Taxtrabation
Wednesday, September 23, 2009 at 03:51PM
Today’s Nashua Telegraph has a front page story below the fold about New Hampshire’s national property tax ranking. Seems we’ve slipped to third highest in the nation. (We used to be second) If you follow the story to page six you find that we are 46th for state taxes. The story doesn’t invest any time in reporting the high marks for our low overall tax burden which seems relevant given the earlier comparisons. But the articles goal seems to be that we are top heavy on property taxes as opposed to other kinds of taxes and that this is bad.
It's not bad, it's ideal if you think it through.
More property taxes and less other state taxes means one thing; that most taxation happens locally, as close to the residents, taxpayers, and voters as possible. It aligns the visible cost of government with those who are paying for it. And it attracts the attention of the people in the best position to gauge its value to its price tag. This close relationship is what the founders intended because it the one most likley to inspire and empower the taxpayer with the desire and ability to more directly and immediately affect the form and function of their government.
That my friends is why Democrats hate it.
Democrats are more than happy to nickel and dime us to keep as many people as possible from seeing of feeling the cost of government. Selling a high property tax ranking is simply a nod to the broad based taxers. It says “look at how high our tax burden is. We need to make it more fair.”
That’s a smoke screen and a lie. If you think controlling spending is hard now, let the state flex its revenue muscles in more and more places that never see the inside of your mail box and you’ll get all the government they can think up and then some. The grow government first crowd can’t wait to get their hands on more money. (Remember, its a revenue problem.) But as long as they have to ask you for it in a great big bill twice a year, you have some hope of keeping a reign on the size and cost of State Government.
Without that accountability we go the way of every other state before us. We join the rollercoaster revenue ride, with even higher property taxes to try and offset those imbalances casued by cram downs, state extortion of the municipalities, bad budget guesses, planned shortfalls, and "spend first look for revenue later" fools like Eaton and Norelli.
Property taxes are not just about revenue, they are about the power to control government. Property taxes are visible enough to give the people more power than their elected officials. And even though the state does not yet rely heavily on them the cost of State government on the towns still shows up there. And as long as it does, townspeople will demand answers and elected officials will still feel inclinded to find them.
If you think it’s fair to give that power up, I think it’s fairly certain you’ll never be able to control government spending again.
And that might not matter so much except that you're the one paying for more of it.
Reader Comments (23)
Further down it admits we have slipped to #5 in overall tax burden, from #2... where we used to be before these nazi control freak tax and spenders took over the NH statehouse.
We are also dead last, as in worse, in corporate taxes. And 39th in unemployment insurance. Since we need revenue from somewhere, we over-tax businesses in this state. If you want to discourage an activity, a really good way is to increase taxes on it, as we have done to businesses. That ought to concern everyone in this state who thinks jobs are important.
Mr. "NH"
"nazi control freak tax and spenders "
Insane much? Please feel free to crawl out of Beckland, get up on your hind feet, and think like an adult any time you feel comfortable doing so.
Mike Moonbat has finally taken up the chant of Glen Beck.
Next, everyone Mike Moonbat hates will be accused of secretly meeting with Beck.
Yawn.
NH is $500 million in the hole in NH due to the Moonbat's other stupid feelings.
Platy
Mike Marsh has more qualifications than you could ever imagine. He just isn't an ego freak narcissist like you and Mr. Ed.
As you can see, I've realized that the real battle on this site isn't about the issues.
It's about name calling.
Now that I've accepted that I'm enjoying a right wing spiritual experience
It's so much easier than stating a premise, supporting it with facts, and drawing a conclusion.
Or entering a debate and sticking with the topic instead of going off on ten tangents.
All you have to do is come up with clever variations on insults.
Really--I'm into it now.
These guys have won me over.
I believe your post was uncalled for. Where do you get off calling me an 'ego freak narcissist'? Is this outburst because I don't agree with you?
The question remains, what is Mr. Marsh's background?
Platy
"what is his source of knowledge on the subject?"
I read the report from the Tax Foundation. (www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/25197.html)
This isn't all that complicated. According to the report, we used to have the second highest per capita property tax in the nation, now we are third. The whole idea that we are "slipping" when the property tax burden is decreasing relative to other states is, to say the least, an odd one. If that's a slip, I hope we find a big banana peel somewhere and slip some more.
Your comments about how Democrats are willing to nickle and dime the citizens is only half true. Republicans are also happy to nickle and dime us as well. No matter who is in control, we run as much of the state as possible on a fee-basis, and by raising money from out-of-staters.
Your general views on the property tax- that it keeps control local- is true as far as it goes. But there are clearly downsides to the policy. Reliance on property taxes discriminates against seniors and against unemployed people in general. It doesn't match ability to pay with requirement to pay. It pits towns against each other, trying to export lower income people to other towns through zoning regs. It creates massive inequity in the tax rates between towns, among other problems.
As for my comments on business taxes, see another one of Tax Foundation reports, "2010 State Business Tax Climate Index" at www.taxfoundation.org/files/bp59.pdf ) which ranks us last in corporate income tax rates. We have other advantages for businesses, but taxes sure aren't one of them.
The Tax Foundation has a clear political objective- lower taxes- but their data is usuallly accurate, and its worth a look to see how we compare. A couple of points- NH is 5th lowest in terms of overall state/local taxes per capita. Over the years, we have varied from 3th to 25th lowest, and more recently are 4th or 5th lowest.
I see Mr. Naile got through a whole post without mentioning his teabagger fetish. He should be commended. That's progress, of a sort.
I do agree property taxes are becoming a drag on our local economy. However, I feel the answer is not crystal clear. Putting in place an income tax would also pull valuable capital from the economy just when it is most needed.
This is my arguement.
Platy
Here's the question we should be asking... How can we cut spending back so it no longer exceeds the revenue levels we actually have in place?
You hit the nail on the head here. At every level of government, there needs to be restraint in spending before going to the already weaken consumer for more revenue. We are running out of runway, more taxes of any type will slow the recovery and government borrowing is going to lead to more inflation and further weaking of the dollar.
Platy
If you go to the Tax Foundations website, you can find a lot of interesting things about NH taxes relative to other states. Here is one, regarding state taxes: (http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/468.html).
According to this, we are 46th in per capita state and local taxes paid, (where 50th is lowest) We have consistently been 46th or 47th for the last 12 or 13 years. During that time, the amount of income taken by the state and towns has dropped. Interestingly, NH citizens pay as much in taxes to other states as it does to our own, one of the disadvantages of not having a state income tax.
I don't know if you are aware of all this. You talk as if we are in a tax crisis that has increased taxes to such an extreme level that it is about to break our backs. Reality disagrees with you. The state takes a smaller share of our money today than it did 30 years ago, 20 years ago, and even a little less than it did 10 years ago. I am pretty sure we survived the 8.4% tax rate we paid in 1978, and the 7.9% in 1988, and the 9.7% paid in 1992, so I think we will survive the current 7.6% and not become fascist socialist communists, nazi control freaks, or whatever the latest name calling excuse for not thinking is.
As for your comment that an income tax will pull money out of the capital markets: Why would a dollar paid as income tax reduce capital invest any differently than a dollar paid as property tax? There is a (weak) argument that a dollar paid in business profits tax reduces capital investment more, but not income taxes.
Mike Moonbat has no qualifications other than being voted out of office for overspending. Period. He is a tax and spender. You can look up his past posts for a laugh at his predictions on the NH economy and state budget.
You get called names when the boys on the left feel threatened or scared.
They snubbed this site in a very arrogant fashion after Obama was elected thinking socialism had finally won over America and NH.
Now that the 2010 elections are just around the corner and all their hopes and dreams are going up in progressive smoke they are back peddling hate.
It is a weak, boring, predictable hate as well.
"Interestingly, NH citizens pay as much in taxes to other states as it does to our own, one of the disadvantages of not having a state income tax."
If you work in a state with an income tax, one's tax liability is to the state in which the income is earned. I don't believe if NH had an income tax they could tax income earned in another state. Is this correct?
"Why would a dollar paid as income tax reduce capital invest any differently than a dollar paid as property tax? "
Collecting taxes at a local level is more efficient than sending the money to Concord and then having the money come back to the town. I digress, to answer your question, I believe that history has shown that when a state institutes and income tax, property taxes do not decrease such that would offset the new tax.
Platy
No this isn't correct, you owe taxes to both states, but taxes paid in NH would be a credit to taxes paid in MA, so you would not end up paying more than one tax. To simplify, if NH had a 3% tax and MA had 5%, you would pay 3% to NH and 2% to MA.
"Collecting taxes at a local level is more efficient than sending the money to Concord and then having the money come back to the town."
This is a fallacy. The efficiency of tax collection is not based on where it is collected, but on how difficult/expensive it is to collect. This is measured by the cost to collect/administer as a % of total amount of tax collected. Different taxes have different costs based on factors that are unique to them. The property tax is not very efficient because there are so many people involved in so many towns assessing values and collecting it. The Meals and Rooms tax and the gasoline tax is collected in Concord and a portion is sent back to towns. These are very easy taxes to collect and thus very efficient. The taxes are self-administered by the limited number of payees, with little oversight needed. As for distributing the proceeds to the towns, if you think about it there is little or no cost in sending a check to each town. What is a stamp these days- 45 cents?
The argument that states that have income taxes don't decrease property taxes is not necessarily true, and would depend on many, many factors. In any case, the argument should be "is a property tax the right basis to raise money in the state?" I think there are a lot of flaws with it.
Mr. Naile has now done two posts in a row without indulging his sexual fantasies. This is progress and I hope he is able to continue. Maybe, just maybe, once he resolves his issues he will someday be able to actually have a discussion without reverting to reckless name calling and baseless attacks.
I was not sure on the state tax because my only experience has been with a tax and no tax state. In this case, I was able to apportion my income based on what state or country I was in when the income was earned. When not in the state that had the tax I was able to forgo any tax liablity for that income.
Mike, if you had no tax liability to the state, you would need no employees whatsoever in Concord to administer the tax. This situation would be much more efficient than any tax that would require a state employee(s) to collect revenue and reimburse the towns.
Platy
Good point! No taxes = 100% tax collection efficiency. It also means no police, no courts, no university, no roads, no medical assistance for poor people, nobody preventing pollution, no state parks. If this appeals, there are a lot of places where there are no taxes- Congo, Rwanda, large parts of Afghanistan and the Yemen, Somalia, much of the rural Sahel.
I insulted you because as I clearly wrote this is all about name calling.
I've been won over by right wing tactics. It's so much easier than thinking.
I see that Edzo banged in here with his usualy "moonbat" argument.
I've never seen you question his relentlessly boring personal attacks.
Sorry if I hurt your feelings or distracted you from the debate, but name calling is more important than reasoning.
As they say, "The only things certain in life are death and taxes......"
Yes, we need to fund universal services however, I object to the continued growth in the scope and size of the tax collector's domain. The only way I know how to curb that growth is to restrict its revenue stream.
Platy
There is no "growth in the scope and size of the tax collector's domain". This is a fact, not an opinion. People who are telling you "government is getting huger" and "spending is out of control" and "it used to be better under the GOP" are playing you for a sucker. Perhaps you might ask yourself why they are doing this.
If name calling is really distressing to you, you might express your concern to Mr. Naile. As far as I can recollect he has never made a single post without including some gratuitous name calling. Well, probably he has done so, but I don't recall it. He coursens any debate he engages in. Chaz is simply responding to Mr. Naile's attacks and slurs, brought on probably by his recent sick cheap-shot at Carol Shea-Porter.
I beg to disagree on the second point. State spending has risen at a rate well beyond the CPI in areas beyond health care where the rate of inflation exceeds the CPI.
Simple analysis shows this if you examine:
Dept A 20XX expenditure vs Dept A 200X+Y expenditures
When I look, I see this?
Platy