THE MYTH

By John Clark

The "Pledge" and the "New Hampshire Advantage" are a steady drumbeat every two years, and at every other opportunity, repeated 'ad nauseum' to a point of total ignorance. As several recent letters appearing in the newspapers have pointed out, even basic knowledge of tax structures clearly indicate the fallaciousness of the premise for either notion.

Federal Income tax is paid by everyone in these United States of America based on annual income, and on a sliding scale increasing as income increases. Other taxes such as State Income tax and local Property taxes are "offsets" or deductions from the Federal Income Tax liability. Put very simply, a State Income tax would not affect the "after-tax" pocket book of either individual or business tax-payers. The Federal Government would be the big loser.

Another loud cry heard whenever School spending is questioned, is that whilst "the Feds" mandate so-called education programs, the funding does not follow. So, if a State Income Tax were to be called a State Education Tax, and the raised amount was really spent ONLY on schools as direct education, then that "bogeyman" could finally be put to rest. The State Constitution would need to be amended to ensure that Property taxes receive total benefit of such an Education tax.

At least twenty six percent of people do not pay Federal Income Tax, various deductions move them below the threshold, All New Hampshire residential and commercial property owners pay Property taxes, Tax-Exempt properties do not pay either local or federal tax. The burden on home -owners in New Hampshire is reaching a crisis for all levels of income.

This question has nothing to do with Republican or Democrat, Thinking people must agree that a better balanced tax system is urgently required. A State Education tax based upon a percentage of Federal Income tax would enable the "New Hampshire Advantage" to be neither a State Sales Tax, or having to sell your house to buy food !

Comments

[R Barnes]

John, if you want an income tax then what is stopping you from electing someone who openly campaigns saying they would support it?

The pledge you complain about is nothing more then free speech. A candidate saying they will NOT support an income tax or sales tax. Nothing forces a candidate to sign it.

Of course most people like you who want to do away with the pledge know their view will never fly so instead they must get their candidates elected by being sneaky. By keeping their views unknown to the voters.

Sorry John, that's not a good way about winning. It's dishonest and wrong... but what's what Democrats do best.

[Ayn Rand sucks]

R Barnes - for someone who natters on about free speech, you seem pretty intent on closing down any dialogue about taxation in NH.

[Tom Sutliffe]

Let's hurry I can't wait to be taxed just like Connecticut! Ask any Connecticut resident....... they just can't get enough of their rather recent State Income Taxes! In fact, most can't wait for the next increase! It's a good thing!

[Anonymoose]

State funded education is also unconstitutional.

Free speech is not.

Long live the "Pledge"...

And let's not forget NJ, Vt, and Mass and Maine where they hardly have met a tax they did not like, but still are the highest taxed, and still screaming they don't have enough money for education.

In fact, no one has ever been able to show a state that instituted an income tax where the other taxes were reduced or eliminated, and quite the opposite is true.

[Chaz Proulx]

Thanks John for showing intellectual courage

Richard

The arguement that the pledge has anything to do with free speech over looks the fact that it was William Loeb--who bought ink by the barrelfull--was the instigator. He put the pledge in Mel Thompsons mouth, but the pledge was enforced and still is by the Union Leader.

I haven't seen the U.L. allow anyone but Joe McQuaid write front page editorials lately.

The pledge was adopted by Grover Norquist who finaced his ATR with millions of dollars of special interest groups who are not champions of free speech either.


It's time for an intelligent discussion of NH Tax issues and 2007 is the year.

With property taxes causing real heartache around NH people would like to be able to discuss alternatives without automatically landing on on or the other side of the pledge.

[Jim Splaine]

Good piece, John. "The Pledge" is little more than a political gimmick which says that on the issue of fairness in taxes that candidate will keep his/her eyes and mind closed in favor of picking up votes of those who are opposed to taxes.

And aren't we ALL opposed the taxes? Most of us want to see fair taxation, so that the John Lynches and Craig Bensons of the world pay their fair share since those working on minimum wage have to.

With about 40% of New Hampshire voters in every reliable poll indicating support for an income tax, and since about 55% indicating that they support tax reform if additional taxes are used fully for education, that's a lot of people. At its base, that's 400 out of every 1,000 voters.

We have yet to have a really balanced and quality discussion about the value of a low-rate income tax based on ability to pay dedicated fully for education. Our next generation -- those who will inherit this land and who stand a chance to touch the 22nd Century (most of us making this decision now won't live that long) -- deserve that discussion.