The NH Advantage! (Only for the Richest 1%, That Is)

Thank you, Dean (4.00 / 1)

I see that you keep posting stories about this, Dean, and I think that this is entirely necessary. We have to say this stuff and keep saying it, in order for these realities to begin to sink in.

This is the elephant in the budget room (in more ways than one) of NH politics. The elephant is squashing the people who work every day to make ends meet. The elephant is large and heavy and has a loud PR bus out front, blaring through a speaker about "the New Hampshire ADVANTAGE!!" so it's hard for many of the more fortunate citizens to hear the cries of those of us stuck under its hind end.

Believe me, it's ucky under this elephant here, people.  Time for equitable, affordable taxes! Let's not leave anyone stuck under the elephant any more. Our state will be wealthier in so many ways when we give up the regressive tax structure and the myths built around it.

---

by: beverlywoods @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 17:43:08 PM CST

Other numbers (0.00 / 0)

$25,000 * .083 = $2,075
$480,000 * .02 = $9,600

So the bottom of the top 1% of income earners pay almost 5x as much in taxes.

Swap it around:
$25,000 * .02 = $500
$480,000 *.083 = $39,840

Status quo does not look so unfair to me.

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 18:47:37 PM CST

No. (0.00 / 0)

So the bottom of the top 1% of income earners pay almost 5x as much in taxes.

The bottom of the top 1% of income earners pay almost 4x less tax than the bottom 20%.

One is taxed relative to one's pecuniary worth, not in absolutes.

But here's one absolute that makes the iniquity above even more striking: the price of things.

A loaf of bread costs the same for the bottom 20% as for the top 1%.  Yet it impacts the bottom 20%'s budget far more than the top 1%.  Despite this, the state of New Hampshire has decided the ones most impacted by the prices of things will have the greatest percentage of their income taken from them.

I'm with Warren Buffet:

Warren Buffett, the third-richest man in the world, has criticised the US tax system for allowing him to pay a lower rate than his secretary and his cleaner.

Speaking at a $4,600-a-seat fundraiser in New York for Senator Hillary Clinton, Mr Buffett, who is worth an estimated $52 billion (£26 billion), said: "The 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you're in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent."

Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent.

birch, finch, beech

---

by: Dean Barker @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 19:05:44 PM CST

[ Parent ]

So what is the effective rate of tax (0.00 / 0)

you would like to see the top 1% in NH pay?

I think $40K in taxes is probably a bigger hit to someone who makes $480K than $2K is to somebody who makes $25K. It's a lot harder to bank that $40K for your tax bill a year later. It's also the equivalent of one taxpayer paying for one mid level bureaucrat.

Should the 1% pay these huge taxes, or would it be as satisfactory to you to give them an exemption if they create private sector jobs in the amount of their tax liability? Chile does this with corporate taxes.

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 19:14:31 PM CST

[ Parent ]

And it's worth repeating (0.00 / 0)

that this is all before federal tax liability...

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 19:15:25 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Vermont (0.00 / 0)

chugs along just fine, has better state services than we do, and has near-parity across income levels.

As for this,

I think $40K in taxes is probably a bigger hit to someone who makes $480K than $2K is to somebody who makes $25K.

I suppose I don't know what you mean by "hit".

For someone who makes 25K, after paying rent/mortage, feeding/clothing the family, health/car/home insurance, gasoline and home heating fuel, repairs, and various other expenses, that 2 grand is likely a hit.

For someone who making 480K, those expenses are miniscule in comparison.

birch, finch, beech

---

by: Dean Barker @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 19:29:29 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It depends on how you make it (0.00 / 0)

if you're salaried, it's something you can budget.

If you make money as a percent of the business you do, after a good year you'll have a big tax liability and will have to do more business to pay it, which if the overall economy changes, might be hard to do. From the few people I've met that make a lot of money, they tend to make it from not sitting on it. Someone who's making $480K could also have huge outstanding liabilities. If you get a regularly scheduled paycheck, you don't have the same liquidity problem.

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 19:58:38 PM CST

[ Parent ]

"Huge outstanding liabilities" (0.00 / 0)

If those liabilities are part of his income generating business, such as inventory of goods to sell or capital equipment to improve productivity, they are not taxed. (The capital investment might be depreciated over several years, though.)

If those huge liabilities are NOT a cost of doing business, boo hoo.

---

by: elwood @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 21:30:09 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I wasn't trying to say (0.00 / 0)

it's a tax factor, but rather a question of whether you have the cash to write the check.

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 22:01:41 PM CST

[ Parent ]

That's a valid point. (0.00 / 0)

We've learned in recent years that there absolutely is too much risk, but the fact is that making money often requires risking a great deal--even to a responsible degree, risk is risk.

--
@DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 23:38:41 PM CST

[ Parent ]

There's a lot more than money at risk (4.00 / 1)

if you're in that bottom 20%. Lots of people down that end have no meaningful health coverage and thus stand to lose everything if they have any issues arise for which they need health care. And I mean everything - not just money, but lives are lost by people every day in this situation in our state.

If you're going to talk about risk, let's talk about that risk.

While someone might take various kinds of risks to clear $480K in income, I don't see any reason why that type of risk should mean it would somehow be bad for society for such a person to  pay the same 8.3% on that $480K that the poor pay on their incomes.

And then we should think about using some of that money to make sure that people don't die from lack of money and having no health care available.

---

by: beverlywoods @ Sat Nov 28, 2009 at 05:52:46 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Also good points. (0.00 / 0)

I don't have the answer.

--
@DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Sat Nov 28, 2009 at 13:55:10 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Cash to write the check (4.00 / 2)

Why does the tax obligation take a back seat to every other debt this Randian hero owes? The suppliers to his business don't say, "He's doing well but we have to excuse his payments this quarter: cash flow, you know."

Whereas the person who works for him, when his transmission conks out, and cash is tight, gets no such special consideration in your policy world.

---

by: elwood @ Sat Nov 28, 2009 at 05:58:50 AM CST

[ Parent ]

How about 5%? (0.00 / 0)

That's the rate of the NH income tax that is already on the books - otherwise known as the interest and dividends tax.  It's payable by anyone who has more than $2400 in interest or dividend income ($4800 for joint filers).

Of course, whatever is paid can be deducted on one's federal return.

Why is it unfair for everyone to pay the same rate?  

---

by: NHFlatlander @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 19:47:14 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Same overall tax rate? (0.00 / 0)

or just income tax rate. This is inclusive of state and local property taxes.

Also, at the federal level, no one seems to think flat income taxes are fair, so I don't know why to that same crowd would find it fair at the state level.

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 20:05:33 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Apples, oranges. (0.00 / 0)

The ITEP percentages are total state tax burden (sales/excise, property, income) relative to earnings.

The flat tax is a Steve Forbes (and John E. Sununu, and others) faux-egalitarian scam to pay less income tax, and levied on the backs of the middle class.

For an income tax to be fair in practical terms it has to be progressive, and with a graduated rate. But Steve Forbes knows this.

An example:

Simplified hypothetical example:

Let's examine a hypothetical example of a true flat tax (we have to use a hypothetical example because none of the actual proposals is a true flat tax) and compare it with a simplified example of a hypothetical progressive system. Let's imagine a progressive system with three rates: 15% on the first $25,000 income layer, 28% on the next $30,000 layer (from $25,000 to $55,000) and 33% above $55,000. A person who earns $25,000 would be entirely in the first 15% layer, for a tax of $3,750. His take-home pay is $21,250. A flat 20% rate would raise the working guy's taxes by $1,250.

A person earning $200,000 (the wealthiest 2% of the population) pays an exactly equal $3,750 for the first $25,000 layer. For the layer from $25,000 to $55,000 he pays the 28% tax of $8,400; and for the final $145,000 layer he pays the 33% tax of $47,850 for a total tax of $60,000. His take-home pay is $140,000 -- more than six times that of the $25,000 worker. With a flat 20% rate the investor's taxes would go down by $20,000!

birch, finch, beech

---

by: Dean Barker @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 20:24:01 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Right, which is not what everybody pays 5% (0.00 / 0)

suggests in the reply above. That's a flat tax.

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 20:38:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]

We're not talking about federal taxes. (4.00 / 1)

It is my impression that NH requires everyone in a 'class" to be taxed at the same rate, therefore a graduated income tax wouldn't be constitutional.

From the Claremont II decision:

In this appeal we hold that the present system of financing elementary and secondary public education in New Hampshire is unconstitutional. To hold otherwise would be to effectively conclude that it is reasonable, in discharging a State obligation, to tax property owners in one town or city as much as four times the amount taxed to others similarly situated in other towns or cities. This is precisely the kind of taxation and fiscal mischief from which the framers of our State Constitution took strong steps to protect our citizens.

and

In order . . . that the tax should be proportional . . . it is required that the rate shall be the same throughout the taxing district; -- that is, if the tax is for the general purposes of the state, the rate should be the same throughout the state; if for the county, it should be uniform throughout the county; -- and the requisite of proportion, or equality and justice, can be answered in no other way.

If your business is a llc or partnership, you already are paying the 5% interest and dividends tax as well as a business enterprise tax. If your tax liability is over $500, then you must be quarterly estimates, so budgeting shouldn't be a problem.

Here's a list of some of NH's taxes http://www.nh.gov/revenue/faq/...

In order for an income tax to effectively reduce the tax burden on the lower income earners, other changes would need to be made - including totally eliminating the school portion of the property tax and having the state actually pay for schools.  

---

by: NHFlatlander @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 20:55:47 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Proportionality (0.00 / 0)

It's Part II Article 5:

and also to impose fines, mulcts, imprisonments, and other punishments, and to impose and levy proportional and reasonable assessments, rates, and taxes, upon all the inhabitants of, and residents within, the said state; and upon all estates within the same;

That has been assumed to prohibit a basic graduated tax - but I don't believe there is any real NH SCOTUS precedent, and various adjustments such as elderly exemptions appear to diddle with proportionality today.

---

by: elwood @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 21:22:19 PM CST

[ Parent ]

flat isn't fair, but what we have now is worse (4.00 / 1)

Alex, what we have now is a regressive tax structure: the less you make, the more of it you have to pay. A flat amount across the tax brackets would not be ideal, but it would be a lot better than the poor having to pay more than the rich.

---

by: beverlywoods @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 21:25:24 PM CST

[ Parent ]

This is obscene and ignorant. (4.00 / 2)

I think $40K in taxes is probably a bigger hit to someone who makes $480K than $2K is to somebody who makes $25K. It's a lot harder to bank that $40K for your tax bill a year later.

It is not just hard, it is impossible for the average wage earner to bank $2000 of a $25,000 yearly income. One source here.

It's also the equivalent of one taxpayer paying for one mid level bureaucrat.

$40,000 does not pay for wages and benefits of "one mid-level bureaucrat."  That's the low end of the compensation scale in private and public sectors.

And calling a teacher, nurse, or highway worker a "mid-level bureaucrat" would be insulting if it were not so laughable.

---

by: elwood @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 20:50:13 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Well, let's talk specifics. It was now nine years ago, but after teaching (0.00 / 0)

on the university level for 40 years, the spouse was earning $48,000 gross.  Now, his combined income from the state pension (Florida) and Social Security is $44,000 and feels like wealth because, of course, we no longer have children to raise and are both healthy.  Property taxes in Durham take an $11,000 bite for a house that cost us $35,000 to build in 1976.  The assessment for tax purposes, after 30+ years of wear and tear is $390,000.  That's unrealistic and anyone who would pay that is a fool.
But, that's not the point of this recitation.  While I don't approve of homestead or elderly exemptions from property taxes, there is a state of NH provision which permits someone to petition for relief on grounds of poverty.  But, in making application for such relief, the property owner not only has to reveal financial assets but explain why other "options" (selling the property, moving away, taking out a new loan) are not appropriate.  Indeed, if the person moves in with family and doesn't live on the property the abatement isn't available either.  Which is very likely why 1/3 of the houses within a mile of ours are sitting vacant.  People can't even afford to rent them and take on the additional liability and potential for destructive behavior.  Oh, and that vacancy rate was in place long before the recent bubble burst.
And btw, the health insurance the town pays for the administrator is $17,000.  

---

by: hannah @ Sat Nov 28, 2009 at 06:06:40 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Alaex sauys: (0.00 / 0)

"I think $40K in taxes is probably a bigger hit to someone who makes $480K than $2K is to somebody who makes $25K.  

-----


Thanks for all the fish


-----

---

by: TimothyHorrigan @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 21:32:00 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Alex says: (4.00 / 1)

(Sorry my computer is acting up)

I think $40K in taxes is probably a bigger hit to someone who makes $480K than $2K is to somebody who makes $25K.

With all due respect, Alex, that is an insane remark.  The poor person has their cash flow reduced from an amount which is not really enough to live on, $25k, to one which is even less, $23k.  

The richer person in this hypothetical example has cash flow even after taxes which is enough to live on comfortably just about anywhere (unless you are a coke addict or Paris Hilton).

The only way I can get my head around your statement would be to recall that rich people tend to assume that they got where they are  because of their sterling personal qualities with no help from the government.  Even rich people who made their fortunes off government contracts (e.g., Jim Bender & Jack Kimball) tend to see themselves as adversaries of the government. So maybe that make it harder for the person with the $480k income to accept paying a significant %age of their money to the government.  A poor person may also not be too fond of the government, but their opposition is more likely to be a specific antipathy to specific things the government does rather than a blanket opposition to all government activities.

-----


Thanks for all the fish


-----

---

by: TimothyHorrigan @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 21:49:54 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Pete DuPont would blush in shame to speak Gallichon's words. (4.00 / 1)

A flat tax is unfair to the wealthiest! $2000 from the pauper, $2000 from the prince. That's fair!

Fortunately this economically and socially destructive notion was rejected by New Hampshire's founders, long before Dickens.

---

by: elwood @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 20:33:36 PM CST

I don't have a stake in it in any case (0.00 / 0)

I just want to see the idea elucidated.

If I felt very firmly about something, to me, it wouldn't be worth discussing in the first place.

Under our current tax system, for the rich to pay more, they would have to live in more expensive houses, but there's after a certain point, such property values would be unreasonable for what you get, relative to income or not.

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 20:41:56 PM CST

[ Parent ]

That's it exactly. (0.00 / 0)

Under our current tax system, for the rich to pay more, they would have to live in more expensive houses, but there's after a certain point, such property values would be unreasonable for what you get, relative to income or not.

Funding a state largely through a property tax was a progressive idea... in the pre-industrial age.

Our income is no longer accurately pegged to land ownership, but NH pretends it is.

birch, finch, beech

---

by: Dean Barker @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 20:52:30 PM CST

[ Parent ]

All states pretend it is n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 20:54:41 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Not true. (0.00 / 0)

As these diaries have shown, our neighbors in Vermont make no such pretense. They have a tax structure that keeps property tax in balance.

---

by: elwood @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 21:00:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]

they have property taxes in vermont (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 21:02:01 PM CST

[ Parent ]

and they have a substantial Homestead Exemption (4.00 / 3)

in Vermont as well. We don't have one here. That makes a huge difference.

I spoke last week to a friend of mine in Vermont who is finding the economy challenging and not making a lot of money right now. Fortunately, her property taxes are reduced about 50% by the Homestead Exemption, and because of her low income she gets health coverage through the state's Catamount program for about $75 a month.

Being in about the same financial boat on this side of the river, I pay a lot more and get a lot less. The kind of stress inflicted by our tax structure and lack of state services puts our NH workers and citizens at risk and disadvantage.

---

by: beverlywoods @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 21:19:46 PM CST

[ Parent ]

No. (0.00 / 0)

All states have a mix of types of taxes. Property does play a role in determining revenue.

But in NH, in the almost total absence of an income tax, that role is outsized, and more appropriate to a pre-industrial age citizenry.

birch, finch, beech

---

by: Dean Barker @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 21:06:56 PM CST

[ Parent ]

This is a conversation worth having, and nobody else is having it. (0.00 / 0)

In most political circles in the state, an income tax is entirely off the table. Among BH regulars, the lack of one is almost entirely off the table.

I applaud Alex for holding up one side of a public debate alone among those actually debating.

--
@DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 23:47:28 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Don't paint everybody with (0.00 / 0)

the same brush, Doug. I'm not sure an income tax is the panacea for what ails us, but I know the "pledge" is a dead end. It's taking a potential tool away from policy makers. It ends a debate before it begins.

Would you want your surgeon to "pledge" not to use a certain instrument he may need for your operation? Would you want your auto mechanic to "pledge" not to use a soldering iron because you or better yet, somebody else is philosophically opposed to it?

I agree with Dean that the property tax is a pre-industrial form of income tax, but I would submit the income tax is an industrial form, and we are not in the industrial, but post industrial age. We may need to rethink more than just taxes in this situation.

Hannah's comment is very instructional, and shows how divorced from reality we are with economics in general. A house that actually cost her $35,000 is now said to be worth ten times that and taxed accordingly. Yet nobody has paid that for the house. The whole thing is based on what somebody thinks a property is worth at any given time. I consider this to be a fantasy. There's no money there, but a house and land. There's no buyer unless the house and land are selling. Nothing's happening. If one really thinks about it, it makes no sense.  

---

by: Jennifer Daler @ Sat Nov 28, 2009 at 06:59:03 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I'm not advocating a side (4.00 / 1)

I'm also not disregarding consideration in the legislature.  I'm just saying it's worth debating.

--
@DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Sat Nov 28, 2009 at 13:52:30 PM CST

[ Parent ]

NH House Ways and Means Committee had two days worth in October. (4.00 / 3)

As far as I can see, the conversation is happening all the time.

The most extensive and recent conversation took place on October 21-22.  The NH House Ways and Means Committee held a two day informational session to examine our revenue structure.  The goal was to step back and analyse our present revenue structure and what effects various changes might have.  The presenters invited were chosen because they represented a wide spectrum of views on the revenue question.  The Right criticised the session  as a blatant attempt to impose an income tax.  Others, I am sure, believe the session did not go far enough in advocating that particular change.

I cannot think of a Democratic caucus or meeting I have attended having to do with our agenda where the subject has not been discussed, exhaustively.  Bills creating an income tax are filed regularly in the House.  But even the Democrats are not united on this issue.  The prime example is the Governor, who has promised to veto any income tax that makes it to his desk.  Those who are pragmatic tend to turn their energy from that which is currently impossible to looking at what actually has a chance of making it through the current House, the current Senate and the Governor.

Even for those who favor an income tax, the devil is, as they say, in the details.  In the end, it comes down to the specifics of whatever proposal is on the table.  Look at the current proposals  to enlarge the revenue stream from gambling.  Proponents say that anyone who opposes revenue from "gaming" simply has an income tax as a hidden agenda.  But the analysis is much more complicated than that.  Some oppose gambling revenue from all sources because of the attendant societal costs.  Some, who do not object to the state-run lottery, have enormous concerns about handing control of a large portion of the state revenue stream to one huge out-of-state corporation, which might then be in the "too big to fail" category.  (The analogy that comes to mind is thinking that having Verizon sell all our antiquated land lines to an out-of-state company, which was then huge and saddled with enormous debt, would result in better service....)

The sad fact remains that in poll after poll, if you ask the New Hampshire people what kind of tax structure they favor, the answer is always the same--increase the cigarette tax.  

Several years ago, at out town meeting, I was arguing in favor of the Fair Tax Coalition's petition to get politicians to stop taking The Pledge.  (BTW, hardly anyone in my part of the state has taken The Pledge in quite some time.) I was roundly criticised by a person who is undoubtedly incredibly burdened under the present tax structure.  The reasoning was to the effect that I should not be proposing to stick it to the rich, because the rich had already paid their fair share.

And the conversation continues...

---

by: Lucy Weber @ Sat Nov 28, 2009 at 07:38:38 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Thanks for that! (4.00 / 2)

To this:

The sad fact remains that in poll after poll, if you ask the New Hampshire people what kind of tax structure they favor, the answer is always the same--increase the cigarette tax.

I reply: pollsters need better questions from those commissioning them.  Of course a leading question like that would give a response like that.

How about: a) Were you aware that NH makes the bottom 20% pay over 4x as much as the top 1%?  b) knowing this, should these percentages be made more fair?

birch, finch, beech

---

by: Dean Barker @ Sat Nov 28, 2009 at 08:07:14 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Or simple arithmetic: (4.00 / 1)

How much revenue can a cigarette tax bring in, if prices go 5% above neighboring states? What do you do to fill the remaining gap?

---

by: elwood @ Sat Nov 28, 2009 at 08:29:42 AM CST

[ Parent ]

cigarette buyers don't seem too price-sensitive (4.00 / 1)

I am not a smoker, but I will go ahead and say that my casual observations indicate that cigarette buyers are not too price-sensitive.  I see them buying one pack a time at the Marketbasket in Lee when they could buy a carton for a deep discount. (The Lee Marketbasket is a handy place to observe cigarette buying because at that fairly popular store you can only buy smokes at the express line, and I am an express-line kinda grocery shopper.) I also don't see many tobacco superstores catering to bargain-hunting smokers. There are a few specialty tobacco shops here and there, but they tend to be high-end places purveying fancy cigars and/or serving as informal social clubs for smokers: they don't seem to be bargain basements.

Maybe some actual smokers will be able to cotradict me, but I frankly find it almost impossible to believe that many smokers drive around from state to state looking for the lowest cigarette taxes and stocking up when they find the best deal.  In my experience, the typical smokers seems to only plan ahead maybe half a pack at a time at most.

-----


Thanks for all the fish


-----

---

by: TimothyHorrigan @ Sat Nov 28, 2009 at 18:33:58 PM CST

[ Parent ]

"Plan ahead" (0.00 / 0)

And smokers tend to be lower income, so they can't afford to buy in cheaper monthly quantities or shop across states.

Yeah, my thought that there was a cap on how much we could keep running the state on the backs of the addicted poor, was probably naive.

---

by: elwood @ Sat Nov 28, 2009 at 20:27:03 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I don;t know but... (0.00 / 0)

The cigarette tax was one of only 3 taxes whose revenue went UP in FY09 compared to FY08.  It went up by a lot: from $165,821,083 to $193,893,330 (an increase of $28,072,247.)  In FY09, the tobacco tax was the 3rd-biggest tax,  after the BPT and Rooms & Meals.  

The two other taxes which went up were the Communications Services Tax and the Utility Property Tax.

REVENUE BREAKDOWN BY SOURCE
FY 08 FY 09 Change
Business Profits Tax 373,427,632 305,497,834 (67,929,798)
Business Enterprise Tax 222,225,230 174,855,792 (47,369,438)
Meals & Rental Tax 214,258,477 210,069,413 (4,189,064)
Tobacco Tax 165,821,083 193,893,330 28,072,247
Interest & Dividends Tax 115,928,152 97,372,040 (18,556,112)
Estate & Legacy Tax 111,396 61,887 (49,509)
Communications Svs Tax 79,509,885 80,932,268 1,422,383
Real Estate Transfer Tax 117,153,685 83,477,646 (33,676,039)
Utility Property Tax 24,209,319 28,942,542 4,733,223
Electricity Consumption Tax 6,285,323 6,073,712 (211,611)
Other 515,220 672,438 157,218
TOTAL 1,319,445,402 1,181,848,902 (137,596,500)

-----


Thanks for all the fish


-----

---

by: TimothyHorrigan @ Sat Dec 05, 2009 at 20:35:08 PM CST

[ Parent ]

If you go (4.00 / 3)

here and scroll down, you can listen to the information sessions mentioned in Lucy's post.

---

by: Jennifer Daler @ Sat Nov 28, 2009 at 08:21:54 AM CST

[ Parent ]

For what it's worth, (0.00 / 0)

I'm against all political pledges.

--
@DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Sat Nov 28, 2009 at 13:54:05 PM CST

[ Parent ]

a trivial comment related to some current tabloid news: (4.00 / 1)

Tiger Woods's choice of domicile came up in passing during the info session on October 21-22.  One of the arguments against an income tax was that the absence of such as tax attracts individuals with high incomes to our state.  One of the economist used Tiger Woods as an example: he left California for Florida  (another state with no broad-based income tax) to avoid income taxes.  

If we had an income tax, we would not have been on Tiger's short list of states which he was willing to move to.  And supposedly having the Tiger Woodses of the world moving to our state is a very, very good thing--- so good it is worth foregoing an income tax just to get them here.  

The info session happened before Tiger's mysterious car crash and the fallout from that incident.  Right now, I think it's just as well that his car crash happened in Florida rather than New Hampshire.

His house, by the way, was supposedly worth only $2.4M, which is a lot of money, but but still less than the assessed value of many nice but not extraordinary properties here in NH.  I am wondering: Does he simply live in a relatively modest house for a person with his absurdly huge earnings? - or, was this just a pied a terre he uses for tax purposes while he actually spends most of his time someplace with an income tax? - or, does Florida assess properties differently than NH?

-----


Thanks for all the fish


-----

---

by: TimothyHorrigan @ Sun Nov 29, 2009 at 16:10:54 PM CST

[ Parent ]

So, not having an income tax is good because (0.00 / 0)

it helps the rich find an on-shore tax haven?

And this helps NH how, exactly?  The extra Benjamins they would throw down on butlers?

It's not like the wealthy who want to start businesses in New Hampshire need to live in New Hampshire to do it.  See Loeb, William.

birch, finch, beech

---

by: Dean Barker @ Sun Nov 29, 2009 at 17:27:33 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Capital flight (0.00 / 0)

to Florida or Alaska helps NH how?

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Sun Nov 29, 2009 at 23:35:44 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Being the onshore version (0.00 / 0)

of the Cayman islands is not the kind of strategic long-term economic plan I want coming out of my state.

Or to put it another way, depending on the selfishness of the rich so that they may throw some business our way is not the kind of strategic long-term economic plan I want coming out of my state.

Or to put it another way, that thinking applied to city government is the path to Walmart-ism.  

birch, finch, beech

---

by: Dean Barker @ Mon Nov 30, 2009 at 04:53:32 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Percentage of millionaires (4.00 / 1)

California has a higher percentage, 5.28%, of millionaires per household than Florida, 4.62%.  New Hampshire ranks 8th  with 27,562 (5.34%).  Hawaii is 1st, followed by Maryland, New Jersey, Connecticut, Virginia, Massachusetts and Alaska.

---

by: NHFlatlander @ Sun Nov 29, 2009 at 20:55:30 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Simple and Fair? (4.00 / 1)

What's the thought around the idea of:
1) Wiping out the statewide property tax completely
2) Instituting a tax on income as a straight percentage of what one pays in federal taxes.

So you pay a simple percentage of what you pay to the feds to the state, for public education only. If you pay no federal, you pay no state tax.

Suggestions as to percent of federal that would raise enough revenue and be fair?

No'm Sayn?

---

by: BurtCohen @ Sat Nov 28, 2009 at 16:55:22 PM CST

Oh Yes (0.00 / 0)

While we're at it, wipe out the burdensome and unfair Business Enterprise Tax,
and the Interest and Dividends Tax
(already an income tax which falls largely on the elderly).

No'm Sayn?

---

by: BurtCohen @ Sat Nov 28, 2009 at 16:58:10 PM CST

[ Parent ]

There's a common perception that the NH Constitution (0.00 / 0)

prohibits that. The "reasonable and proportional" thing.

I'm not 100% convinced of that, but that's the conventional wisdom.

---

by: elwood @ Sat Nov 28, 2009 at 16:59:36 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Proportional taxes (4.00 / 1)

My understanding is that what is prohibited is a graduated tax, e.g. 3% on the first 40,000 of income, 4% on the next $40,000, nad so on.  You have to tax everyone at the same rate, but it is my understanding that is is acceptable to put a threshold at which the tax would start, so you could, for example, exempt the first $25,000 of income, provided everyone pays at the same rate after that.

This would prohibit taxing a percentage of your federal tax liability, as that would be based on a graduated schedule.  However, there is no prohibition that I know of against simply charging a straight persentage, say, 3% of taxable income, or adjusted gross income, as calculated for federal tax purposes.

---

by: Lucy Weber @ Sun Nov 29, 2009 at 09:14:38 AM CST

[ Parent ]