No one forces politicians to sign "the pledge". No one forces people to vote for those who sign it. So why would the group "the Granite State Fair Tax Coalition" seek to abolish the pledge instead of promoting politicians that support their views of income tax?
My only assumption is they know most people in this state feel the way I do and understand that an income tax would not illuminate property tax, it would only create more taxes. And more taxes do only one thing; They mask how much the government really takes from us each and every year. Income tax, sales tax, gas tax, property tax etc etc etc is why every other state (with the exception of Alaska) has higher tax burdens then we do. Their citizens sit back and take it because they often times don't know how much is really being taken. In NH people do know. They see the bill and as a result they get upset when politicians spend too much.
So my question to this group is why not argue for less spending? Wouldn't it be much fairer to make sure government isn't taking money from us unnecessarily to begin with?
In researching more about this group I went to their website and read over the FAQ they put together to answer questions. Doing this both troubled me further and rose a series of new questions for this group.
"We are a nonpartisan, educational nonprofit coalition, started in the Public Policy Committee of the New Hampshire Council of Churches. Members are deeply concerned that our current tax system is making life hard for many in our state."
Council of Churches? Where exactly is this church and what kind of masses are they having that leads them to discuss our current tax system? Sounds to me that this is a political group masking themselves as a church. If anyone is a member of this church please email me the time and location of upcoming masses as I would be very interested in attending.
"The Coalition is in favor of a fair tax system that lowers our property taxes."
Key word there is lower, they seek to create new taxes on top of the taxes we already have, not eliminate them in favor of more "fair" taxation.
"Shifting the burden away from the property tax payer does not increase spending."
True but taking a little money here and a little money there instead of confronting people with a single tax bill helps mask how much is actually being taken from them. School's are notorious for doing this, when state funding increases their spending increases but since people don't see increases in their tax bills they don't think twice about it. It isn't until funding is cut that the budget is finally looked at, at which time the local boards "hold the line" on spending and claim there's nothing they can do.
"Right now, all solutions are off the table because many state leaders resist considering (or even talking about) alternatives to high property taxes, and even take a pledge not to do so. It is time for the pledge to end and the people
to be heard."
Sorry am I reading that right? Solutions are off the table? Here's one for you, CUT SPENDING!!!! A number of our decent state reps HAVE been suggesting that from the start when our governor rolled out his 17% spending increases.
"Some spending decisions are truly “local” – like running your local fire or police department or maintaining your local roads – while others require compliance to county, state, or federal requirements and thus are not truly “local”. This is especially true in education budgets. While we might vote on these budgets locally, in many ways we don’t have a total control over what goes in those budgets."
Very true. We often hear in school budget meetings that line X, Y or Z is an unfunded mandate. But then isn't simply shifting the tax burden around only surviving to put a band-aid on the real problem and not truly addressing it? The problem isn't who is being forced to pay but WHY are they being forced to pay.
Their site goes on to show how NH relies more on property tax then any other state but that is irrelevant. The total tax burden is the only important factor, beyond that it doesn't really matter if they take the tax from your right pocket or your left pocket or even a combination of pockets. Any way you look at it, the money is coming out of your pockets.
Of course the other side of this is the ideals of socialism which is ultimately what they are promoting. Look for a way to shift the burden to someone else. You get the services and you find someone else to pay for it. That's great until the sucker you stick with the bill chooses to up and leave.
Here's a good way to look at it in an analogy that has been far over used but I'll beat that horse one more time by bringing it up here. Ten people go out to dinner together. We will call them NH citizens. Currently as they sit in the dinner and prepare to eat they pay a property tax, in this case a fee based on the chair they sit in. The dinner charges a total of $100 per table (this never changes regardless of how many people sit there because it's the state budget) but some choose super padded comfy chairs so they pay $15, others choose hard plastic basic model chairs so they only have to pay $5. Over all though it works out fine and based on the quality of their chair they pay their share of the total bill.
Along comes the fair tax group who says property tax (or a fee based on your chair) isn't fair so they shift it to how much you make. For sake of argument let's say all 100% of the bill is no shifted to income. The first 2 people make very little so they are excused from paying income based tax. The next 3 are lower middle income earners. They are charged $5 each. The next three are upper income earners. They are charged $15. The last two being the upper income earners are left with the remaining part of the bill and must pay $20 each.
The bottom two paying nothing are now happy. They see this as very fair.
Of the next three, one of them used to pay for the cheap chair so he's paying the same. The other two pay less. They too are happy.
The next three now paying $15 each are all three paying more then they did before. Only the two "rich" paid for the comfy chairs so they are now carrying even more of a burden then before.
The final two "rich" see their bill going up likewise and are also not happy.
After a day or two, the two rich people paying $20 each realize theirs a dinner down the road that only charges $10 a person so they head out. The remaining 8 people are still left paying the $100 per table budget but the two top income earners who covered $40 of that burden are no longer there. As a result they ALL see an extra $5 added to their bill.
The two bottom earners are now paying exactly as they did before. Now all three of the 2nd level earners are paying more and likewise all three of the 3rd level income earners also pay more. No one gets a break. And as more of the top earners leave to go to the lower tax burden locations charging them only $10, the lower income earners are left with more and more and more of the bill.
If instead the ten customers argued that they did not need the pre dinner bread and instead of more expensive alcohol would be satisfied with soda and water to drink managed to get the dinner to lower their bill by $10 or $20... well now they would all see a reduction of $1 or $2 in how much they pay. And if they realize they all eat ham sandwiches except one person who eats lobster and they tell him he must pay his own share for that luxury, they managed to lower another $20 off their bill... well now they could be paying $4 less which in the case of those paying only $5 a chair could be the majority of their bill.
Think about it.