2023 Meredith Tax Rate & Bills Coming Today

[AC2717]

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

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

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

[Biggd]

Originally Posted by AC2717

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

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

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

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

[LIforrelaxin]

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

Examples

property tax -- Burden lies solely with the home owner

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

Sales Tax -- effects everyone regardless of ownership and residency

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

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

[Biggd]

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

[ishoot308]

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

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

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

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

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

Dan

[thinkxingu]

Originally Posted by ishoot308

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

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

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

Dan

There's something...demoralizing about "everyday" taxes. We're in Florida for the week, and EVERYTHING is taxed—food, products, admissions, etc.—and it's awful.

Sent from my SM-S911U using Tapatalk

[ishoot308]

Originally Posted by thinkxingu

There's something...demoralizing about "everyday" taxes. We're in Florida for the week, and EVERYTHING is taxed—food, products, admissions, etc.—and it's awful.

Sent from my SM-S911U using Tapatalk

Exactly Think!…and why would us Granite Staters want “awful” in NH?….we don’t!

Dan

[John Mercier]

Well, to return to constitutionalism, they are going to have to decide what taxes get raised. $500M a year doesn't just appear out of thin air.

If they decide to get rid of SWEPT, so the return to donor towns doesn't happen... the sum would be nearly double.

Getting a billion dollars out of our current sales and income tax regime would transform life in NH in unimaginable ways.

The overall per capita would not change... the overall sum wouldn't change... just the means of reaching the overall sum.

[Chimi]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Well, to return to constitutionalism, they are going to have to decide what taxes get raised. $500M a year doesn't just appear out of thin air.

If they decide to get rid of SWEPT, so the return to donor towns doesn't happen... the sum would be nearly double.

Getting a billion dollars out of our current sales and income tax regime would transform life in NH in unimaginable ways.

The overall per capita would not change... the overall sum wouldn't change... just the means of reaching the overall sum.

Casinos would be a good place to start. Think of all the money that people now spend at out of state casinos.

[Descant]

The trend more and more is to rely on taxes when we want to buy something big. Not so long ago, if folks wanted something they got together and raised the money from those who were interested. Many fire trucks have been paid for by Ham and bean suppers. Locally, we replace fire equipment every 15 years or so. "It's past its useful life" But some other town buys it at salvage, fixes it up and is very proud of the truck and the volunteers who made it possible. Reputedly, the top public high school in the state is the Academy of Science and Design in Nashua. No band, no varsity sports. They teach languages (14 last I heard) with Rosetta Stone and native speakers who are hired part time. And when Town meeting starts to get frugal, the school boards respond by saying, "OK. We'll eliminate football" and they get whatever they want. There are strong lobbies out there, and they aren't pushing for better academics.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Descant

The trend more and more is to rely on taxes when we want to buy something big. Not so long ago, if folks wanted something they got together and raised the money from those who were interested. Many fire trucks have been paid for by Ham and bean suppers. Locally, we replace fire equipment every 15 years or so. "It's past its useful life" But some other town buys it at salvage, fixes it up and is very proud of the truck and the volunteers who made it possible. Reputedly, the top public high school in the state is the Academy of Science and Design in Nashua. No band, no varsity sports. They teach languages (14 last I heard) with Rosetta Stone and native speakers who are hired part time. And when Town meeting starts to get frugal, the school boards respond by saying, "OK. We'll eliminate football" and they get whatever they want. There are strong lobbies out there, and they aren't pushing for better academics.

This true. But none of what you've brought up is included in State mandates to local districts. We have a mandate to teach five (?) credits of a second language (English is the State Official Language), but do not have to employee a teacher(s) for more than that one additional language.
The State cannot be expected to pay for band or sports teams. Only its mandates.

The Legislature seems to think that if it makes a mandate, but doesn't call it part of education, that it doesn't have to pay for it at the State level.
This is either a complete competency failure of our legislators to understand the NH Constitution, or just a complete refusal to keep their Oath to the NH Constitution.
We have seen this for a long time on lots of issues... this one just gets the most media traction as it impacts such a large portion of the mechanism by which taxes are raised to reach what all those legislators want.

How would structure a big ticket sales tax? Would it raise enough money without shifting purchases to other States? And what would be the odds of new tax taking hold in NH?

[Descant]

My friends in the legislature are always aware of "Article 28-a" issues when working on new legislation. The catch 22 is that 28-a was passed in the early 80's as I recall. Anything that was mandated prior to that is grandfathered and there is some loose interpretation of what that means. To my knowledge, no school district or town has taken the issue to court. The issues around schools all came from "cherish" not 28-a as far as I can tell.

Good news: I believe this is the last year for the interest and dividends income tax which is being phased out, unless the legislature changes their mind in the 2024 session.

I foresee some juggling on the Rooms and Meals tax which is higher than surrounding states, but appears to not have a negative impact on tourism. Nevertheless, I think this is our biggest "sales tax" which Concord denies because it is not a "general" sales tax. As Gov. Thompson said "Low spending means low taxes".

Apologies to the OP for getting away from Meredith taxes. I'll try to behave myself moving forward.

[John Mercier]

I believe the Court focused on ''duty''; since the Legislature had already taken upon itself to set standards and mandates prior to the 1982 adoption of Part First Article 28-a

The Legislature created the State Board of Education in 1919, and empowered it with the ''management and supervision of all public schools''

The adoption of Article 28-a in 1982 only grandfathered programs that were not changed in any way.
There is no educational mandate that has not come after or been modified since that time.

Part First Article 28-a was add just after Governor Thomson. His ''Low spending'' was to move it off the State budget and place it locally; and that wasn't just education. Before the adoption of that article, doing so was completely constitutional. Had it been taken the ''Low spending'' comes from not mandating programs, Article 28-a would not exist today.

This last round had a lot of Article 28-a in it. Edelblut argued that though the State mandated - and did not pay for several things - he felt that those were not within the adequate education definition. I think the judge was amazed that our Education Commissioner had no clue that a mandate had to be paid for regardless of how it is ''defined''.

They got themselves caught on capping the grants by arguing that no inflation had occurred - seems the lawyer had a bad habit of screaming about the ''Biden Inflation'' on Facebook... and then making a statement that no inflation had occurred.

Then they got caught trying to explain how any of the State taxation is not redistributed with some donor towns and some receiver towns. I seem to remember reading the transcript asking if the money from business in a certain town are only return to that town rather than distributed to other towns.

By the way, that was a suggestion that I placed into effect. State Senator Gallus took it up before the study committee determined the north country would see a strong drop in their share of the proceeds.

The size of our State government is directly relate to the legislators... even now the LSRs have a whole bunch of mandates and modifications they want to make on education and other factors.

Somehow I doubt they will come to the conclusion to just simplify the mandates. Just like the local boards add the ''extras'' because of emotion, the Legislature is not immune.

How they raise the money - even though the same overall amount will actually be spent - will be interesting.

[John Mercier]

We have casinos.
I live in Belmont. The casino is right down the road.

Even the Lottery, which has its revenue added into the State Adequacy Grants, doesn't produce significant amounts of money when the overall picture is taken into consideration.

And the State would only derive revenues, as it does now, from food sales.

[Descant]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

And the State would only derive revenues, as it does now, from food sales.

Past proposals (all failed) included huge licensing fees and a lot more hotel/room tax revenue projections. However, nobody talked about increased administrative costs, policing, other municipal services that come out of a town budget.
NH still suffers from newbies who want to change what is working well instead of learning from our experience.

[John Mercier]

They failed because they failed to see two issues.
One, the casinos already exist... they just don't have the budgets to spend a lot on increasing marketing because we don't have ''whales'' - we have small time retail players that cost more to service.

The second issue is that constitutionally, the State would need legislation that is constitutional. The proponents of casinos were not willing to go in that direction.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

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

Examples

property tax -- Burden lies solely with the home owner

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

Sales Tax -- effects everyone regardless of ownership and residency

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

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

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

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

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

[Irish mist]

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

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

Examples

property tax -- Burden lies solely with the home owner

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

Sales Tax -- effects everyone regardless of ownership and residency

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

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

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

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

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

[tis]

Originally Posted by Irish mist

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

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

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

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

[John Mercier]

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

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

[tummyman]

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

[Winilyme]

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

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

[John Mercier]

You are getting capital gains on your property.

Real Estate professionals say location! location! location!

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

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

[jeffk]

Originally Posted by Winilyme

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

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

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

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

[Chimi]

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

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

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Chimi

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

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

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

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

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

[Winilyme]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

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

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

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

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

It lacks humanity.

[Sue Doe-Nym]

Originally Posted by Winilyme

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

It lacks humanity.

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

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Sue Doe-Nym

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[jeffk]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[tis]

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

[Major]

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

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

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

[Garcia]

Originally Posted by Major

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

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

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

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

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

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

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Winilyme

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

It lacks humanity.

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

[Winilyme]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

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

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

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

[John Mercier]

If the average base assessment was 63% increase, and your assessment was a 97% increase, then your taxes should have gone to $17.6K

If you paid half of the $13.1K in July, roughly $6550, your current bill would be for the remaining $11K

Your annual taxes would be $17.6K

The July is an estimate base on previous assessment and budget.

Your new annual tax would be $17.6K, old $13.1K, with an actual increase of $4.5K

Not that this should make you feel better... but that is the math.

Barring a new assessment, a failure of the Legislature to fix the State ED, or some new expenditure at the town/county that is extraordinary... the July bill should be about $8.8K

The property would be assessed around $1.76M

[Winilyme]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

If the average base assessment was 63% increase, and your assessment was a 97% increase, then your taxes should have gone to $17.6K

If you paid half of the $13.1K in July, roughly $6550, your current bill would be for the remaining $11K

Your annual taxes would be $17.6K

The July is an estimate base on previous assessment and budget.

Your new annual tax would be $17.6K, old $13.1K, with an actual increase of $4.5K

Not that this should make you feel better... but that is the math.

Barring a new assessment, a failure of the Legislature to fix the State ED, or some new expenditure at the town/county that is extraordinary... the July bill should be about $8.8K

The property would be assessed around $1.76M

Well, if that’s the math then, yes, you have made me feel at least a little bit better, John. Thanks.

[tis]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

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

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

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

[John Mercier]

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

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

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

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

The higher sum.

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

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

[ApS]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

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

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

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

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

The higher sum.

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

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

NH DRA has changed all this for future payments:

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

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

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

[Major]

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

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

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

[John Mercier]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[tis]

Originally Posted by Major

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

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

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

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

[Biggd]

Originally Posted by tis

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

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

[tis]

Originally Posted by Biggd

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

It's such fun to complain about it.

[Biggd]

Originally Posted by tis

It's such fun to complain about it.

But, it very rarely makes a difference.

[tis]

Originally Posted by Biggd

But, it very rarely makes a difference.

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

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by tis

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

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

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

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

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