Help for high property taxes - PASS THIS!

[Ms Merge]

Folks,

Our liberty minded state legislature has passed recent legislation that will allow TOWNS to pass a tax cap. We will have a 0% Tax Cap on the ballot for Gilford in March 2012. I would like to see every town on the big lake pass a tax cap. It is really quite cook book see the following link for the form

http://www.cnht.org/news/2011/11/27/...hool-tax-caps/
You will need TWO, one for the School District and one for the Town. Only registered voters can sign the petition. Non resident tax payers can help. Start writing editorials and rallying your resident neighbors to sign up and vote for this.

What a tax cap does is hold down the INCREASE in the amount of money that can be raised from property taxation.

May the force be with you!

For Liberty,
Ms Merge

[LIforrelaxin]

Ok I understand the point here. However do we not think 0% is going a bit to far? While I agree municipal spending is out of control. I don't believe that tying hands behind the back is the way to go.

The thing about getting successful legislation enacted to stop uncontrolled spending of public dollars, is to make sure that said legislation does not inhibit growth.

In order for communities to grow the most be allowed some avenue of freedom.

I do believe in capping growth, so as not to have the spending growth, exceed what is need... but not to the point of stifling growth.

[Ms Merge]

The petitioned warrant article for a tax cap does not have to be 0%. You can cap it at whatever you feel your town needs and what you can get the voters to agree on. Why did I and others agree on 0% for Gilford? Well simply put Gilford spent its way into the real estate bubble raising its spending 59% for the town from 2000 to 2010 and 69% for the school budget over that same period. It has killed the real estate values. Assessments are back down to the 2005/2006 levels and falling but the spending is way above that. There has been a budget committee in place for years and an outspoken tax advocate group but the town and the school continue to spend. Gilford's tax rate is 18.55 now which blows away the other towns on the big lake. It will be 19 next year and probably 20 the year after. Gilford has 48% non resident tax payers who are simply walking away and selling cheap. This continues to drive down the assessments and drive up the tax rate. Time to stop the spending increases.

Ms. Merge

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by Ms Merge

The petitioned warrant article for a tax cap does not have to be 0%. You can cap it at whatever you feel your town needs and what you can get the voters to agree on. Why did I and others agree on 0% for Gilford? Well simply put Gilford spent its way into the real estate bubble raising its spending 59% for the town from 2000 to 2010 and 69% for the school budget over that same period. It has killed the real estate values. Assessments are back down to the 2005/2006 levels and falling but the spending is way above that. There has been a budget committee in place for years and an outspoken tax advocate group but the town and the school continue to spend. Gilford's tax rate is 18.55 now which blows away the other towns on the big lake. It will be 19 next year and probably 20 the year after. Gilford has 48% non resident tax payers who are simply walking away and selling cheap. This continues to drive down the assessments and drive up the tax rate. Time to stop the spending increases.

Ms. Merge

With this said, A cap is really not what is needed in Gilford. Sure a cap will stop any further growth. However it will not address the problem of over spending. It sounds to me as though what is really need in Gilford is for the towns people to really get involved in the government, and start asking for justification of expenditures. If you don't question the government they will continue to run amuck. At a town level you need to get involved.. A cap will fix future problems, but it sounds like right now Gilford needs to fix a current problem....

Now with that said, what is driving the increases over the last several years?
Infrastructure growth? salary increases?

I agree in most communities it is time to address issues, but don't put band aids where root canals are needed.

[Slickcraft]

The budget submitted to a town meeting would have meet the cap. The town meeting has the authority to override the cap. The town meeting has always had the authority to increase or decrease the submitted budget so adoption of a cap would not really change much.

32:5-b Local Tax Cap. – Upon adoption under RSA 32:5-c, the following shall apply:
I. In a town or district that has adopted this section, the estimated amount of local taxes to be raised for the fiscal year, as shown on the budget certified by the governing body or the budget committee and posted with the warrant for the annual meeting pursuant to RSA 32:5, shall not exceed the local taxes raised for the prior year, as shown on the same budget, by more than the tax cap authorized when this section was adopted.
II. The tax cap shall be either a fixed dollar amount or a fixed percentage applied to the amount of local taxes raised by the town or district for the prior fiscal year as reported to the department of revenue administration.
III. The legislative body may override the cap by the usual procedures applicable to annual meetings and deliberative sessions of the legislative body. The provisions of this section shall not limit the legislative body's authority to increase or decrease the amount of any appropriation or the total amount of all appropriations.

[Rusty]

I think there should be a tax cap on everyone except for Lake front property owners. If they can afford multi-million dollar houses and only live in them part time then they should be willing to pay more each year. They pay more and us poor folks pay less.

[Ms Merge]

In SB2 towns (which Gilford is) a 0% tax cap will prevent the school board and the selectmen from proposing a budget that increases the amount raised from property taxes larger than the previous year. To vote in a tax cap it must pass by 3/5ths vote. In order to remove a tax cap it requires 3/5th vote. It is correct that at Deliberative Session the spenders can come in and increase various provisions of the budget. You are also correct that the people of Gilford that want to control spending need to get involved. This is at least a start. What is driving the spending? Mostly the increase in wages to the government workers. I have always been puzzeled why people think that the private sector should suffer from inflation, increased health care costs, increased fuel costs but the government workers should not. Essentially what has happened in Gilford is that the government workers get raises, 95% to 100% benefits paid for and a retirement that in most cases is far better than social security. The private sector worker takes the hit twice once for himself and then again when they have to foot the bill for the government worker through taxation. So the private sector gets hit TWICE. How is this fair?

[Woodsy]

0% tax cap? thats kinda funny! Somehow linking it to the Federal CPI similar to Laconia might be a little more realistic.

I do think its funny how people (mostly out of state) complain about taxes in NH... a state that ranks 44th in overall tax burden! Compared to the rest of New England states all of whom rank in the top 10 for tax burden!

Woodsy

[MDoug]

Originally Posted by Rusty

I think there should be a tax cap on everyone except for Lake front property owners. If they can afford multi-million dollar houses and only live in them part time then they should be willing to pay more each year. They pay more and us poor folks pay less.

You would kill the goose that lays the golden egg just to satisfy your socioeconomic class prejudice, it seems! Island property owners already shoulder the lion's share of taxes, and most of us do not have multi-million dollar houses,

[John A. Birdsall]

A -25 cap on lakefront property is warranted You have taxed people that are more than willing to help the local towns but they do not like being taken advantage of. Taxation without representation was fought in Boston Harbor.
The views have been taxed and waterfront property has been taxed, and just how many of these homes cannot be used as such during the winter because of lack of water? Lack of access to the island. I would love to live up there year round but with winterization and water problems it is impossible.

[Argie's Wife]

Taxes don't always go up because spending goes up, but when the assessed values of the properties in any given town goes DOWN, then the tax rate must be increased to raise and appropriate the funds approved by the voters.

In other words: Just because you have a 0% tax cap, that doesn't mean that your taxes won't go up anyways.

[Ridgefarmer63]

Originally Posted by Argie's Wife

Taxes don't always go up because spending goes up, but when the assessed values of the properties in any given town goes DOWN, then the tax rate must be increased to raise and appropriate the funds approved by the voters.

In other words: Just because you have a 0% tax cap, that doesn't mean that your taxes won't go up anyways.

Amen sister.

Death and taxes, horseshoes and hand grenades. but we still have each other and this fabulous forum !!!

[ITD]

Ok, I'm confused here. Typically a tax cap limits the amount the tax levy can increase. Tax levy defined as the total amount of money raised via property taxes. The tax rate multiplied by the valuation add up to the levy, which after this law is passed will be not allowed to increase (the town and school portions in this case) unless a large percentage of voters vote to raise it.

Changing valuations do not change the total taxes collected, although due to inaccuracies in accessing properties some individual tax bills may increase or decrease, most pay the same amount PLUS increases added because of increased spending by local and state government.

That's the way most of the rest of the world works when talking property taxes, is NH different?

[Argie's Wife]

Let me rephrase my earlier post:

Just because you have 0% budget request increase, that doesn't mean your taxes will stay the same.

Taxes will go up or down based on the property owners' overall assessed values. The lower the values, the more money that will need to be raised.

[I'm posting those comments, above, to those posters who have associated a tax cap with a budget cap. They are NOT the same.]

Ms. Merge posted about a 0% tax increase and stated: "Time to stop the spending increases."

If you're saying that you're okay with paying $16.55/1000, I guess I get that, but can you see a decrease if the property assessments go up? Is this really a good time to freeze a tax rate when assessments are low and the rates are high?

By the way, I believe that in an SB-2 town the proposed budget articles can only be changed by 10% from the floor of a deliberative session. I don't have the RSA at hand to double check that now.

[ITD]

Tax levy is the total amount the taxpayers pay to the town. That is very consistent in that it doesn't matter what valuations are, they change the tax rate to assure that the same levy is raised the next year. During the year if increased spending is approved then the levy must be raised with the tax rate adjusted accordingly. If a new valuation is done in a given year and valuations are down, then the tax rate is increased so that the levy is consistent. If a new valuation is done and valuations go up, then the tax rate is adjusted down, again to keep the levy consistent.

Taxes go up because politicians spend more, that's it. I'm pretty sure this bill caps the levy, which in my opinion can be a good thing, especially at 0 %, which forces politicians to ask the voters for more money, something they aren't required to do now.

It's a myth that rising property values cause taxes to increase, just like it's a myth that falling property values cause taxes to decrease. Politicians spending your money make taxes go up.


Freezing the tax rate can't work, freezing the levy works great.

[Argie's Wife]

Taxes go up because politicians spend more, that's it.

Voters approve the recommended budgets for towns and schools - when they don't approve the recommended budgets then the town or school district has a default budget. Governing bodies can't spend more money than what was approved by the voters. If the voters approve a $6M budget for a town, then that's what the Selectmen have to work with to manage the town.

[tis]

The problem is that most people have no idea what they are voting for.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Argie's Wife

Voters approve the recommended budgets for towns and schools - when they don't approve the recommended budgets then the town or school district has a default budget. Governing bodies can't spend more money than what was approved by the voters. If the voters approve a $6M budget for a town, then that's what the Selectmen have to work with to manage the town.

What you say is correct for towns with town meeting, absolutely. So ipso facto tax rate and valuations have nothing at all to do with rising taxes. Politicians spending money causes taxes to rise, sometimes their spending needs to be directly approved by the voters, as in town meeting government. Sometimes politician spending does not need to be approved by the voters as in many cities and the state government.

[neckdweller]

Originally Posted by Rusty

I think there should be a tax cap on everyone except for Lake front property owners. If they can afford multi-million dollar houses and only live in them part time then they should be willing to pay more each year. They pay more and us poor folks pay less.

I'm hoping my sarcasm meter is working properly and this was said with tongue firmly in cheek. Otherwise, there's so many things wrong with this post I'm not even sure where to start.

[Rattlesnake Guy]

OK, now I am confused.

Is it a cap on the total taxes that can be raised?

or

Is it a cap on the tax rate?

It makes little sense to cap the rate as the it will change as a result of the simple calculation done each year.

Tax Rate = total taxes to be raised / (total value of property as currently valued / 1000)

The town can't fix the second half of the equation. It would be nice if they could control the first half.

I don't care if my rate goes down but my tax bill goes up.

[ITD]

RG,

We have prop 2 1/2 here in taxachusetts and it caps the levy increase at 2 1/2 percent. Unfortunately most if not all towns take the max increase each year. But, were this not in place the increases would be much higher, which was the motivation for the proposition in the first place. When prop 2 1/2 first came in, the average tax bill was maybe $500, now the average tax bill is more like $4,000 so 2 1/2 percent is a much larger chunk out of a pay check or social security check than it used to be.

I read the RSA, but I didn't see where it mentioned how this would be done. I would assume that the only way to do this is to limit the levy. Which would limit the rise on your tax bill, except when revaluation years potentially skew things.

[Slickcraft]

Originally Posted by Rattlesnake Guy

OK, now I am confused.

Is it a cap on the total taxes that can be raised?

or

Is it a cap on the tax rate?

It makes little sense to cap the rate as the it will change as a result of the simple calculation done each year.

Tax Rate = total taxes to be raised / (total value of property as currently valued / 1000)

The town can't fix the second half of the equation. It would be nice if they could control the first half.

I don't care if my rate goes down but my tax bill goes up.

Did you read the actual wording of the law in post #5? Clearly it is a cap on taxes to be raised.