Waterfront Poor

[scubajay1153]

I like that people can debate, discuss, disagree/agree and such here and still do it in a friendly and civil manner. And with some good old fashion humor tossed in to boot. Touche!
And waterfront poor? Hm...is that possible?

[fatlazyless]

Yes, ScubaJay, there really is a growing number of waterfront poor and I'm one of them and here's why. My Winnipesaukee waterfront house is one of those ' before ' type of houses, as in before it gets torn down and a big fancy one gets built in its' place by the next owner. What it is, is a super-terrific location with a 1/4 acre, moderately level lot-55' water frontage-55 year old, two bed, winterized cottage built on piers w/ no foundation, & domestic water pumped from the lake (also winterized by me). I purchased it in 1992 for 175k. In the last four years, the Town of Meredith has upped the assessment from 250k to 801k, and the property tax has gone from $2800. to $8500./year or about $700./month. So, keeping up with the $700 monthly prop tax has turned me into a waterfront poor guy. And, I plan on owning the place for the next 40 years, at least... I have managed to pay off the mortgage, and now the property tax is getting to be like a mortgage payment, only it never gets paid off, and it keeps getting bigger.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

"...I have managed to pay off the mortgage, and now the property tax is getting to be like a mortgage payment, only it never gets paid off, and it keeps getting bigger..."

Those words are reminiscent of the song, "16 Tons"...

...another day older, and deeper in debt...
St. Peter, don't y'call me 'cause I cain't go-o-o-o-o...
I owe my soul to the Company Store.

(With apologies to Tennessee Ernie Ford...)

[fatlazyless]

Hey ScubaJay, as long as I got your attenton here, let me ask you a different but related question. You mentioned how the state employee pension system has problems because it is low on the dough. Plus, many public schools and county nursing homes across the state are also short of cash. as well.

As a tractor-trailer truck driver, I like to think about the NH tax system when I'm not shifting gears, or making tight right hand turns and looking in the mirrors at the back corner of the trailer. It has crossed my mind that the New Hampshire taxing system is basically a system that shelters the bigger earners from paying their fair share because NH has no state income tax and no state short or long term capital gains tax.

As a Laconia firefighter, let me run this new tax plan past you.
.......................

Representative James Kennedy D-Exeter has a bill that would do the following.

8% cap on property tax

repeal interest & dividend tax

3.5% income tax
exempt $22,000 for single tax payer
exempt additional $22,000 for single parent or married adult.

Rep Kennedy says it would capture a billion dollars a year loss from residents of Maine, Massachusetts, & Vermont who work in New Hampshire but pay taxes in their native state.
........................


How would this bill effect you?

.......................

Hey, is this a good tax idea , or this this a good idea, or what?

I like the one billion bucks capture, the two $22,000 exemptions, and the 8% annual property tax cap. And, it has the big earners, who have been getting a longtime free ride, finally paying their fair share!

[Coolbreeze]

Now the debate is how and where would the money be used? Also, why not tax boose and help boost the budgets of the schools with the revenue generated from that. It almost appears that the government is hitting people on land values and those that don't own in or just work in the state are slipping by. What effect will all this have on the effects of bringing in new business' to operate in the state and existing companies to stay in the state?
I understand the mentality of the residents of New Hampshire to resist taxation as most people do, but it appears that you and your resources are being taken avantage of and are being left to flip the bill for others from out of state. Am I wrong in thinking this?

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

It has crossed my mind that the New Hampshire taxing system is basically a system that shelters the bigger earners from paying their fair share because NH has no state income tax and no state short or long term capital gains tax.

This reminds me of the old saying, the only fair tax is one that taxes the other guy. Sheltering the bigger earners attracts them to NH - and raises the standard of living for everyone. Bigger earners have the money to support local businesses, making sure that walmart isn't the only choice we have. If you start talking "fair share", then it opens up other questions of fairness, such as why the gas tax is constant for all, or why childless couples have to pay the school tax. Why not a 'flat tax' - that seems fair. I'd rather not see NH ratchet up socialism and possiblly damage the state culture that values hard work by keeping its hands off your money.

[scubajay1153]

Les,
Interesting info on the state of your property and values/taxes. Like you mentioned it seems to me that the high tax rates on people with situations like yourself would almost be forcing people with small lake front homes/ cabins, etc. to seel off to people around them which in turn would make room for more McMansions along the sure as the rich gobble up the smaller plots and make them big ones. I found it amazing, the high amount of people who have homes up here that are only here enough time during a year to claim residency here to gain all of the "perks" but yet avoid alot of the negatives by not being FT residents. Much of Southdown SHores/Long Bay and GI seems to be vacant most of the year when we go the homes for fire alarm calls and such. Amazing that people have enough money to have $400,000 "summer place" in SDS and still maintain a home in MASS or COnn. Must be nice. :P As far as the Bill from Kennedy, sounds good to me, but my wife understands some of that stuff more then I.

Weirs Guy,
I will answer you honestly and say that I was in Concord running the dive shop the day the incident occured and I cannot say for certain where all of our people and assets where located thruought the city. But I can tell you that all three ambulances (two at Central, one in the Weirs), the Central Engine, the Weirs engine, the Dive Truck(Lakeport), and the Water Rescue truck (Central) all have rescue suits and accesory equipment and that the other units have PFDs, throw bags and rescue rope on them. Depending on the state of the gear (some maybe out for repair and such) sometimes even the Weirs Ladder has a suit. Also as I mention all of the fulltime LFD personnel are trained in the suits. It is a fair question to inquiry about having another ice rescue. If the water or ice rescue call comes in not only is the entire onduty staff sent with the closest unit and closest boat (one in the Weirs and one in Paugus Bay during non ice conditions) but also the water rescue truck with an inflatable boat, an ambulance and we automatically have Gilford respond with a rescue truck, ambulance and peoplepower as well as Belmont with an ambulance. This does not included the fact that we also call back all off duty personnel who can respond to the scene, to Lakeport for the Dive truck or to one of the stations to man back up units and ambulances.

Obviously if anyone has questions about the LFD and such please fire a question to me, Chief Erickson or one of his Deputies. Some people may be amazed about not only how understaffed we are by National Standards (not the Fire Chiefs fault!) but how highly trained and diverse the department and it's members are.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by scubajay1153

*******Correction added by ITD (in red italics)*******

Les,
Interesting info on the state of your property and values/taxes. Like you mentioned it seems to me that the high tax rates on people with situations like yourself, an owner of two homes, one worth $1,000,000+ , a position most people would love to be in, would almost be forcing people with small lake front homes/ cabins, etc. to seel off to people around them which in turn would make room for more McMansions along the sure as the rich gobble up the smaller plots and make them big ones. I found it amazing, the high amount of people who have homes up here that are only here enough time during a year to claim residency here to gain all of the "perks" but yet avoid alot of the negatives by not being FT residents. Much of Southdown SHores/Long Bay and GI seems to be vacant most of the year when we go the homes for fire alarm calls and such. Amazing that people have enough money to have $400,000 "summer place" in SDS and still maintain a home in MASS or COnn. Must be nice. :P As far as the Bill from Kennedy, sounds good to me, but my wife understands some of that stuff more then I.

There Scubajay, I fixed it for you, just making sure the whole story is told.

Also, consider this, from what I found, http://www.simplyhired.com/a/salary/...-Laconia%2C+NH

the average firefighter in Laconia makes $38,000 per year. With a $22,000 exemption that means you would be paying 3.5% on $16,000 or an extra $560 per year in taxes. Les is looking to lower the tax on his $1,000,000+ home by a wholesale, across the board, tax increase on you and every other wage earner in NH. Don't fall for it Scubajay, I'm not even taking into account your wife's salary, if she works, which will increase your extra payment even more. All of this because people like Les think it will lower their property tax bill, which will never happen. No one likes to hear a millionaire gripe about taxes, which is what Les is, a millionaire griping about taxes. I'm even willing to bet the part about eliminating the interest and dividend tax will help Les out even more, just guessing there.

[Grant]

Originally Posted by ITD

... No one likes to hear a millionaire gripe about taxes, which is what Les is, a millionaire griping about taxes. I'm even willing to bet the part about eliminating the interest and dividend tax will help Les out even more, just guessing there.

You're making awfully grand assumptions about FLL. Sounds to me like he's in the same boat as many waterfront property owners, and would be insane not to question a $700/month property tax on what is essentially a modest seasonal dwelling. But, hey, if you're all for the bona fide millionaires and billionaires gobbling up shoreline, tearing down perfectly good places, and making Winnipesaukee their exclusive playground, and if burgeoning taxes turn you on, then that's your call.

[This'nThat]

Originally Posted by Grant

You're making awfully grand assumptions about FLL.

Assumptions are being made everywhere. Such as:

• Income taxes are good -- and will stay at 3.5% for a long, long time.
• Income taxes will lower property taxes.
• The state will NOT increase spending to gobble up new taxes -- ESPECIALLY with Democrats in control.

So, let's not fool ourselves. This talk of an income tax is simply the camel's nose under the tent. It's a clear and blatent attempt by Democrats to take our money and spend it any way they want. And to do this, they make promises they can break any time they want. Need proof that they will do whatever they want, in spite of the majority? What did the Dims do when they took over -- pass the civil unions bill, that's what.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Grant

You're making awfully grand assumptions about FLL. Sounds to me like he's in the same boat as many waterfront property owners, and would be insane not to question a $700/month property tax on what is essentially a modest seasonal dwelling. But, hey, if you're all for the bona fide millionaires and billionaires gobbling up shoreline, tearing down perfectly good places, and making Winnipesaukee their exclusive playground, and if burgeoning taxes turn you on, then that's your call.

Huh??????????? Burgeoning taxes turn ME on??????? If there was a prize for totally misinterpreting posts and getting it about as wrong as you can get it, you'd get that prize Grant.......

Less owns a WF property that is taxed at an amount consistent with being valued at about $1 million.
Less has owned that property for a long time.
Less owns another property near Waterville Valley.
I've been pointing out for a long time to Less that he is a millionaire, to my recollection he hasn't disputed that fact.
A millionaire is a millionaire, whether he has it in cold hard cash or real estate. It probably wouldn't take too long to turn that real estate into cash.

As for burgeoning taxes, I pay them twice a year in Moultonboro, and I'm not happy about it, but even with my simple mind I know that adding more taxes does not lower taxes.

I love that Less is questioning his taxes. I question why, when he is so upset about paying taxes, that he wants MORE taxes. Less is the one who wants BURGEONING Taxes. Taxes on you Grant, that he somehow believes will lower his property taxes.

[Grant]

Originally Posted by ITD

Less owns a WF property that is taxed at an amount consistent with being valued at about $1 million.
Less has owned that property for a long time.
Less owns another property near Waterville Valley.
I've been pointing out for a long time to Less that he is a millionaire, to my recollection he hasn't disputed that fact.
A millionaire is a millionaire, whether he has it in cold hard cash or real estate. It probably wouldn't take too long to turn that real estate into cash.

I'd let Les worry about Les. You seem way too concerned with his affairs, that's all. And, although I may be way misinterpreting again, I think Les is more interested in different taxes, and not more taxes. Then again, I don't know him and can't speak for him. But he seems to be a rational dude, and such folks don't typically aspire to additional taxes.

I'll go away now before I get myself into trouble...

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Grant

I'd let Les worry about Les. You seem way too concerned with his affairs, that's all. And, although I may be way misinterpreting again, I think Les is more interested in different taxes, and not more taxes. Then again, I don't know him and can't speak for him. But he seems to be a rational dude, and such folks don't typically aspire to additional taxes.

I'll go away now before I get myself into trouble...

The only things I know about Les are what he posts, and he posts alot.

My only concern with his "affairs" are when he is drumming up support for taxes that will end up costing me and others more money. Certainly there are different taxes, when they are implemented they become ADDITIONAL taxes.

Anyway, my point when I first posted in this thread, is that an income tax, even with a $22,000 exemption, will cost most wage earners more money, this is akin to trying to put out a fire with gasoline.



Check out his posts if you don't believe me about his love of new taxes....

Peace..

[Ropetow]

Where, in the history of humankind, has a government entity actually lowered taxes when another tax was enacted?

Give them a 3.5% income tax and it'll be 5% before you know it. I happen to know some Democrat State Reps and they LUST for a sales or income tax so they can INCREASE spending! If you are a NH resident call your Democrat state reps (actually all your State Reps) and ask them what they will do with the revenue gained from a sales or income tax. Ask them if they'll distribute the money to the cities and towns so property taxes can be reduced. Ask them if there are state programs (human services?) they want to spend the money on.

The key is limiting government spending. For NH, that means changing the inhabitants of the State House in November.

IF NH wants more revenue, allow slots at the racetracks or casino gambling. Keep folks' gambling dollars here instead of CT.

[Rattlesnake Guy]

My other house is in Hollis and they are working on a plan to help people like Les. People who have had the value of their property increase dramatical over the years. The town wants these people to stay in their homes and not be forced to sell to new families with a fresh batch of kids to educate.

What they are working on is a plan where people will be able to defer their property tax until the home is sold. The town will borrow money and the homeowners liability will grow (with int erst). If someone like Les wants to stay in their home and does not want to pay, they can use up some of that paper profit that has gotten them into the situation in the first place.

If they want to move, they pay it back. If they spend the rest of their life in the home, the estate will have to settle the obligation. Sort of like a reverse mortgage.

I would much rather see this type of a solution than raising my taxes in hopes that Les's might go down.

[Ropetow]

Originally Posted by Rattlesnake Guy

What they are working on is a plan where people will be able to defer their property tax until the home is sold. The town will borrow money and the homeowners liability will grow (with int erst). If someone like Les wants to stay in their home and does not want to pay, they can use up some of that paper profit that has gotten them into the situation in the first place.
If they want to move, they pay it back. If they spend the rest of their life in the home, the estate will have to settle the obligation. Sort of like a reverse mortgage.

A very logical plan....

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by Ropetow

A very logical plan....

If you consider it logical for people to amass more debt and live beyond their means.

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by Rattlesnake Guy

My other house is in Hollis and they are working on a plan to help people like Les. People who have had the value of their property increase dramatical over the years. The town wants these people to stay in their homes and not be forced to sell to new families with a fresh batch of kids to educate.

What they are working on is a plan where people will be able to defer their property tax until the home is sold. The town will borrow money and the homeowners liability will grow (with int erst). If someone like Les wants to stay in their home and does not want to pay, they can use up some of that paper profit that has gotten them into the situation in the first place.

If they want to move, they pay it back. If they spend the rest of their life in the home, the estate will have to settle the obligation. Sort of like a reverse mortgage.

I would much rather see this type of a solution than raising my taxes in hopes that Les's might go down.

Yes lets just put off what is due today until tomorrow......This is the type of crap that has destroyed the American dream. By the way this is nothing new.... all you have to do is not pay your taxes and any town starts a tab. The only plus side here seems to be that after a few years the town won't start working towards forcing the sale of your home. All this does is screw over a home owners family when they die...... LIVING ON CREDIT DOES NOTHING FOR ANYONE........

[fatlazyless]

Is NH spending its' way toward a new state income tax? What do you think?

Big municipal projects like schools, police & fire stations, community centers, & libraries are getting the big green light. Is it possible to actually slow down the local and state spending?

Here's a sentence that most everyone will probably agree to: NH state Democrats are more likely to pass a state income tax than the Republicans. Who won a sea-change election in November 2006?

Here's a big question: Will the Dems maintain their state house & senate majorities in Nov 2008?
.................

For all the bigger income earners in New Hampshire, this new tax plan is for you! Kennedy, Kennedy, Kennedy.......oh where have I heard of that name before?
...........................
Representative James Kennedy D-Exeter has proposed a new bill.

8% annual cap on prop tax

repeal dividend & interest tax

3.5% income tax
exempt $22,000 in earnings for single taxpayer
exempt additional $22,000 for a single parent or married adult

.......................

Rep Kennedy says it will capture a billion dollars a year loss from residents of Maine, Massachusetts & Vermont who work in New Hampshire but pay taxes in their native state.
.......................

How will this new tax plan effect you?

........................

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

Here's a sentence that most everyone will probably agree to: NH state Democrats are more likely to pass a state income tax than the Republicans. Who won a sea-change election in November 2006?

Here's a big question: Will the Dems maintain their state house & senate majorities in Nov 2008?

Our only hope is to vote the Dems out.

[AC2717]

Originally Posted by Rattlesnake Guy

My other house is in Hollis and they are working on a plan to help people like Les. People who have had the value of their property increase dramatical over the years. The town wants these people to stay in their homes and not be forced to sell to new families with a fresh batch of kids to educate.

What they are working on is a plan where people will be able to defer their property tax until the home is sold. The town will borrow money and the homeowners liability will grow (with int erst). If someone like Les wants to stay in their home and does not want to pay, they can use up some of that paper profit that has gotten them into the situation in the first place.

If they want to move, they pay it back. If they spend the rest of their life in the home, the estate will have to settle the obligation. Sort of like a reverse mortgage.

I would much rather see this type of a solution than raising my taxes in hopes that Les's might go down.

Me thinks this is a terrible idea.
OK so I own for 20 years, do not pay an increase or no taxes at all for teh twenty years then I sell because I really need the money, but after the mortagage payoff, selling/closing fees and the back taxes have nothing but a small dime in my pocket.

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by ITD

A millionaire is a millionaire, whether he has it in cold hard cash or real estate.

Sorry, but not by a long shot there. He might be a "paper" millionaire, but that is essentially worthless.

You're not a "millionaire" until you've got it in cash or a liquid vehicle. Property values can change dramatically, and a paid-for house worth $1MM can't really be leveraged into other investments, you're paying taxes on it, not earning money from it.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by brk-lnt

Sorry, but not by a long shot there. He might be a "paper" millionaire, but that is essentially worthless.

You're not a "millionaire" until you've got it in cash or a liquid vehicle. Property values can change dramatically, and a paid-for house worth $1MM can't really be leveraged into other investments, you're paying taxes on it, not earning money from it.

I respectfully disagree. Life is full of choices, choices have consequences. A million dollar house is not "worthless". I agree it is a less liquid asset than cash, but it can generate income and like anything else you own, it costs money. Ultimately, should it be sold, it will put $1,000,000 into your bank account, so it's not worthless, it's actually quite valuable and up until a year or two ago, year to year has been a much better investment than the stock market. As far as values changing dramatically, welcome to the world of money. Investments can change dramatically. In this country, if you have a million dollars, somebody wants to tax it.

[fatlazyless]

Up in northern New Hampshire, about one hour and 15 minutes drive from Rt 93-exit23 is the large Wausau paper mill, which has been in operation for 103 years. It sits basically in the middle of town, at an intersection of two roads, and right on the Ammonoosic River. As has been widely reported, it closed on Dec 31, and 303 papermill workers making from $16-22/h & ot, & benefits, ave 18.83/h, now no longer have their long time job.

With regards to income taxes vs. property taxes, these mill workers still had to pay their property tax due in December, and again next June, December, June, December....forever. Did the Groveton selectmen make any adjustments to the property tax bill? I do not believe so.....it takes a year or two to adjust as the property tax is considered a 'lagging' tax. It lags going up, and then lags again coming down.

This illustrates how the property tax is not really an indicator of one's ability to pay.

And which tax is truly linked to one's ability to pay.........hey ITD,,,,,,,,you are a very smart guy buddy......you are correctimondo.....it is an INCOME TAX, yes, congratulations!

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

This illustrates how the property tax is not really an indicator of one's ability to pay.

Has anybody ever really said that it is SUPPOSED to be an indicator of one's ability to pay?

I for one like the property tax vs. income tax approach. My property taxes on 2 NH properties are fairly static (taking into account moderate yearly increases). I can budget to this effectively, and took this into account when I moved to NH from another state.

When I was laid off from a previous job, yes I still had to pay my property taxes. But, when my income was 3x higher than normal another year I still only had to pay my property taxes, I wasn't penalized for earning more money that year as I would've been if I lived in MA for example. Knowing that this is how the NH tax system works, I made a conscious decision to move to NH.

Everything is a give and take. NH offers a tax system that is beneficial for some, and maybe not as beneficial to others. We're all aware of the paper mill that closed, and I think that most sane people realized that working at a paper mill in the middle of nowhere wasn't exactly a strategy for long-term gainful employment.

I believe that the current tax structure was created through a popular vote some many years ago. I also believe that any adult working-class rational NH resident is aware that this is how the system works. There are other states with other taxation concepts in case this states plan does not work for you. Despite what you might like to believe, the world is a constantly evolving place and nobody is owed the right to live or work in any particular place, sometimes you actually have to pack up and move to some place that better suits your abilities and talents. Or, you can choose to stay put and deal with the infrastructure around you.

There is no way to make everyone happy all the time.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

........hey ITD,,,,,,,,you are a very smart guy buddy......you are correctimondo.....

Hey, Thanks Less, nice of you to say so.

[dpg]

Originally Posted by ITD

I respectfully disagree. Life is full of choices, choices have consequences. A million dollar house is not "worthless". I agree it is a less liquid asset than cash, but it can generate income and like anything else you own, it costs money. Ultimately, should it be sold, it will put $1,000,000 into your bank account, so it's not worthless, it's actually quite valuable and up until a year or two ago, year to year has been a much better investment than the stock market. As far as values changing dramatically, welcome to the world of money. Investments can change dramatically. In this country, if you have a million dollars, somebody wants to tax it.

brk-int is correct. Technically your a "millionaire" when you have "readily available", spendable assets such as cash, bonds etc. Living in a home worth 1.3 mil doesn't clasify you as a millionaire.

[jeffk]

Originally Posted by dpg

brk-int is correct. Technically your a "millionaire" when you have "readily available", spendable assets such as cash, bonds etc. Living in a home worth 1.3 mil doesn't clasify you as a millionaire.

Definitions of millionaire:
Mirriam-Webster

Princeton

Worldweb

All definitions reference wealth, not liquid assets or income.

Wealth is generally defined as net worth; which is the value of all assets, including real estate, minus any indebtedness. You, brk-int, and FLL may wish it to be defined otherwise but this is the common usage. You can take out loans with your house as collateral and I'll bet the lender believes that your house has real value. Try to give a million dollar house to a friend or relative and see if the IRS believes it has real value. For many, many years, before the enlightened came up with income and sales taxes, the wealthy WERE the property owners and they paid the necessary expenses of the town. Now we tend to look at people with high earnings as wealthy.

As to the possibility of the house dropping in value, most assets carry this risk. Safer assets such as savings accounts and CDs offer a lower earning rate in exchange for safety. Riskier investments offer higher rates of return in exchange for the greater risk.

If you think housing values may be variable, how much more likely are stocks or income to be variable. Enron went from boom to bust almost overnight. I once owned a bank stock that lost its whole value in 6 months. If a person earns a million a year for 10 years and invests it into a 5 million dollar estate and then retires and earns NO INCOME should we consider that person poor? Should we feel sorry that he can't afford the property taxes on his 5 million dollar estate?

A stock does not qualify as a liquid asset either. If someone has a million dollars of Exxon-Mobil or General Electric stock should we not consider them rich either? Maybe they like their stock certificates as much as FLL likes his property and they don't want to sell it to pay their expenses either.

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by jeffk

Definitions of millionaire:

To clarify, I was talking in a "let's be practical" vs. a "what does the IRS think" manner. The two are often mutually exclusive.

I consider "liquid" to be held in such a manner that it could be liquidated (ie: turned into real cash) in a reasonably fast manner. Stocks fits this definition, but real estate does not. I suppose at some point you can amass enough real estate holdings that you could liquidate it into some form of cash at near-value, but that would require way more than 1 or 2 houses.

My litmus test is basically this: If Mitt Romney were to bump into me and say "ya know, I'm really tired of this lake house, I'd sell it to you for a million bucks if you can bring me a check before I change my mind", if you can produce the $1MM fairly quickly (few hours to a day) then you're what I would call a "millionaire". If you have to say "well, let me sell my house and my boat..." then you're not a millionaire by my definition. Also, if this theoretical purchase wipes out your ability to maintain your lifestyle, you're not a millionaire in my book.

I think there are plenty of people around the area that are "paper millionaires", but I don't think they're "actual" millionaires.

[ITD]

They're millionaires. No doubt about it. Call it paper millionaire, liquid millionaire, inherited millionaire, millionaire in denial, whatever you want. What differentiates them from someone who is not a millionaire is the ability, thru the relatively simple process of selling a house, to put 1 million dollars in their bank account. This is in contrast to someone who doesn't own a WF house worth a million dollars, who cannot sell and put 1 million dollars in their bank account. Someone who owns a house worth $1 million dollars free and clear is a millionaire. Even Mitt would probably have trouble producing a million in cash in a few hours unless he planned ahead to do it.

[Irish mist]

Originally Posted by ITD

They're millionaires. No doubt about it. Call it paper millionaire, liquid millionaire, inherited millionaire, millionaire in denial, whatever you want. What differentiates them from someone who is not a millionaire is the ability, thru the relatively simple process of selling a house, to put 1 million dollars in their bank account. This is in contrast to someone who doesn't own a WF house worth a million dollars, who cannot sell and put 1 million dollars in their bank account. Someone who owns a house worth $1 million dollars free and clear is a millionaire. Even Mitt would probably have trouble producing a million in cash in a few hours unless he planned ahead to do it.

Good points......that's why they call it REAL ESTATE

[ITD]

While I'm on a roll, here's one more look at what could be done with that million dollar WF property. It could be sold, yielding a $850,000 net after capital gains tax. The $850,000 could be used to buy a tax free muni bond, which right now could be had with about a 4% interest yield. This would turn the WF property into a bond that pays $34,000 a year tax free. I'm sure some people could live large off of that.

[Grant]

But -- back to the original thread-starter, for the sake of argument -- who will deny that one can be rendered "lakefront poor" by virtue of escalating property assessments and the associated taxes? There are plenty of examples of folks who've been on the Lake for generations, yet who've been forced off in recent years because of skyrocketing property taxes that they simply could not continue to pay.

Is the Lake becoming the exclusive playground/domain of those with "two comma" salaries?

Think back just twenty years ago. What could be had for 100k now costs well over a million in many cases. Is this true where you all live when not on the Lake?

Personally, it's taken nearly 15 years since 1993 for my present home to double in assessed value -- and I live in a rather nice, convenient suburb with excellent schools and full services that is very close to a top-five metro city. We've replaced FIVE schools in the past six years, and my taxes have not even come close to doubling.

Oh yeah, but we have an income tax. And a local earner income tax. And sales tax. IN ADDITION TO property tax.

Just a yardstick -- albeit maybe not a comparable one, but just food for thought.

[AC2717]

Originally Posted by ITD

Don't fall for it Scubajay, I'm not even taking into account your wife's salary, if she works, which will increase your extra payment even more. All of this because people like Les think it will lower their property tax bill, which will never happen. No one likes to hear a millionaire gripe about taxes, which is what Les is, a millionaire griping about taxes. I'm even willing to bet the part about eliminating the interest and dividend tax will help Les out even more, just guessing there.

You guys have it wrong,
this what we call asset rich and money poor, yes he might be a supposed millionaire, but only if he were to sell, and just because he bought in early before all these high prices makes him luckey or a good market forecaster, remember I say this as not a friend or an enemy. I hardly ever agree with FLL. Most people think oh they have a place on the lake must be nice, I tell you I pay my mortgage and taxes up there and down in RI, Yes I am asset rich, but not money or liquid rich, and in possible chance to put money in my pocket I would have to sell my cottage and keep the money, taking away the cottage from my family and friends, so there is a trade off. And you need to understand that, I only have a small, very very small season camp cottage and it costs me over a $1,000 a month, mostly taxes, not including any condo or insurance fees.

[jetskier]

Originally Posted by scubajay1153

Les,
I found it amazing, the high amount of people who have homes up here that are only here enough time during a year to claim residency here to gain all of the "perks" but yet avoid alot of the negatives by not being FT residents. Much of Southdown SHores/Long Bay and GI seems to be vacant most of the year when we go the homes for fire alarm calls and such. Amazing that people have enough money to have $400,000 "summer place" in SDS and still maintain a home in MASS or COnn.

Hmmm,

Most of the people that I know in South Down do not claim residency. My taxes are higher than in MA and I get minimal services:

I don't have any children in the school system
I don't have any vehicles registered in New Hampshire
I can not vote in New Hampshire election

I think that we dumped tea in the harbor some years back over this kind of taxation. I don't think that the folks in South Down feel like they are getting any sort of advantage.

Just my 2 cents.

Jetskier

[phoenix]

les maybe you can give them a foot of your waterfront since that is what is driving the bill

[fatlazyless]

Every once in a blue moon, Skip likes to remind us that NH Democrats, and especially Gov John Lynch, are all firmly against a NH state income tax. Yes, this is most definately, wonderfully reassuring!

As a matter of fact, the state Dem chant is "we hate the income tax, we hate the income tax, we hate the income tax" and then with a clear conscience they all can fall fast asleep for a good night's rest.

Question: So, what was the overall vote count for Dems vs Repubs in the primary?

Answer: Dems 287,580 vs. Repubs 238,909

Even I voted for a local Republican....yikes....what-was-I-thinking?.....honest!

A 48,671 vote differance! Here in NH, populaton 1.32 mil, 48,671 more voters chose to vote for a Democrat candidate than a Republican candidate in the presidential primary.

It would be interesting to make a comparision with previous primary numbers from the past 30 years.

Isn't that interesting........hmmm. So, what the heck does this mean? Ok, all you spinners, it's time to spin on this one.....spin....spin....spin?!

Could the CNN senior political analyst please post a response here so I will know what to think? ...thanks in advance!

Here's my instant, on-the-spot analysis, until CNN shows up. It sounds to me, that for some unknown reason, that out of a total of 526,489 voters, there were 48,671 more voters who chose to vote on the Democrat ticket than on the Republican ticket in the primary. New Hampshire is a state where you can be Republican, Democrat or Independant, and you can switch parties very easily, basically anytime, and in about ten seconds.

So, 48,671 more went with the D team, and more is better, so...gee whiz...that's got to be good news for the D team..........correct? Correct!

But, what do I know, I'm just a tractor-trailer truck driver, and for now, an unemployed one, too.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

...Every once in a blue moon, Skip likes to remind us that NH Democrats, and especially Gov John Lynch, are all firmly against a NH state income tax. Yes, this is most definately, wonderfully reassuring!...

Yes FLL, I agree; wonderfully reassuring!



p.s. Sorry, you have the blue moon thing wrong....the next one isn't due until December 2nd of 2009, and you know I'll have a word or two to say about this much before then!

[Rattlesnake Guy]

I can't help but wonder what the value of an $800,000 house in NH would be if the State added a Sales and Income tax next week. The hidden tax of such an event would probably not be any more welcome than the tax bill.

Maybe a lakefront home is decoupled from the economics that apply to the rest of the homes in the State.

[fatlazyless]

1. I honestly would truly welcome a drastic loss in value of my wf home if it were to lead to much lower prop taxes, as I plan to own it 'forever', anyway.

2. Waterfront home buyers come mostly from the Boston area, which is an easy two hour drive away, and in some cases from all across the US. Obviously, Boston gives us wf buyers with the bigbux....mega greenstuff.

[Ropetow]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

1. I honestly would truly welcome a drastic loss in value of my wf home if it were to lead to much lower prop taxes, as I plan to own it 'forever', anyway.

Less....First of all, if NH enacts a broad-based income tax it will do nothing to reduce the local part of your property tax which is by far the larger part of your total property tax bill. It may replace the statewide property tax. But I've never seen a government entity voluntarily give up money, so the result would be revenue-neutral. But, wait....All property owners would not have to pay the statewide property tax anymore, including out-of-state residents. So, if I lived in MA and owned a NH vacation home, I'd save money on the deal. Since there is more than one MA (or other state) vacation home owner, many out-of-state residents would save money. Thus, the added income tax would no longer be revenue-neutral since those lost statewide property tax dollars would need to be replaced. How? By having a higher income tax paid by NH residents. Meaning....out-of-state property owners would have a net savings in taxes paid to NH were the income tax replaced the statewide property tax, while NH residents would need to offset that tax revenue loss by paying more in taxes! Not to mention that once the tax-and-spenders in Concord have a broad-based income tax, it'd be real easy to increase it to support their social-spending habits.

[vrrooom]

Great discussion of property taxes and income taxes, so let me add my 3 cents.

Most, in some towns arround the lake, 80 percent of the real estate is owned by seasonal residents who would not pay an income tax at all, Uh Oh no money comming from them

We could get a prop 3 like deal, cap property taxes on homes at there current level, and only increase the taxes when the property is sold, so the burden falls on new owners. Let um sweat

Many of us have homes in other states, so we could avoid any NH income tax by changing residence to a no tax state. Spending the winter in Florida is not all that bad, we would just need to enjoy the sun for another month each year.

Control Spending, Reduce the pay of legislators, The best government that exists has no money to spend, so there are no special interests knocking on their doors to get anything. You get the idea

[fatlazyless]

....say Vrrroooom...talking about Florida....isn't that the state that has a terrible-awful 'intangibles property tax' where every year you have to pay the state something like two percent of the value of all your stocks-bonds-mutual funds, and even your Bertram, 32', diesel powered, sport-fisherman. Egads....how's that a good escape state from my proposed, income tax hungry, New Hampshire?

Live free & Die!

[Bob M]

Sorry FLL but the state of Florida axed the intangibles tax for good a year or so ago after reducing the percentage several times. But, they still have the most unfair property tax situation around. After Laconia adopted their tax cap we reluctantly became Florida residents to help control our tax problem down here. The Florida legislature tried at the Governor's urging to adopt a new system but as with most legislatures they chicked out and barely addressed the problem at all.

[cowislander]

I have a friend who lives near San Fran, apparently their RE tax is set by the original purchase price, its only reset when the property sells. She bought in the early seventies, and is sitting pretty relative to paying low RE taxes. The state will get its re-val when the property sells and new owners come in.

If this is indeed the way it works in CA, I like it. Seems like a better approach. It doesn't force out older folks who are on a fixed income. Plus, I'd imagine it forces the state to balance the books in a more broad based way.

Right now seems to me that NH's obsession with not having an income tax and not having a sales tax forces the state to come after us RE owners. I'm tired of floating the boat for renters, non resident workers, border crossing shoppers, etc. Add to that that us islanders have virtually no burden on the town....no school, fire protection, garbage pickup, etc. NH needs to find a way to share the tax burden, not depend so much on RE owners.

[vrrooom]

One more plus for changing residence to FL is the fact that I could get a homestead exemption on my property taxes. As many now have pointed out,an income tax in NH would drive many high earners to other no tax states. Factiod: people live here just because of the no income, no sales tax enjoyed by NH. Change it and arevia taxpayers. Those poor NH working folks who cant relocate, will face lots of taxes from the income and increased local property taxes.

[phoenix]

California had a ballot initiative started by a man named Jarvis called prop 13 that passed I think in 1978. It was response to the same problem now facing Nh that is a continued increase in property taxes. prop 13 set taxes ( i believe)at 1% of value with value being 1978 or whenever the latest price it sold at.

[Flylady]

Correct...prop 13's biggest benifit is that you know when you buy your place exactly what your property taxes will be. So many spend a higher percent of their household income on mortgage payments because they know what their obligation will be. HOWEVER....we have sales tax (anywhere from 5 to 81/2 %)depending on the county you live in and we have a state income tax. However if you are a property owner the tax on your income and sales tax is known and something as long as you work and make spending decissions you have more control over. Even though I also have a place in NH and plan to retire there, the property tax on the very small lakefront parcel I have is the same as my CA house which I paid a lot more for than the NH place. My worry as with many others in NH is that once I am on a fixed retirement income, the largest wildcard factor is my tax obligation on the property. No state income tax or sales tax is not the reason I decided to make the move.
BTW Ca. governer just cut a huge amount from the budget (billions) because of revenue shortfall from the changing economic climate. No tax increase to offset the huge deficit. While many are unhappy as it will impact many social service programs, I have not heard a peep about raising taxes and suspect that in this election year that will not be a discusion topic in CA.

[fatlazyless]

Yah, back in the 1960's & 70's, before the spreader technology was improved, I can remember the elderly employed by the highway dept as sand tossers. Positioned in the rear bed of a snowplow truck, they all would wave and smile between shoveling sand off the truck and onto the road, as the truck moved ahead. They were paying off their property taxes at the minimum wage, which now in NH is way up to $5.15/hour.

How good is this? A payment plan so's the elderly can stay in their homes, work off their prop taxes, and get some fresh air exercise, too.

Don't ya know, his Peterborough, sand-tossing job was actually Robert Frost's inspiration for 'The Road Not Taken." Nope, too slick, better not take that road!



16 tons of sand....heck.,,,that's only half a dump load.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

Yah, back in the 1960's & 70's, before the spreader technology was improved, I can remember the elderly employed by the highway dept as sand tossers. Positioned in the rear bed of a snowplow truck, they all would wave and smile between shoveling sand off the truck and onto the road, as the truck moved ahead. They were paying off their property taxes at the minimum wage, which now in NH is way up to $5.15/hour.

How good is this? A payment plan so's the elderly can stay in their homes, work off their prop taxes, and get some fresh air exercise, too.

Don't ya know, his Peterborough, sand-tossing job was actually Robert Frost's inspiration for 'The Road Not Taken." Nope, too slick, better not take that road!



16 tons of sand....heck.,,,that's only half a dump load.

There you go Less, now your thinking outside the box, even Henry Ford himself must have begun like this. Keep up the good work.

In my little town here in Deval country, they let seniors work the polls as a way to get a break on their taxes. I wonder if there is anything like this in NH?

[fatlazyless]

Originally Posted by ITD

There you go Less, now your thinking outside the box, even Henry Ford himself must have begun like this. Keep up the good work.

In my little town here in Deval country, they let seniors work the polls as a way to get a break on their taxes. I wonder if there is anything like this in NH?

New Hampshire is truly a different state than Massachusetts. If Governor John Lynch ever ever ever took himself a Cadillac DeVille instead of a Ford Crown Victoria, which is what Governor Deval Patrick did for himself, then Granite Staters would be a-scream-n, bigtime.

And there was a NH news story about some Republican state reps somewhere with a proposal that sets up a program for the old folks to do town work at 5.15/h, min wage, to be work-n off their prop taxes. There's a few plans like that float-n around.

What's really float-n around is the 'large & in-charge' Democratic Party, turnout numbers at the NH primary!

[wifi]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

What's really float-n around is the 'large & in-charge' Democratic Party, turnout numbers at the NH primary!

Possibly things have been manipulated to look this way:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...9191306AA8GoyX

[fatlazyless]

Originally Posted by wifi

Possibly things have been manipulated to look this way:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...9191306AA8GoyX

....................

In 2000, the last NH primary where both parties had contested races, the Republicans had 236,802 votes cast, and in 2008 it remained about the same with 238,548 votes cast.

In the Democatic primary in 2000, there were 154,639 votes cast, and in 2008 it increased up to 258,322 votes cast.
(source Wikipedia)

So, out of all the votes cast in last Tuesday's primaries, it was Democrats with 56% and Republicans with 44% of the total votes cast. This is a big switcheroo from prior contested primaries in 1988, 1992, and 2000 where the G.O.P. had the bigger majority of votes cast.

Senator John Sununu and Governor Jeanne Shaheen have no doubt noticed these numbers.


........................update

Found this www.unionleader.com editorial, Sunday Jan 13, and here's the first two pararaphs.

Turning out: Another primary victory

"More than half a million people voted in Tuesday's presidential primary, making yet another case for the value of the New Hampshire primary.

The total number of voters was 526,553. That's more than half the voting-age population of New Hampshire - not registered voters, but the entire population aged 18 and older. That's an astounding turn-out."

.............................

526,553 total voters

239,000 (45.4%) Republican voters

288,000 (54.6%) Democratic voters

...............................

[wifi]

You are making the assumption that there are an even percentage of each party that cross the border to vote, and that this election carries the same weight in the voters mind (in each particular party) that previous elections have.

I don't think you can make such assumptions.

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by wifi

You are making the assumption

You can pretty much stop right there. All of FLL's "statistics" posts revolve around assumptions, guesses, bad extrapolations and misinterpretations.

Add a dash of trolling and serve warm.

[SIKSUKR]

I'm so glad we don't have a political section on this forum cuz it really keeps those discussions from occurring!
I for one do not have liquid assets of a million but do have real estate that has equity of that.If you have assets of a million you ARE a millionaire.Can you assets lose value whether they are liquid or not?Of course.It does not matter if it's in your bank account or not.You are more likely safer with your asset in your home than in most other vehicles.

[VitaBene]

I think we are all getting wrapped up in the definition of "millionaire" when (and I hate to say this) being a millionaire aint what it used to be! Technically it is true that a person with assets of $1M or more is a millioniare but let's be realistic, that 1M today buys far less and means far less than it did 30 years ago.

I guess if I added my life up we would squeak into the millionaire category- I sure as hell don't feel like one! I live a good life, make a decent living, and like most of the folks on this board, live up to my means and essentially pay check to pay check (solid 401Ks and kid's college plans but according to the money guy not enough cash reserves if one of us lost our job).

I will certainly say that when using MA as a comparison state with a combination of property and income taxes I pay far more in MA combined than if I sold the MA house and NH Winni access house, and bought a nice, not extravagant Winni lakefront house. We pay $6K alone in property taxes on a $550K house (bought for 199.7K in 94).

Like most everyone else here, I hate taxes but love services I personally favor a flat tax such as a sales tax so the richer people who consume more expensive goods pay more than those who do not.

There are two huge issues facing us that will certainly effect our taxes in the next 30 years- 1) unfunded pension liabilities (guess which taxpayers guarantee those) and 2) the spiraling costs of health insurance that most governments provide to not only for their employees and families, but also for most retirees for life (contracts were written when health insurance was not that expensive and it was an easy benefit to throw in). These two things are going to cost us a lot of $$$ as a country, state or town and therefore individually.

I feel bad that people have felt the squeeze of their property taxes. NH's system of taxation is not perfect but it is better than most. Perhaps those that are real estate millionaires will have to tap some of that equity.

Regards

[Weirs guy]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

So, out of all the votes cast in last Tuesday's primaries, it was Democrats with 56% and Republicans with 44% of the total votes cast. This is a big switcheroo from prior contested primaries in 1988, 1992, and 2000 where the G.O.P. had the bigger majority of votes cast.

Of course the dems numbers could have been skewed by undeclared voters voting democrat now that will change over to republican for the actual election....