Stupid vs. Ignorant

Budget season brings out the strangest ideas from people.  Like this comment from a resident in the UL (I beleive its a resident) who thinks the government is smarter than we are but in fact has it exactly backwards.

I can't believe that people in NH are so stupid that they think that not having an income and a sales tax means that we have low taxes. We don't. We have hidden taxes. Everything cost more in NH because of these hidden taxes. The government has figured out that the citizens of NH aren't bright enough to figure out what is happening

First—NH is still one of the most tax friendly places to live in the US. It’s one of the most business friendly. It has the second best city in the US to live in tax wise (Manchester) and it consistently scores in the top ten for quality of life.

One might ask why or how this is possible given how smart the government is when it comes to milking us for revenue and how stupid we are for letting them do it.  The answer is simple.  So far, in direct contradiction to the commenter's claims, the taxes are not hidden.

Using property taxes as the majority revenue source forces the government to plop a bill down in your lap twice a year that will get you off your ass, on the phone, into your email, down to the town hall, or over to Concord, where you will have a talk with your town or state reps about how or why they are spending your money.   Any other money comes from fees and charges for perennial things like registrations and licenses. 

This commenter also disregards the fact that these fees and taxes are so well known that every biennium we fight tooth and nail, line by line, to make sure any changes are justified and sensible so we can keep NH at the top of all these lists, and our overall tax burden low.  

But if we break down and give in to an income or sales tax, now we open up streams of revenue that nickel and dime the crap out of everyone every day, now until forever—adding massive amounts of uncontrolled, invisible and essentially unfelt revenue into the hands of politicians.You'll still get your big property tax bill, but you'll also be paying a portion of a check or every purchase into the state as well. 

This would completely relinquish local control of revenue into the state government and give them a funding source independent of direct citizen control.  It also creates avenues for rent seekers and political foolishness from tweaking the tax codes to punish or reward classes of tax payers at the whim of government--away from the eyes of the people. 

And since government continues to prove its incontinence in regard to keeping the public trust when it comes to spending, I for one would rather fight line by line, every two years for every dime on every fee and charge than relinquish local control of state funding by opening the flood gates with a broad based tax.

Comments

[Rick Barnes]

Steve, I have to disagree. What that comment says that you quoted is really dead on.

Look at the "hidden" taxes listed in HB 2 which I highlighted here:
http://www.nhinsider.com/richard-barnes/2009/4/17/hb-2-taxes-taxes-and-more-taxes.html

By breaking up what you pay into more and more different fees, tolls, taxes, etc the government can increase spending and not raise your property tax masking how much they really tax you.

The second problem is that we expect our elected officials to be smart enough to spot waste and remove it from the budget. My 5 years on the Merrimack budget committee woke me up really fast. I once found a line for $500 that even the department head couldn't explain what it was for. From looking at past budgets it was never used either. When I motioned to cut it the motion did pass but with a 6 to 5 vote. 5 members fought to keep a little item ($500 in a tens of million dollar budget) that even the department head could not explain why it's needed. Now I've never been directly involved in the budget process at the state level but based on local level budget processes I can only imagine it's even worse at the state level.

Give me a day with all the state level department heads and a detailed copy of the budget and I'll bet you anything I'll find well over 10% of the budget that can be cut out. Most likely well more then that. Anyone who says they can't find anything to cut isn't looking.

[Tom Humphreys]

I fully agree with Mr. Barnes comment about budget cutting. It seems that our current elected officials, at any level. when they come to the fork in the road of either raising fees and taxes, or cutting expenditures, always, repeat always, choose the path of raising fees and taxes, or of creating new ones.

[pinko]

Gotta raise fees, dude - because we don't have no steenkin' income tax. You see, an income tax would be a level playing field. That would be bad. Better to avoid taxing our millionaires, and just nickel and dime the working stiffs whenever possible.

[Steve Mac Donald]

Budgeting was not really the point. Visibilisty of revenue streams however are.

What do you think would happen if you paid no taxes or fees and the government sent you a bill for all the money you would have otherwise paid (in their words owed) the day before election day?

You crap your pants and vote the bastards out of office. Why? Becasue when you add it all up, the average tax payer recognizes the relationship between cost and return, and they expect value for their money. If that were not true no one would shop at Wal Mart or Target. (as generic examples).

I agree that all the fees and dribs and drabs we currently have are a problem, but the problem is that we have them becasue there is to much spending. If we added a broad based tax, we'd spend more. For what?

More government and little else.

Hey Pinko! What state with a sales or income tax has a lower tax burden, lower unemployment, and an equivelant or higher standard of living? (Let me know.)