Low NH Tax Burden

Seaplane Pilot · 02-25-2007, 08:42 AM

According to this article on MSN, NH ranks 39 out of 50 states for the lowest overall tax burden.

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com...es.aspx?page=2

NH has the 2nd highest property tax as % of home value and contrary to popular belief, does have an income tax on interest and dividends. This system is bad for some, good for others with higher earned income. I say leave it the way it is, because if they start messing with the system it will only get worse. Taxes will not drop.

phoenix · 02-25-2007, 08:56 AM

i agree with you even though as a non resident but water front home owner i get the biggest bite of the apple. I think that JRC said it best" the only fair tax is the one that taxes someone else" .There is a lot of talk in Concord about needing more revenue to respond to the court issue with education( and other deparments) and when i see some legisaltors saying that they should put an additional special tax on out of state home owners i say JRC is right. Pressure needs to be on the legislature to keep cost down.

boathousegirl · 02-25-2007, 02:52 PM

NH ranks 39 out of 50??? Please don't get me started. $23,000 in real estate taxes. Let's talk apples to apples!

fatlazyless · 02-26-2007, 07:26 AM

Your $23000. is paying for the NH Advantage of no income tax-no sales tax so when Senator Judd Gregg had a $853,492. Powerball win on 10/20/05, he got to pay zero to New Hampshire.

Is this system based on one's ability to pay? How did the NH Advantage help the NH Republicans in the last election? What will happen in the next election?

MJM · 02-26-2007, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boathousegirl

NH ranks 39 out of 50??? Please don't get me started. $23,000 in real estate taxes. Let's talk apples to apples!

Just curious - how is it not apples to apples? Are you saying other taxes aren't included that should be (I was wondering about auto registrations, for example). $23,000 in property taxes is very high indeed, but if you're not also paying income tax, that needs to be factored in.

Also, am I reading the chart correctly? The fifth column means we are 2nd to lowest in overall taxation when Federal is not included? Awesome!

Seaplane Pilot · 02-26-2007, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boathousegirl

NH ranks 39 out of 50??? Please don't get me started. $23,000 in real estate taxes. Let's talk apples to apples!

As the article states, NH has the second highest property taxes in the nation, next to NJ, but ranks 39th in total tax burden. On the other hand, Taxachusetts ranks 6th from the top. Why would anyone want to live there and pay these outrageous taxes to the hacks on Beacon Hill? Give me NH any day - Live Free or Die!

lakershaker · 02-26-2007, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

As the article states, NH has the second highest property taxes in the nation, next to NJ, but ranks 39th in total tax burden. On the other hand, Taxachusetts ranks 6th from the top. Why would anyone want to live there and pay these outrageous taxes to the hacks on Beacon Hill? Give me NH any day - Live Free or Die!

I agree - I just wish I could move to NH full-time. But in the meantime, I get to be a resident of CT (which is ranked #1 - a contest I'd prefer not to win), but also get to pay the property tax of NH...

SIKSUKR · 02-26-2007, 11:31 AM

Ok,what am I missing here?How can NH have the 49th ranked state and local tax,but rank 39th when combined with federal.Aren't fedaral taxes the same for every state?I thought Federal income tax was a bigger % as the income level rose so with NH having a lower income level than most,what would explain the desparity?

gtxrider · 02-26-2007, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boathousegirl

NH ranks 39 out of 50??? Please don't get me started. $23,000 in real estate taxes. Let's talk apples to apples!

We need to understand the Location and Value of the Property. Look at the Bahr Estate he pays quite a bit in taxes but look at the place. If you pay $$$$$ on a 20'x20' cabin than there may be reason to complain.

Dave R · 02-26-2007, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

Ok,what am I missing here?How can NH have the 49th ranked state and local tax,but rank 39th when combined with federal.Aren't fedaral taxes the same for every state?I thought Federal income tax was a bigger % as the income level rose so with NH having a lower income level than most,what would explain the desparity?

Perhaps it's because you don't get the state income tax deduction on schedule A if you don't pay state income tax. This makes the federal tax higher, percentage wise, for NH residents/workers who itemize deductions.

Lakegeezer · 02-26-2007, 11:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

Ok,what am I missing here?How can NH have the 49th ranked state and local tax,but rank 39th when combined with federal.Aren't fedaral taxes the same for every state?I thought Federal income tax was a bigger % as the income level rose so with NH having a lower income level than most,what would explain the desparity?

Where did you see that NH had a lower income level than most. In 2005, it ranked 6'th at http://www.governing.com/gpp/2005/nh.htm

Population (rank):1,235,786 (41)
Average per capita income (rank): $34,702 (6)
Total state spending (rank): $4,822,727,000 (44)
Spending per capita (rank): $3,786 (39)

In a 2/27 Cnn/ Money article http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortu...x.html?cnn=yes
Average median household income rank: 3
Average median household income 03-05 $58,223
Millionaires, 06: 26,298
Millionaires per 1000 households: 32.8

The NH tax advantage attracts wealth, which may be gifted people or "gifted" people (talent or inheritance). Its the wealth of talent (innovation, energy, drive, leadership, insight, spunk, etc...) that makes NH a special place. Changing the tax laws would change the lure of NH and over a generation (or maybe faster), lower the level in the talent pool. Before changing the tax laws, there should be a long debate over why NH has the ranking it does and what the impact would be if the ranking was more proportional to the state's size.

ITD · 02-26-2007, 11:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

Your $23000. is paying for the NH Advantage of no income tax-no sales tax so when Senator Judd Gregg had a $853,492. Powerball win on 10/20/05, he got to pay zero to New Hampshire.

Is this system based on one's ability to pay? How did the NH Advantage help the NH Republicans in the last election? What will happen in the next election?

I really have to hand it to you FLL you stay right on message.

Actually except for a few exceptions the property tax is probably one of the best systems to extract money out of people based on the ability to pay. You won't see any paupers getting wacked with a $23,000 property tax bill. The person who owns a property like this may not like paying that bill, but they would certainly have the means to pay it, if not, then they really can't afford the property in the first place.

SIKSUKR · 02-27-2007, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

Where did you see that NH had a lower income level than most. In 2005, it ranked 6'th at http://www.governing.com/gpp/2005/nh.htm

Population (rank):1,235,786 (41)
Average per capita income (rank): $34,702 (6)
Total state spending (rank): $4,822,727,000 (44)
Spending per capita (rank): $3,786 (39)

I guess I missed that LG thanks.So does this account for the difference I talked about in my last post?

SIKSUKR · 02-27-2007, 02:23 PM

So I guess I had it exactly backwards.The overall rank went to 39 because the per capita income in NH is much higher than most states.That's the only way it could happen from how I understand it now.

nj2nh · 02-27-2007, 03:55 PM

Just want to make a quick observation about those people with summer property being able to pay for it. Au contraire! I have heard of many families who cannot afford the taxes on their summer homes because they inherited them from parents who bought them 50, 60, 70 years ago when the prices were much more affordable to the average Joe. Those same people couldn't buy their own properties now and are having trouble paying the taxes.

So, that one statement about affording property taxes while true for some isn't true for everyone. Many of those old camps and properties are being sold because the families (siblings, mostly) can't afford to keep them anymore. I would guess that that is why all those lovely McMansions are going up.

I live in Jersey (by way of Taxachusetts in my youth). My husband and I bought our home in 1991. We joke that we should sell it because we have pretty much doubled our investment, but then we would have to live in the shed out back because we couldn't afford to buy anything else. We couldn't even afford to buy our own house now especially because we are self employed and pay for our own miserable health insurance.

Ah, sad, very very sad.

Jersey Girl

Woodsy · 02-27-2007, 04:25 PM

Its pretty simple.... supply and demand. When there is a large demand for property, the value of said property increases exponentially. You have more people with more money ready, willing and eager to pay for thier piece of the pie... and the bidding war begins!

It wouldn't matter if NH had a sales or income tax, property taxes would have increased exponetially regardless. Especially when most property was way undervalued for tax purposes. Once the government figured that out the fun began. The only difference is that the starting point of the property tax increase MIGHT have been a bit lower...

Leave well enough alone.... the current tax system works just fine!

Woodsy

bobio · 03-04-2007, 07:12 PM

Well I have read most every angle to this matter now. I have to add my two cents.
When property tax is so high middle class neighborhoods do not get rejuvinated and become run down. Local investors do not buy property and renovate them. The rental market suffers because no one wants to invest and have to deal with high tax burdens. Large businesses do not even think about locating there and potential jobs are lost.
When I look around central N.H. (laconia, franklin, tilton areas) I see a huge inventory of potential investment property, most in need of updating. What I don't see is investors buying and doing the work. I believe that high taxes and the lack of good paying jobs have something to do with this.

Grant · 03-04-2007, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Leave well enough alone.... the current tax system works just fine!

Woodsy

When the real estate tax system forces out folks who've been here for 30, 40, 50, 60+ years, it ain't working fine.

Time for an income tax and sales tax, folks. Hate to say it, but otherwise you're catering to the top of the top on the real estate side, and continuing a lame status quo with the sales and income tax that ignores the current demographics of state. I will sit back and await the flames from the economists of the board...

secondcurve · 03-04-2007, 08:51 PM

Grant:

I don't disagree with your position. Obviously, if one tax source is relied on almost exclusively, there will be inequities. A new broad based tax system is the only way to address the present situation in NH. Unfortunately, it will create a whole new set of winners and losers. Hence, the difficulty in getting any changes passed.

Grant · 03-04-2007, 08:53 PM

Yep -- same with the entire country, unfortunately. We ain't alone in the Granite State. Just hard to see it here...

secondcurve · 03-05-2007, 06:44 AM

Goodsk8s:

I don't think anyone disputes the fact that NH's tax burden is low. It is very low, so low in act that it probably can't be sustained, but that is another discussion.

The issue that Grant and others have raised is that the majority of taxes to run the state fall heavily on one class of citizens, namely the home owner. I know all the arguments, such as renters pay their ahre of real estate taxes through their rental payments, etc. However, the fact of the matter is that the home owners IS carrying the ball in NH.

Now, I have teased Faylazyless about his complaints regarding the tax on his Meridith cottage and the fact of the matter is that if he has a healthy income he is better off in low tax burden NH. However, if he is retired, he may be paying more than his fair share. Like stock investments, tax revenues should be diversified and in NH this clearly isn't the case.

TomC · 03-05-2007, 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by secondcurve

Goodsk8s:

I don't think anyone disputes the fact that NH's tax burden is low. It is very low, so low in act that it probably can't be sustained, but that is another discussion.

The issue that Grant and others have raised is that the majority of taxes to run the state fall heavily on one class of citizens, namely the home owner. I know all the arguments, such as renters pay their ahre of real estate taxes through their rental payments, etc. However, the fact of the matter is that the home owners IS carrying the ball in NH.

Now, I have teased Faylazyless about his complaints regarding the tax on his Meridith cottage and the fact of the matter is that if he has a healthy income he is better off in low tax burden NH. However, if he is retired, he may be paying more than his fair share. Like stock investments, tax revenues should be diversified and in NH this clearly isn't the case.

The issue is one of alignment/means. An income tax is skimmed off the top so there is no question of ability to pay. A sales tax is only incurred when the consumer buys something, again indicating some level of means. The issue that comes up over and over is the low-income (either due to retirement, career choice, bad luck, whatever) person confronted with property tax spiraling out of control. Speaking of control: to a degree income can be controlled by an individual, and discretionary purchasing certanly can be. A piece of real estate owned, perhaps inherited or bought long ago, may or may not indicate ability to pay taxes. I think that is the crux of the issue. To those that shout "then sell and move!", OK thats a possible solution, I guess. But see how you feel when its an elderly relative confronted with that situation after a lifetime of work. Also see the thread entitled "our best and brightest are leaving"...

I don't know what to say about the argument that taxes never roll back, and if NH enforces new tax/revenue schemes the property taxes will stay where they are because I suspect that is exactly what would happen. Governments spend every penny they can until the constituents cry "uncle"....

Lakegeezer · 03-05-2007, 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by secondcurve

Goodsk8s: However, the fact of the matter is that the home owners IS carrying the ball in NH..... The issue that Grant and others have raised is that the majority of taxes to run the state fall heavily on one class of citizens, namely the home owner..... Like stock investments, tax revenues should be diversified and in NH this clearly isn't the case.

No tax will be fair to all. The reason the current tax system works (sort of) is that most of the revenue stays local to the towns, where there is some control and visibility. It is a reasonable expectation that if additional taxes are collected it will be done by the state, which today is starved for cash. Flush with cash, outstretched hands will appear and the state budget will go up. There are calls for the state to spend more money already (Marine patrol, schools, health and retirement plans for employees, etc), but that would just be the start. It is fair to assume that within a few years, property taxes would be back to where they are today, but there would be an additional drain on people's cash flow. Can we trust a newly rich state government to spend its windfall wisely and with transparency? Keeping taxes local and the state starved for cash is the forumula that makes NH what it is. It is not a welfare state, but easily could become one.

jeffk · 03-06-2007, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by secondcurve

Goodsk8s:

The issue that Grant and others have raised is that the majority of taxes to run the state fall heavily on one class of citizens, namely the home owner. I know all the arguments, such as renters pay their ahre of real estate taxes through their rental payments, etc. However, the fact of the matter is that the home owners IS carrying the ball in NH.

... However, if he is retired, he may be paying more than his fair share.

New Hampshire taxes fall on anyone that owns or USES property, even if that means they don't directly pay the tax. Since almost everyone lives somewhere, almost everyone is paying property tax on their residence, either directly or indirectly. Further, businesses, which are usually assessed at much higher value than a residence, also must pay taxes on their property, even those who rent business space. Do you think the Mall of New Hampshire pays nothing to the city of Manchester and the state? The tax is spread much more broadly than you and others imply. Wherever there is a spot of land, someone is paying for it's use.

Consider the reality that a lot of small businesses run with minimal profit. If you shift to an income tax their income tax burden would be near zero and their property taxes would also drop (supposedly because the income tax would replace significant amounts of it). If some businesses are paying less, their portion of the tax burden will fall on the average citizen who can't offset their income with business write offs.

I agree with those who say it's not a revenue problem, it's a spending problem. Most states have all these wonderful tax structures in place and they are worse off than we are. They are worse off because they don't control their spending. As they rolled in all these "progressive" taxes the lure of spending was irresistible. Further, since most of these taxes are implemented at a state level the ability of the people to control both the spending and the level of taxation to support it is weakened significantly and taxes spiral out of control. Local control of taxes and spending provides an accessible face to government. It is much easier to access my local selectman than my state rep. If there are government meetings they are easier to get to locally than they are at the state house, so I can make my voice heard. Even if I never say a word, my local Selectmen know I could and that is a powerful control on their behavior. You might say I am pessimistic about government but show me one state that has gone the route to a sales or income tax and has managed to keep spending under control. You can't find one. It has nothing to do with the virtues of the legislators. It's about the system. Concentrating money at the state level will attract those who want to spend it and weaken the control of the taxpayers who would like to make sure their money is well spent and to minimize what they pay.

BTW, what is my "fair share"?? I own two houses in New Hampshire and pay far more in property tax than I would if we had a 5% income tax. Yes, when I retire the property tax will be a bill I need to deal with, like my heating bill, and the cost to maintain my boat. It would be nice if it went away when my income dropped during retirement but why isn't it "fair" that I be taxed? I knew about the tax system when I bought the property. I knew taxes would continue into retirement. I knew the property was a valuable asset that was likely to appreciate. Meanwhile, I am paying no income or sales tax. Does "fair" mean that I should be able to buy a property that I am unable to afford (i.e. can't pay the taxes).

I will probably leave my property to my children when I die. They will get a nice piece of lakefront property. If they want to keep it they will have to maintain it; fix the roof from time to time, paint it, pay for electricity and propane, and, yes, pay the property tax. Right now, if I wanted to buy my house from scratch, one month of mortgage payments would be about equal to the years property tax. So if I kicked the bucket today my kids would have to come up with a small fraction of the value of the property to keep ownership. Why is that not "fair"? It certainly shouldn't be a surprise. I have told them if they want things in life they need to have the education and drive to be able to earn the money to pay for them. So it is with property, to one degree or another. If my kids can't get together the modest payments they need to maintain the property they will need to sell it and enjoy a few free vacations with the proceeds. It's their responsibility and their choice.

SIKSUKR · 03-07-2007, 09:24 AM

Well said Jeff.

vrrooom · 03-07-2007, 07:08 PM

Prehaps the most misunderstood point in the tax discussion is the one that I feel has the most impact. Particlarly in the lakes region, a small number of residents, some say less than 20% of the home owners, deceide how the majority of the home owners money will be spent. IMO this is the primary reason that we have the tax/spending growth situation here. Most of the people voting on the town/school spending are not paying high taxes as our system is based on realestate (sales) value. Until we change the voting law, to allow all taxpayers to vote, not just residents, this imbalance will continue. Some states allow taxpayers to vote on budgets and other things that affet their property taxes. Ex Liberus Gilfordensis hint.

phoenix · 03-07-2007, 08:39 PM

that is true in Moultonboro as we have new everything in town

SIKSUKR · 03-08-2007, 09:24 AM

Here's an article on proposed property tax relief for the elderly.
http://www.wmur.com/news/11194717/detail.html

moose tracks · 03-08-2007, 01:59 PM

The Board of Tax and Land Appeals has ordered the town of Sanbornton to complete a town wide ressesment in 2008. Ten Lake Winnisquam frontage neighborhoods assessments were each derrived from only one or two sales. The Board of Tax and Land Appeals also noted that two of the neighborhoods had NO sales but factors were set differently from other lake property factors without any discussion as to logic or basis. Maybe the new ressesment in 2008 will be fairer.

02-25-2007, 08:56 AM	#2
phoenix Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: phoenix and moultonboro Posts: 1,528 Thanks: 59 Thanked 269 Times in 189 Posts	i agree with you even though as a non resident but water front home owner i get the biggest bite of the apple. I think that JRC said it best" the only fair tax is the one that taxes someone else" .There is a lot of talk in Concord about needing more revenue to respond to the court issue with education( and other deparments) and when i see some legisaltors saying that they should put an additional special tax on out of state home owners i say JRC is right. Pressure needs to be on the legislature to keep cost down. __________________ it's tough to make predictions specially about the future

02-26-2007, 07:26 AM	#4
fatlazyless Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,638 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 298 Thanked 984 Times in 717 Posts	...your $23,000. property tax bill! Your $23000. is paying for the NH Advantage of no income tax-no sales tax so when Senator Judd Gregg had a $853,492. Powerball win on 10/20/05, he got to pay zero to New Hampshire. Is this system based on one's ability to pay? How did the NH Advantage help the NH Republicans in the last election? What will happen in the next election?

02-26-2007, 11:31 AM	#8
SIKSUKR Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 5,075 Thanks: 215 Thanked 903 Times in 509 Posts	Ok,what am I missing here?How can NH have the 49th ranked state and local tax,but rank 39th when combined with federal.Aren't fedaral taxes the same for every state?I thought Federal income tax was a bigger % as the income level rose so with NH having a lower income level than most,what would explain the desparity? __________________ SIKSUKR

02-27-2007, 02:23 PM	#14
SIKSUKR Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 5,075 Thanks: 215 Thanked 903 Times in 509 Posts	So I guess I had it exactly backwards.The overall rank went to 39 because the per capita income in NH is much higher than most states.That's the only way it could happen from how I understand it now. __________________ SIKSUKR

02-27-2007, 03:55 PM	#15
nj2nh Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: NJ Posts: 523 Thanks: 62 Thanked 44 Times in 24 Posts	Summer owners Just want to make a quick observation about those people with summer property being able to pay for it. Au contraire! I have heard of many families who cannot afford the taxes on their summer homes because they inherited them from parents who bought them 50, 60, 70 years ago when the prices were much more affordable to the average Joe. Those same people couldn't buy their own properties now and are having trouble paying the taxes. So, that one statement about affording property taxes while true for some isn't true for everyone. Many of those old camps and properties are being sold because the families (siblings, mostly) can't afford to keep them anymore. I would guess that that is why all those lovely McMansions are going up. I live in Jersey (by way of Taxachusetts in my youth). My husband and I bought our home in 1991. We joke that we should sell it because we have pretty much doubled our investment, but then we would have to live in the shed out back because we couldn't afford to buy anything else. We couldn't even afford to buy our own house now especially because we are self employed and pay for our own miserable health insurance. Ah, sad, very very sad. Jersey Girl __________________

02-25-2007, 08:42 AM	#1
Seaplane Pilot Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,177 Thanks: 664 Thanked 943 Times in 368 Posts	Low NH Tax Burden According to this article on MSN, NH ranks 39 out of 50 states for the lowest overall tax burden. http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com...es.aspx?page=2 NH has the 2nd highest property tax as % of home value and contrary to popular belief, does have an income tax on interest and dividends. This system is bad for some, good for others with higher earned income. I say leave it the way it is, because if they start messing with the system it will only get worse. Taxes will not drop.

02-25-2007, 02:52 PM	#3
boathousegirl Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Boston and Winnisquam Posts: 44 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	NH ranks 39 out of 50??? Please don't get me started. $23,000 in real estate taxes. Let's talk apples to apples!

02-27-2007, 04:25 PM	#16
Woodsy Senior Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: Weirs Beach Posts: 1,959 Thanks: 80 Thanked 975 Times in 436 Posts	Its pretty simple.... supply and demand. When there is a large demand for property, the value of said property increases exponentially. You have more people with more money ready, willing and eager to pay for thier piece of the pie... and the bidding war begins! It wouldn't matter if NH had a sales or income tax, property taxes would have increased exponetially regardless. Especially when most property was way undervalued for tax purposes. Once the government figured that out the fun began. The only difference is that the starting point of the property tax increase MIGHT have been a bit lower... Leave well enough alone.... the current tax system works just fine! Woodsy __________________ The only way to eliminate ignorant behavior is through education. You can't fix stupid.

03-04-2007, 07:12 PM	#17
bobio Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: South Shore, Ma./ South Down Shores, N.H. Posts: 60 Thanks: 0 Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts	taxtaxtax Well I have read most every angle to this matter now. I have to add my two cents. When property tax is so high middle class neighborhoods do not get rejuvinated and become run down. Local investors do not buy property and renovate them. The rental market suffers because no one wants to invest and have to deal with high tax burdens. Large businesses do not even think about locating there and potential jobs are lost. When I look around central N.H. (laconia, franklin, tilton areas) I see a huge inventory of potential investment property, most in need of updating. What I don't see is investors buying and doing the work. I believe that high taxes and the lack of good paying jobs have something to do with this.

03-04-2007, 08:51 PM	#19
secondcurve Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 2,102 Thanks: 1,299 Thanked 558 Times in 287 Posts	Grant: I don't disagree with your position. Obviously, if one tax source is relied on almost exclusively, there will be inequities. A new broad based tax system is the only way to address the present situation in NH. Unfortunately, it will create a whole new set of winners and losers. Hence, the difficulty in getting any changes passed.

03-04-2007, 08:53 PM	#20
Grant Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Pennsyltuckey, Tuftonboro, Moultonborough Posts: 1,495 Thanks: 355 Thanked 224 Times in 120 Posts	Yep -- same with the entire country, unfortunately. We ain't alone in the Granite State. Just hard to see it here... __________________ "When I die, please don't let my wife sell my dive gear for what I told her I paid for it."

03-05-2007, 06:44 AM	#21
secondcurve Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 2,102 Thanks: 1,299 Thanked 558 Times in 287 Posts	Goodsk8s: I don't think anyone disputes the fact that NH's tax burden is low. It is very low, so low in act that it probably can't be sustained, but that is another discussion. The issue that Grant and others have raised is that the majority of taxes to run the state fall heavily on one class of citizens, namely the home owner. I know all the arguments, such as renters pay their ahre of real estate taxes through their rental payments, etc. However, the fact of the matter is that the home owners IS carrying the ball in NH. Now, I have teased Faylazyless about his complaints regarding the tax on his Meridith cottage and the fact of the matter is that if he has a healthy income he is better off in low tax burden NH. However, if he is retired, he may be paying more than his fair share. Like stock investments, tax revenues should be diversified and in NH this clearly isn't the case.

03-07-2007, 09:24 AM	#25
SIKSUKR Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 5,075 Thanks: 215 Thanked 903 Times in 509 Posts	Well said Jeff. __________________ SIKSUKR

03-07-2007, 07:08 PM	#26
vrrooom Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Gilford Posts: 50 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Home Owner Pays and the Resident Spends Prehaps the most misunderstood point in the tax discussion is the one that I feel has the most impact. Particlarly in the lakes region, a small number of residents, some say less than 20% of the home owners, deceide how the majority of the home owners money will be spent. IMO this is the primary reason that we have the tax/spending growth situation here. Most of the people voting on the town/school spending are not paying high taxes as our system is based on realestate (sales) value. Until we change the voting law, to allow all taxpayers to vote, not just residents, this imbalance will continue. Some states allow taxpayers to vote on budgets and other things that affet their property taxes. Ex Liberus Gilfordensis hint.

03-07-2007, 08:39 PM	#27
phoenix Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: phoenix and moultonboro Posts: 1,528 Thanks: 59 Thanked 269 Times in 189 Posts	that is true in Moultonboro as we have new everything in town __________________ it's tough to make predictions specially about the future

03-08-2007, 09:24 AM	#28
SIKSUKR Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 5,075 Thanks: 215 Thanked 903 Times in 509 Posts	Property tax relief Here's an article on proposed property tax relief for the elderly. http://www.wmur.com/news/11194717/detail.html __________________ SIKSUKR

03-08-2007, 01:59 PM	#29
moose tracks Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Loudon, Tennessee, foothills of the Great Smoky Mountains Posts: 283 Thanks: 340 Thanked 41 Times in 33 Posts	Sanbornton to do reassessment in 2008 The Board of Tax and Land Appeals has ordered the town of Sanbornton to complete a town wide ressesment in 2008. Ten Lake Winnisquam frontage neighborhoods assessments were each derrived from only one or two sales. The Board of Tax and Land Appeals also noted that two of the neighborhoods had NO sales but factors were set differently from other lake property factors without any discussion as to logic or basis. Maybe the new ressesment in 2008 will be fairer.