I always find it telling when people argue or or against changes. Listening to their arguments is a good way to understand their ideas over all, far beyond the single point they are pushing for or against.
For instance, I support legalization of most drugs even though I don't use drugs beyond Alcohol and a very rare cigar. The argument I use to favor such a legalization is freedom. It does me no harm if my neighbor grows a pot plant or smokes a little after work on weekends so why should I harm him by forcing men with guns into his home and arresting him if he's doing something that doesn't hurt anyone outside himself?
This brings up the question we will get to vote on on November 6th, whether or not to amend our state Constitution to permanently ban income tax.
The ballot question will read as follows:
“Are you in favor of amending the second part of the constitution by inserting after article 5-b a new article to read as follows:
[Art.] 5-c. [Income Tax Prohibited.] Notwithstanding any general or special provision of this constitution, the general court shall not have the power or authority to impose and levy any assessment, rate, or tax upon income earned by any natural person; however, nothing in this Article shall be construed to prohibit any tax in effect on January 1, 2012, or adjustment to the rate of such a tax.
NHFPI has some interesting arguments posted HERE. They include the following:
- The current NH Constitution was ratified in 1784 and served us very well for more than two centuries. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
- Question 1 seeks to fix a problem that doesn’t exist. Neither the governor nor the legislature has seriously considered an income tax in years, and prior efforts to adopt an income tax were stopped over the course of the normal legislative process.
- Question 1 takes options off the table and leaves New Hampshire dependent on already high property and business taxes to raise revenue.
- Passage of Question 1 would tie the hands of future lawmakers, taking power away from our children and grandchildren when we don’t know what issues they will face – or how they may want to solve them.
Before diving into their arguments against the amendment I always find it best to find out who the group is that raises any argument.
NHFPI stands for the New Hampshire Fiscal Policy Institute. Their own website describes them as "an independent, non-partisan organization dedicated to exploring, developing, and promoting public policies that foster economic opportunity and prosperity for all New Hampshire residents, with an emphasis on low- and moderate-income families and individuals".
I find the emphasis on low and moderate incomes interesting.
Their director is Jeff McLynch, who just happens to be a Democrat who's been involved in other Soros funded left wing groups that pushed for a state income tax. Hmmmmmm can we expect this person to be far and balanced when evaluating whether income tax would be good for all NH residents?
The New Hampshire Fiscal Policy Institute he runs is the New Hampshire chapter of the State Fiscal Analysis Initiative, which is a state by state project of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP). CBPP is a left wing group that promotes the Democrat parties social and economic justice agenda through budget based think tanks and policy organizations with support from the cranky Progressives over at the Bookings Institute and deep pocketed left wing foundations like Ford, Rockefeller and George Soros’ Open Society Institute.
Fair to say this is a left wing group.
This brings us back to their arguments. The first one is the one that makes me laugh the most.
The current NH Constitution was ratified in 1784 and served us very well for more than two centuries. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
How many times have those of us right of center heard arguments against the 2nd Amendment saying that the Constitution is a "living breathing" document? Or that times were different back then? Or my favorite when they just attack the founders of our Country saying they were slave owners?
The left knows they would never get a majority to support changing the 2nd amendment so in that case they argue to ignore it but now since there is a strong chance that a two third majority will support banning income tax they want to use the argument that our state Constitution served us well these 200+ years.
Question 1 seeks to fix a problem that doesn’t exist. Neither the governor nor the legislature has seriously considered an income tax in years, and prior efforts to adopt an income tax were stopped over the course of the normal legislative process.
Here their own explanation discredits the opening statement. The claim the problem doesn't exist but then point out that there are past examples where legislators have pushed to create an income tax.
Of course since the director of this group has openly supported an income tax they wouldn't see it as a problem in the first place.
Question 1 takes options off the table and leaves New Hampshire dependent on already high property and business taxes to raise revenue.
Taking money out of your left pocket on top of your right pocket and maybe a few bucks more from your back pocket doesn't make high property taxes better, it just taxes you in more ways so you are less likely to realize how much is actually being taken from your pockets.
The problem isn't the taxation needed to raise revenue, it's the spending which requires the revenue in the first place.
Passage of Question 1 would tie the hands of future lawmakers, taking power away from our children and grandchildren when we don’t know what issues they will face – or how they may want to solve them.
Actually it doesn't take the power away from our children and grandchildren. It does just the opposite. It takes the power away from the government and gives it to our children and grandchildren. If in the future they want to solve problems by taxing income they have the same power we do today to change the Constitution once again.
Lawmakers who force their will against the support of the people are the ones who take the power of the people away.
Over all it's going to be an interesting vote. So far my favorite argument against it has to be the claim that Republicans know it will never pass but put it up as a way to incite conservatives to come out and vote against Obama. I can't wait to hear what they'll claim if and when this passes.