posted by Rag Top Daze

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

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

Delaware:

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

Rhode Island:

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


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

[phoenix]

real comparison is what a home is worth and what the taxes are since each state and locality taxes at a different % of real value. We live in Phoenix and the taxes on a 400K home are about 2000-3000. In moultonboro taxes on a million house would be about 7000-8000 or so. In Laconia it might be twice that

[vrrooom]

One of the reasons we need to be villigant about taxes (state) in NH is that our system of state legislators who work little time and are hardly paid. Just imagine if there was a huge pool of money, from an income tax or sales tax avaialble in Concord. Lobbists would make appointments, dinners, schedule golf outings, journeys to Florida in the winter to see new design fire hydrants on the beach (I actually read of that one in the Plain Dealer) creating plenty to do, plenty to spend . Well if the legislatari are so busy spending the states (not yours anymore) money, they need to be compensated. Soon they become full time, spending more and more, and are well paid (see the outrageous raises recently handed to staff if you want to get an idea of the compensation level the legislatari are seeking.) Money at the state level is sometimes described as honey which draws bees to help spend it. I have other visions of this.

[lakershaker]

Originally Posted by Rag Top Daze

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

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

[Mr. V]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Pineedles]

LAKERSHAKER

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

[Lucky2Bhere]

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

[jrc]

Originally Posted by Mr. V

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

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

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

[Deepwaters]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[jeffk]

Originally Posted by jrc

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

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

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

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

[idigtractors]

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

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

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

[Lucky2Bhere]

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

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

[ITD]

Originally Posted by idigtractors

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

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

[Irish mist]

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

[jeffk]

Originally Posted by Mr. V

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by idigtractors

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

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

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

[AC2717]

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

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

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

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by jeffk

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

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

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

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



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

[Ropetow]

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

[Weirs guy]

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

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

Sound fair now?

[ossipeeboater]

Originally Posted by Weirs guy

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

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

Sound fair now?

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

[Rattlesnake Guy]

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

[Mr. V]

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

A bit hoary, a bit Marxist, but still worth thinking about.

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by AC2717

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

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

[Rattlesnake Guy]

Originally Posted by jeffk

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

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

[tis]

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

[jeffk]

Originally Posted by Rattlesnake Guy

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

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

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

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

[tis]

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

[tis]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I hope this goes around THE USA at least 100 time

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

[wifi]

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


Be glad its still "1"


-Rich

[vrrooom]

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

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

[Little Bear]

Sometimes politicians, journalists and others exclaim; "It's just a tax cut for the rich!" and it is just accepted to be fact, without questioning it. But what does that really mean?

Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100.

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go
something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1...
The sixth would pay $3...
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until on day, the owner threw them a curve.

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20." Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," (5% discount) declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10 out of the $20" (50% discount)

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.

In fact, they might start drinking overseas.

Nicely put, Professor!

[Rattlesnake Guy]

Heard a statistic yesterday that the cost per person for health care in north east is $6400. This is with it being controlled by private industry in a competitive environment. Lets say 300 million Americans go onto the Government system being proposed, that is almost 2 trillion dollars per year. I am trying to imagine a 2 trillion dollar Washington program that is anything like the VA system they run now. Please don't save us money we can't afford in many ways.

[Weirs guy]

Originally Posted by vrrooom

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

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

While I agree wholeheartedly with you, I look at it this way. As long as rich white men are in charge then English will be our language. As long as my kids speak-a-da-english and more and more of other peoples kids speak Spanish, or ebonics, or whatever, the rich white men in charge will hire my kids to work for them!

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Little Bear

Sometimes politicians, journalists and others exclaim; "It's just a tax cut for the rich!" and it is just accepted to be fact, without questioning it. But what does that really mean?

Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100.

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go
something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1...
The sixth would pay $3...
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until on day, the owner threw them a curve.

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20." Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," (5% discount) declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10 out of the $20" (50% discount)

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.

In fact, they might start drinking overseas.

Nicely put, Professor!

Great example, the only problem I have with it is it doesn't take in account the "Earned Income Credit" which gives money to the first four people that they never paid in, it's welfare and vote buying. Figure that one out.

Also I can't agree with the premise of the statement "The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction.".
Sure they get a bigger amount returned to them, but they pay in a much larger amount to begin with. This attempt to redistribute wealth is why many high income people never become "rich". Not complaining here, but it really erks me to hear these liberal whiners cry class warfare when many of them have never had a real job in their whole life.

[fatlazyless]

It's anyone's guess but it's my hunch that the falling home selling prices will not translate into falling assessed values and lower property taxes.

In the past three years Meredith has built a new large police station and community center. In the past three years my property taxes have gone from 2800 to 8200 dollars.


At least I have something big to show for my increased taxes, indirectly or something! It's better for the community to benefit than for the individual! ...say what?

[ITD]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

It's anyone's guess but it's my hunch that the falling home selling prices will not translate into falling assessed values and lower property taxes.

In the past three years Meredith has built a new large police station and community center. In the past three years my property taxes have gone from 2800 to 8200 dollars.


At least I have something big to show for my increased taxes, indirectly or something! It's better for the community to benefit than for the individual! ...say what?

Nope, your taxes won't go down Less, the assessment may go down but the rate will go up to compensate, just as when everyones assessment goes up the rate goes down to keep the levy the same. The problem isn't property values rising or falling, it's the spending.

[Irish mist]

The spending will never stop......the special interests have found a home in the school systems & municipal offices in the towns & villages all over the region. We have 50 million dollar schools going up, new police stations, new fire stations.....new this & that & everything.

Back in the day......folks in this region knew how to milk a buck.....now it's a free-for-all ! The political "Left" has figured out how to position themselves in money generating areas of our small towns & cities and gather enough votes to create small kingdoms where they drain the taxpayers to fund pensions & benefits that would make even the best paid managers in the private sector green with envy !
________
SUZUKI BOULEVARD C109R HISTORY

[Rattlesnake Guy]

Question:
I keep getting conflicting answers to this question. I am hoping for a decisive answer here.

These are fictitious numbers for my example.

If Mass has an 8 percent income tax and NH has a 6 percent income tax, which of these is true if I work in Mass and live in NH.

A) Mass gets 8% and NH gets 0%
B) NH Gets 6% and Mass gets 2%
C) Other

Thanks

[fatlazyless]

Neighboring state tax reciprocity, as exists between some states, does not exist between New Hampshire and Massachusetts since New Hampshire has no state income tax so this is a mute issue. If New Hampshire ever gives itself a state income tax, the reciprocity agreement would be an issue as the two states both want to do what best for themselves.

Massachusetts residents are already supporting the local NH mountain and waterfront towns with their property taxes on expensive vacation homes, and there's probably not too many Mass residents working in NH so for Massachusetts a reciprocity agreement would be a money loser. Why would Mass ever agree to that?

If the 'Old Man' can fall down and get smashed into pebbles, then ditto on long-time New Hampshire tax policy! Ax the view tax!

[Windrider]

Fatlazyless, it's also a moot issue.

[MJM]

Originally Posted by idigtractors

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

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

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

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

[JayDV]

I believe that None of the above is correct. The employee will fill out W-9 or the equivalent, to identify the withholding rate for each state. At the tax filing time all numbers will true up.

The math would be:

Employer state collects tax and resident state collects tax. However, if there is a reciprocity between the states then the resident state would allow a credit for tax "X" paid to other "non-res" state(s) for "Y" dollars of income.

In the event of non-reciprocity (I'm not positive here) I think you would allocate earnings by state so therefore, employer state would have earnings and the tax would be collected and subsequently reported via non-resident calculation. Resident state would have no income allocated and therefore no tax liability.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by MJM

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

Just stumbled upon this quote this morning...

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

[jrc]

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

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

[MJM]

Originally Posted by jrc

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

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

[B&D]

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