Moultonboro State Rep Betsey Patten

[ApS]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

"...I do not support this new property tax bill because it is not based on one's ability to pay..."

Originally Posted by gtxrider

"...The practice of assessing the nonlocals higher than the locals seems like socialism to me..."

Let's see...

The town needs the revenue, and lakefront properties are owned by those with the ability to pay.

Therefore, we presently have this system:

"From each according to his abilities, and to each according to his needs"

I forget who wrote that.

[JDeere]

This arose as a quotation by Lord Acton in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton in 1887:

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

minimum age is 62, and I plan to still have my old mongrel cottage till 2047. !

Alright Les,are you saying that your only 22 years old?

[fatlazyless]

Hey Siksukr, no, I'm a Lord Acton look-a-like...looks just like me.....hey, putting a photo into a post can add a lot...what a handsome guy!.

That famous phrase,

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."

is known as Lord Acton's Dictum, England 1887, and it was a reference on how he, a life long Catholic, felt about Papal power.

Sorry to bore you with the subject of nursing homes again but we'll all grow old someday, and nursing homes run by the counties are here to stay.

I told you that Sen Kathleen Sgambati (D) Tilton, who is the Senator for the Laconia area district really knows this subject top to bottom, inside out, and upside down, and that she is about a one thousand percent improvement over the district's prior occupant of this very important senate seat.

In the Dec 20 www.cmonitor.com,

a carefully detailed explanation by the Senator on how the state-county nursing home relationhip is being administered, and improved.

http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.d1...1028/OPINION02

My links to the Concord Monitor never seem to work, so is there any chance someone could please set up a link to Senator Kathleen Sgambati's 'My Turn' opinion before it disappears into internet ancient history. Definately worth reading!

[SIKSUKR]

You still crack me even if I do disagree with you.

[phoenix]

Hb 925 sounds like something that Chavez would approve. How does it make sense to tax non residencial property at twice when most don't even use resources equal to residents. One can justify paying fair share based on value or the property but twice makes no sense .

[fatlazyless]

Concord Monitor, Friday January 25, 2008

My Turn

Only answer: tax reform

Bills should be based on the ability to pay

By Rep. Jessie Osborne

For the Monitor

Congratulations to the Monitor for its excellent Jan. 19 editorial ("Commission should step off the treadmill"). You are absolutely correct that if the commission charged with arriving at the cost of an "adequate education" comes up wih an artficially low figure and the Legislature adopts it, the education funding issue - the great issue of our times in New Hampshire - will be headed back to the courts.

Some seem to believe that we can just delay, and delay more, on meeting the challenge of the Claremont lawsuit rulings. I believe something must be done now, and that Democrats were elected to majorities in both the House and Senate at least in part so that a permanent solution could be brought about.

That is one main reason I introduced House Bill 1593, taking on this issue from a revenue basis. The other main reason for this bill is to address the obvious and growing problem that over-reliance on the property tax is creating for the New Hampshire economy.

HB1593 establishes a combination statewide "enhanced education" property tax at $5.50 per $1,000 of equalized assessed valuation, with a $200,000 homestead exemption; and a 4 percent educaton income tax with liberal income exemptions and a credit for the statewide property tax the household pays. These taxes replace the current interest & dividends tax, and business enterprise tax, which are both repealed totally; the bill also reduces the business profits tax to 7.5 percent. The bill also contains a circuit breaker (abatement) program fro taxpayers whose total property tax bill (municipal, school, county and statewide property taxes) exceed 8 percent of household income. In short, this bill bases the financing of education on ability to pay.

A homeowner with a property valued at $250,000 would pay a statewide property tax of $275; a homeowner whose property is valued at $500,000 would pay $1,650; a homeowner whose property is valued at $1 million would pay $4,400. Similarly, the income tax paid by a family of four whose federal adjusted gross income is $40,000 would be $0; with an income of $60,000 and a homestead valued at $275,000, the family's state ncome tax would be a net of only $525; with an income of $200,000 and a homestead valued at $500,000, the net state income taxwould be $4,750.

The Department of Revenue Administration prepared a fiscal analysis of this bill, and while I question some of its' assumptions and calculations, DRA concludes that the bill would produce almost $837 million of net new revenue for the state. That is more than double the current education trust fund revenue. This means that the cost of an adequate education can be pegged at a realistic and defensible level, not a lowball figure that backs into the current state revenue raising system.

I wish to thank my co-sponsors - Democratic Reps. Chuck Weed of Keene, James Phinizy of Acworth and Mary Cooney of Plymouth - for their support and work in preparation and presenting this bill. I also thank the members of the House Ways and Means Committee, chaired by Democratic Rep. Susan Almy of Lebanon, for their open-minded reception. Unfortunately no member of the media chose to cover the hearing, and the bill has attracted zero publicity. Perhaps the media has written off such a legislative effort as totall unrealistic and unachievable.

While I am under no illusion that this comprehensive tax reform will become law his year ( a gubernatorial veto would be swift after the unlikely passage of such a measure), the time is well overdue for honest debate over New Hampshire's broken tax system. The future of our state depends on it.

(Rep. Jessie L. Osborne is a Democrat from Concord.)

Concord Monitor, January 25, 2008





......

[wifi]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

..... DRA concludes that the bill would produce almost $837 million of net new revenue for the state ....(Rep. Jessie L. Osborne is a Democrat from Concord.)

More taxpayer money for the Democrats to spend... yes, that's the fix... sure...

[phoenix]

if this stays on the table until November the democrats will have a short stay in the majority in new Hampshire legislature

[ITD]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

Concord Monitor, Friday January 25, 2008

My Turn

Only answer: tax reform

Bills should be based on the ability to pay

Groan

What about spend reform............

How about : For the NH Government spending should be based on the ability to pay

[phoenix]

still think the best way if money needs to be raised is allow a casino at rockingham park. Those who pay do it voluntarily( you don't have to go if you don't want to) and it will bring in money from Mass residents. It does bring issues with it as some have raised but may be the best way to solve the education funding gap. But I do agree with the others that spending control should come first.

[fatlazyless]

Laconia Daily Sun, Saturday, January 26, 2008

On the editorial page below the weekly Garrison Keillor column
............

Record number of votes cast in N.H. Primary

CONCORD (AP) - New data show that record number of votes were cast in both the Republican and Democratic presidential primaries in New Hampshire on Jan. 8.

Secretary of State William Gardner released the official vote total Friday. They showed that 241,039 Republican ballots were cast, which surpassed the party's record of 239,523 set in 2000.

Gardner said 288,503 ballots were cast in the Democratic primary Jan 8, breaking the record set in 2004 of 221,309.

In all, a record 529,542 ballots were cast.

The total number registered voters has not yet been calculated. New Hampshire lets people register at the polls, and Gardner's office has been busy re-counting ballots in both primaries.

Laconia Daily Sun
.......................

And one of those Republican votes was mine. Ok, so then why am I so pleased that the numbers figure out to be a terrific and historical high Democratic vote of 54.5%, and for the Republican vote it was 45.5%. This is excellent news for the NH Democratic party. Hey, is it time to party yet?

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

[Weirs guy]

Funny, based on that new tax system and the tax cuts it would provide me I think I just became a Democrat! And the best part is other people will have to pay for my 2 kids education!!!

[wifi]

Originally Posted by Weirs guy

... Funny, based on that new tax system and the tax cuts it would provide me I think I just became a Democrat! ...

Just wait until next year, when they pave the road in front of FLLs house "because he doesn't have the ability to pay ... " it will come out of a raise in YOUR taxes..

[fatlazyless]

For me, and probably for most people, what matters the most is the money. Republican-Democrat-Republican-Democrat, eenie-meenie-minnie-moe, show me the money and by that I mean the tax bill, and that's what really counts. No surprise on that.

For some, the New Hampshire system is an advantage, and for others it is a burden. Probably for most, chosing to be a D or an R is determined by the M factor (money). No wonder why so many chose to be undeclared or independants. Does it really matter whether you attach yourself w/ the D's or the R's, when it's really all about the M's.

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

From yesterday's www.cmonitor.com, Jan 27, the last five paragraphs of an editorial that helped me to understand Rep Jessie Osborne"s HB1593 proposal.
................................


" Osborne's bill is complicated. Unlike the governor's, it won't make a good bumper sticker or campaign slogan. Unlike the governors, it addresses both problems cited in the Claremont school funding litigation: unequal resources for rich and poor school districts and the crushing financial burden on taxpayers forced to pay the lion's share of education costs through the regressive local property tax.

In its' broadest form, Osbornes's bill would establish a statewide educaton property tax at $5.50 per $1,000, with a $200,000 homestead exempton. It would establish a 4 percent income tax with liberal exemptions and a credit for the state wide property tax. It would repeal the interest and dividends tax and business enterprise tax. It would reduce the business profits tax. It would provide abatements for everyone whose total property tax bill was more than 8 percent of their income.

The upshot: New Hampshire taxpayers would contribute to education based on their ability to pay. And New Hampshire government would collect enough money to truly provide an adequate education. It's hard to argue wih common sense.

Osborne isn't under any illusions about her bill's chances this session. She has no slick p.r. campaign or the muscle of heavy hitter political leaders behind her. Even if it reached his desk, the governor wouldn't sign it.

But Osborne wants an honest conversation on school funding and New Hampshire's antiquated tax system. Her bill, unlike the governor's State of the State pitch, could provide just that.
.............
Concord Monitor




...........

[Irish mist]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

For me, and probably for most people, what matters the most is the money. Republican-Democrat-Republican-Democrat, eenie-meenie-minnie-moe, show me the money and by that I mean the tax bill, and that's what really counts. No surprise on that.

For some, the New Hampshire system is an advantage, and for others it is a burden. Probably for most, chosing to be a D or an R is determined by the M factor (money). No wonder why so many chose to be undeclared or independants. Does it really matter whether you attach yourself w/ the D's or the R's, when it's really all about the M's.

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

From yesterday's www.cmonitor.com, Jan 27, the last five paragraphs of an editorial that helped me to understand Rep Jessie Osborne"s HB1593 proposal.
................................


" Osborne's bill is complicated. Unlike the governor's, it won't make a good bumper sticker or campaign slogan. Unlike the governors, it addresses both problems cited in the Claremont school funding litigation: unequal resources for rich and poor school districts and the crushing financial burden on taxpayers forced to pay the lion's share of education costs through the regressive local property tax.

In its' broadest form, Osbornes's bill would establish a statewide educaton property tax at $5.50 per $1,000, with a $200,000 homestead exempton. It would establish a 4 percent income tax with liberal exemptions and a credit for the state wide property tax. It would repeal the interest and dividends tax and business enterprise tax. It would reduce the business profits tax. It would provide abatements for everyone whose total property tax bill was more than 8 percent of their income.

The upshot: New Hampshire taxpayers would contribute to education based on their ability to pay. And New Hampshire government would collect enough money to truly provide an adequate education. It's hard to argue wih common sense.

Osborne isn't under any illusions about her bill's chances this session. She has no slick p.r. campaign or the muscle of heavy hitter political leaders behind her. Even if it reached his desk, the governor wouldn't sign it.

But Osborne wants an honest conversation on school funding and New Hampshire's antiquated tax system. Her bill, unlike the governor's State of the State pitch, could provide just that.
.............
Concord Monitor




...........

Some of us care about the constitution, philosophy, freedom, a civil society......money is important, but the thought that we are all just "economic men" is absurd. Some of us are disgusted by the Wall Street Journal crowd, and their treatment of people as economic units that can be traded off like goods & services.

[tis]

How do these legislators come up with these weird ideas? Taxes get more and more complicated. So far, giving more money to the poor towns has not made them better. Will they ever get the idea that just throwing money at something doesn't necessarily make it better? Spend less, not tax more!

[gtxrider]

Originally Posted by phoenix

still think the best way if money needs to be raised is allow a casino at rockingham park. Those who pay do it voluntarily( you don't have to go if you don't want to) and it will bring in money from Mass residents. It does bring issues with it as some have raised but may be the best way to solve the education funding gap. But I do agree with the others that spending control should come first.

The casino/gambling was tried here in New Jersey and we still have high taxes and a huge deficit. Niow we are told that tolls will increase and an addition tax on gas is needed. Stick to the working people.

The real answer is cut waste, stop spending what you don't have.