Taxation w/o representation!

[Ski Man]

Originally Posted by TomC

if you turn this around, it illustrates an interesting concept to ponder: why does the same house, presumably creating the same burden on the town's infrastructure (ie schools, fire/police, etc), have to pay 10x the revenue to the coffers because it happens to sit next to a lake? There has to be some allocation, and the one that was settled upon was the 'value' of the property - but that can have little linkage, in terms of fairness, to the burden said property has on the town. A lakefront 2 BR, 600 ft^2 seasonal house with no permanent residents, no kids in school, etc may well owe more in taxes than the 10 room house off-lake cited above.. Is that fair? maybe it is, maybe it isn't

Supply and demand. Capitalism. Just like any business, the state will get as much out of you as you're willing to pay. Since waterfront homes are in high demand, they know that they can tax you heavily, and those properties will still be occupied. Would you argue that a hotel on the waterfront should charge the same rate as one in the middle of nowhere?

The majority of people in the lake's region don't live on the waterfront, and so the majority of people will benefit by utilizing the forces of supply and demand. If you don't want to pay the taxes, there will be another guy who will happily take your place.

[TomC]

Originally Posted by Ski Man

Supply and demand. Capitalism. Just like any business, the state will get as much out of you as you're willing to pay. Since waterfront homes are in high demand, they know that they can tax you heavily, and those properties will still be occupied. Would you argue that a hotel on the waterfront should charge the same rate as one in the middle of nowhere?

The majority of people in the lake's region don't live on the waterfront, and so the majority of people will benefit by utilizing the forces of supply and demand. If you don't want to pay the taxes, there will be another guy who will happily take your place.

Having the means and willingness to pay is irrelavent in a discussion of fairness. A kidnapper would do better hijacking one of Bill Gates' relatives rather than a bag lady's, but that doesn't make it fair or legal. the fact remains that the seasonal, non-resident, tax payer is taxed in a fashion significantly out of alignment with respect to the burden placed on the town (generally), and then is unrepresented in the town government process....

[ike]

TomC is 100% correct, taxation with no representation.

[JPC]

I agree with you TOM.C. However, you have to remember that this is the Granite State and it is full of Granite Heads. When it comes to Tax Fairness they can't hear you. Sound may travel through granite but it just goes in one side and out the other.

[MaryS]

Tom C you are correct!!! Look at the High school in Moultonboro...Moultonboro Academy.....with all the second home taxes being paid the high school is like a private school, small classes, and the ability to pay the teachers well....Boy if the second home owners decided to make this their primary residence...and enroll their kids?? wow what would that be like??? We should have a vote as property owners in the town as done in CT..to vote not for office but on the town budget...and still have a primary voting place where your home is.

[dpg]

Secondcurve - Don't you mean $425K, M for million???

[Woodsy]

JPC... It’s truly amazing to me how ignorant and self centered some people are. Calling the residents of NH “Granite heads”? Really what is wrong with you? You come here to this state as our GUEST, and use our (the citizens of NH) lake and then whine about having to pay the taxes on the property? Quite frankly, just leave.

Taxation by its very nature is a sore subject. Nobody likes paying taxes. We don't have secondary taxes, like a 5% sales tax, or a 5.5% income tax, nor do we (the residents of NH) want them! Taxes in NH are based solely on an assessed property value. You know this when you purchase the property. These property values have steadily risen to astronomical proportions. Why have the property values risen so dramatically? Supply and demand… Last I checked there wasn’t any new waterfront on being created. Lots of people have decided they want to buy a second house here. When there is a small supply and a large demand, values skyrocket and your taxes go up accordingly. The tear down the cottage and build a Mcmansion process hasn’t helped either!

I as a NH resident (Laconia) have no desire to pay any more in taxes than is required. I do however have a vested interest in the city and state in which I live. I require the city council and the mayor to spend the money wisely in a way that is in the best interest of the all of the residents of the city. I don’t have children, but I do think a new high school would be a good thing for Laconia, even though I know building the new school will increase my taxes.

Non-resident property owners generally do not particularly care what is best for the city or town. They are only concerned about themselves, keeping their taxes and other assorted costs of ownership as low as possible. I have absolutely no desire to give them any say in how the tax revenues get spent. If you don’t like how it’s done, move up here, become a resident, then vote accordingly, or sell out, pocket a big check and go somehwere else!

Woodsy

[dpg]

Can a lot be put up for sale/sell for the value on my tax bill?

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

{snip} Taxation by its very nature is a sore subject. Nobody likes paying taxes. {another snip} I as a NH resident (Laconia) have no desire to pay any more in taxes than is required. I do however have a vested interest in the city and state in which I live. I require the city council and the mayor to spend the money wisely in a way that is in the best interest of the all of the residents of the city. I don’t have children, but I do think a new high school would be a good thing for Laconia, even though I know building the new school will increase my taxes.

Non-resident property owners generally do not particularly care what is best for the city or town. They are only concerned about themselves, keeping their taxes and other assorted costs of ownership as low as possible. I have absolutely no desire to give them any say in how the tax revenues get spent. If you don’t like how it’s done, move up here, become a resident, then vote accordingly, or sell out, pocket a big check and go somehwere else!

Woodsy

The question of taxation comes up every year on this forum and usually makes for an interesting, if ... ummm ... "spirited" debate. There are 2 questions I would ask of anyone. First, is the present system of taxation fair ? Betcha everyone says no The next would be what would be a more fair scheme. Without going into the specifics, I would respond that such a system would assess taxes based upon the benefit accrued (or cost incurred). Only a few few would argue that such a thing is unfair. Whether such a system is workable, attainable or even desirable I won't address. Let me use school funding as an example of what I mean. I think most people would say public schooling is a good idea and that we all get some benefit from it. To that end everyone, even out of state property owners, should pay some of the costs. That said, the kid in school reaps most of the benefit and as such his/her parental units should (I say) pay the majority of the cost. We don't do this, although various fees and such are moving it in this direction. Whether such a system would work or not can be debated, but at least it would be (more) fair (IMHO). Simply telling people "go somewhere else" is somewhat akin (I'm exaggerating for effect) to saying Jim Crow laws were acceptable because the black man could have moved North. While NH's property taxation system doesn't rise to the same level of disenfranchisement of the various Jim Crow laws, taxation w/o represention is still one of those key conceptual building blocks that was an impetus for this country. Figuring out a more fair scheme would ease the complaints of non-residents while not ceding local control to them.

ps - And yes I do understand you were responding the to stupid Granite Head retort

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

Let me use school funding as an example of what I mean. I think most people would say public schooling is a good idea and that we all get some benefit from it. To that end everyone, even out of state property owners, should pay some of the costs. That said, the kid in school reaps most of the benefit and as such his/her parental units should (I say) pay the majority of the cost. We don't do this, although various fees and such are moving it in this direction.

Sorry M+M but I strongly disagree with you here. One of our country's greatest assets is its education system although I agree it’s not perfect. One of the reasons it is great is that it is publicly funded, therefore blind to the economic status of its attendees (of course we could argue that statement, but again nothing is perfect). Requiring parental units to "fund the majority of the expense" would be disastrous as the majority of parental units are stretched to the limit just trying to feed and clothe their kids.

Education is usually the first target of politicians because they understand how important it is and most reasonable people do not want to see it under funded. Meanwhile pork projects and waste is seldom talked about because when expenditures are looked at independently they pale compared to education. When lumped together they become quite expensive.

I suppose I could go for the parental units paying the majority of the costs of education if that attitude were applied across the spectrum. Lets see, seniors pay the majority of medicare, the poverty stricken pay the majority of welfare, retirees pay the majority of social security, people whose houses burn down pay the majority of fire protection, crime victims pay the majority of police costs, you can see where I am going here, not a pretty picture.

Taxes on waterfront properties are higher because they are worth more, a fact that most owners understand. Some complain about these higher taxes compared to properties that are worth less, but none ever complain about their increased net worth due to owning these properties.

My humble opinion......

[Orion]

ITD,
I agree with most of your statements, but the key gripe I have is isolated to your last statement. I AM complaining about increasing net worth!...as have others. If you never intend to sell and just want to create a place to live out your retirement years, with fixed income, then increasing property values are worthless and a real problem.

There should be a means to limit tax growth to cost of living indexes for people over 65 (I'm not). The property would revert back to a market value adjustment on pass-on or sale. Almost everyone that owns property and retires will face this problem. A $500K house today will likely be a $1M house in 10 years and there's nothing you can do about it. You will be a victim of the economy and market pressures. Saying that you can move is a cute "out", but put yourself in a retirees shoes. Is it impossible to live the "On Golden Pond" golden years life today?

[Woodsy]

I do think its tough for the older crowd on fixed incomes... There really isn't any solution that is fair. Property taxes are inherently fair, The property is valued at $X and you pay $Y per thousand based on the X value. Property tax doesn't care how much or how little you have for income. Unfortunately very few in this world can have thier cake and eat it too. If taxes are a burden, take out an equity line to pay the taxes and live comfortably. Use the increased equity in the property to your benefit.

Now if you want to talk about deferring a percentage of the property tax, allowing the town to put a tax lien on the property with a balloon payment due when the property is transferred due to death or illness or sold... that might be a workable solution.

Woodsy

[TomC]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Now if you want to talk about deferring a percentage of the property tax, allowing the town to put a tax lien on the property with a balloon payment due when the property is transferred due to death or illness or sold... that might be a workable solution.

Woodsy

sounds good at first, but the town has immediate expenditures that need to be funded, so if the payments got delayed to a large degree, then that could get unmanageable pretty quickly.

there are two main concepts that have become interwoven in this thread: the fairness of using property value as the means to determine what one owes (versus some other 'town burden' method'), and the issue of representation... The points about school expenditures being of benefit to society as a whole has great validity, and I have no objection to my non-resident tax dollars helping to fund this. I still have a hard time swallowing the reality that the same (non-resident/high-value) recreational properties that fund the bulk town budget are excluded, by design, from participating in the process that determines how the money is spent.

The full-time town residents love this deal, as evidenced by the "sell and go elsewhere, if you don't like it" retorts that turn up every time a thread like this is started. If residents truly believed this situation was in any way unfair, then they would use the voting rights they possess to change the process to allow non-resident representation. I won't hold my breath waiting for that to happen. The fact that is hasn't and likely won't speaks volumes...

[Seaplane Pilot]

My plan is to let the property pay me back in my later years by taking the equity out in the form of a reverse mortgage or some other similar tool. That way I can pay the taxes and plan to keep the property for as long as I am alive and able to care for it. A lot of people won't consider this option because they want to pass the property along to children, family, etc. I figured I worked hard for the property, then the property can work for me. Let my kids worry about their own property, just as I had to do.

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by TomC

The full-time town residents love this deal, as evidenced by the "sell and go elsewhere, if you don't like it" retorts that turn up every time a thread like this is started. If residents truly believed this situation was in any way unfair, then they would use the voting rights they possess to change the process to allow non-resident representation. I won't hold my breath waiting for that to happen. The fact that is hasn't and likely won't speaks volumes...

Thats because I don't think its unfair at all! Certainly no more unfair than MA, ME and VT collecting an income tax from NH residents who work there. Or collecting a sales tax from NH residents who happen to purchase items there. There is no representation, and I don't see any rush by those states to correct that injustice. What about the fairness to in your own states? How many of you have purchased goods in NH just to avoid the sales tax in your own state? Even though you are required by law to report such purchases and pay the sales tax accordingly?

Whining about how you have to pay such exorbitant taxes on your second home when you don't use any town services just doesn't wash! The reason the value on your second home has skyrocketed is because many others like yourself want to be here. More demand for property, with a limited supply. This drives up the property values and subsequent taxes exponentially. Too bad. Thats the whole basis of the American economic system, supply & demand! I am sure no one complains when they sell out for that big fat check.

People who own second properties do not have any kind of vested interest in the well being of the town or city that the property is located. They only have an interest in keeping their cost of ownership as low as possible, regardless of what may be best for the other full time residents of the city or town.

Our taxation system works just fine for NH. We in NH don't have 1/2 the tax burden that our neighbors have. We have a much smaller more frugal government. If you don't like the system we as NH residents have created, move up here and vote or sell out and leave!

Woodsy

[TomC]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Thats because I don't think its unfair at all! Certainly no more unfair than MA, ME and VT collecting an income tax from NH residents who work there. Or collecting a sales tax from NH residents who happen to purchase items there. There is no representation, and I don't see any rush by those states to correct that injustice. What about the fairness to in your own states? How many of you have purchased goods in NH just to avoid the sales tax in your own state? Even though you are required by law to report such purchases and pay the sales tax accordingly?

Whining about how you have to pay such exorbitant taxes on your second home when you don't use any town services just doesn't wash! The reason the value on your second home has skyrocketed is because many others like yourself want to be here. More demand for property, with a limited supply. This drives up the property values and subsequent taxes exponentially. Too bad. Thats the whole basis of the American economic system, supply & demand! I am sure no one complains when they sell out for that big fat check.

People who own second properties do not have any kind of vested interest in the well being of the town or city that the property is located. They only have an interest in keeping their cost of ownership as low as possible, regardless of what may be best for the other full time residents of the city or town.

Our taxation system works just fine for NH. We in NH don't have 1/2 the tax burden that our neighbors have. We have a much smaller more frugal government. If you don't like the system we as NH residents have created, move up here and vote or sell out and leave!

Woodsy

1) No whining here. I happlily pay the tax bills on my NH property. I am saying, however, with that payment ought to be some right to representation (and for that matter the lower rate for various licenses)

2) income tax: You continue to miss the point about the represetation issue. In the case of MA, there is no 2-tiered status. residents/non-residents are taxed uniformly. Further, I do not believe there are any municipalities that grant representation with these types of taxes. Owning property in a town/city is different matter. One becomes part of the community. Your sales tax reference and whether or not one declares these on out-of-state purchases is irrelevant to this discussion

3) Speaking for myself: I absolutely have a vested interest in the town where my recreational homes are. It is pretty silly to think that people with hi-dollar assets don't care what happens in the town where they are situated!

4) NH does have over 1/2 the tax burden the surrounding towns have, it is more like 75%. source: http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lis...005/index.html

5) your "if you don't like...leave" comment doesn't support the basis for a reasonable defense of the status quo, and diminishes your argument. Eventually I do plan to move up and participate in Town Government.

[Woodsy]

TomC, I didn't mean to say that out of state property owners didn't care, as I am sure they care to some extent. The problem lies in that because it is a second home, thier primary concern is keeping thier cost of ownership as low as possible while increasing the value of thier property. This could be said of most homeowners, but full time residents tend to spend town money on things that non-residents do not. MaryS example of Moultonborough Academy emphasises this point.

You are also right in that Massachusetts tax residents and non-residents uniformly in regards to income and property taxes. Same as NH except NH doesn't have an income tax. You can work in NH and NH doesn't tax you at all. But if your a NH resident and work in MA you get taxed. Why should I have to pay an income tax to state I don't live in? I get no representation for a rather large percentage of my salary, no benefits at all except perhaps the priviledge of driving on thier roads. I pay to support the roads with the gasoline taxes. If NH had an income tax, say 3% and MA was 5%, I would have to pay the 5% with MA getting 2% and NH getting thier 3%. But because NH doesn't have an income tax, MA gets the whole 5%. How fair is that? Lets not forget that the Massachusetts Income Tax was supposed to be a temporary measure. Of course that was 30+ years ago and they are still collecting it. Maybe NH should enact an out-of-state workers income tax of 4% and shank all of the surrounding states by taking that money out of thier coffers? That would certainly increase your tax burden.... and make the corrupt politicians on Beacon Hill scramble a bit.

As far as my sales tax reference. I ask you to answer the question! Naah.. don't bother. I seriously doubt have ever declared anything purchased in NH! Paying the sales tax benefits your state, yet hordes of people drive over the borders every day to buy items and save that 5%. Maybe if you guys actually declared your purchases to the MA DOR (Department of Revenue) and paid the 5% tax as you are by law required to do, your income/property/sales taxes would drop accordingly. But you don't...

Your right though, we really aren't discussing the income tax or sales tax. However, in the Democratic Peoples Republic of Massachusetts, just as in NH, non-resident property owners are NOT ALLOWED TO VOTE. Just as in NH, I can go to a town meeting and speak my mind, but I am not allowed to vote.

Why is it people from out of state insist on changing our form of revenue raising to suit them? If you go to that website that TomC posted, NH is 49th in overall tax burden! 49th out of a possible 50! ME is #1, RI is #4, VT is #6, CT is #12 and MA is #32. Massachusetts was alot higher in rankings, earning the nickname Taxachusetts, until they passed Prop 2 1/2. All of these states have some form of broad based taxation. NH is 49th because we have rejected broad based taxation. The rankings speak for themselves! Why would I want to increase my tax burden to suit anyone else?

When you move up here and become a resident Tom, then you can vote in whatever changes you want. It would be very interesting to see how your perspective changes....

[ITD]

I guess it comes down to paying your fair share. In the real world fair share is like this: 20 people need to move 40 gallons of milk from point a to point b, every person picks up 2 gallons of milk at point a and moves it to point b. Everyone is happy.

In the tax world fair share is based on wealth or a percentage of wealth. In the above scenario half of the people would walk empty handed from point a to b. The other half would carry the milk based on wealth, some carrying 1 gallon, some carrying substantially more. If you have greater wealth, you carry more of the load. Is this fair? Who knows, but it is reality. I, for one would support tax deferrments for Seniors that would become liens with interest charged payable upon death or transfer of title. These could be funded via bonds with the interest charged going to pay bond interest. I don't think anyone who owns property should get out of paying property taxes.

[MAXUM]

Only way to make a fair tax system is to make it flat across the board. If the town budget is X then the number of taxable properties in town are totaled pay an equal share of X.

Property taxes should be growing no more per property than the increase in the budget as voted by the towns people. So if the towns people vote in say a 2% annual budget increase then nobody's property taxes in town should increase more than 2% to cover that increase. BTW that includes reductions in the town budget as well.

The trouble with the system as it is now is that there are far too many who are reaping pubic benefits they are paying a mere fraction for and instead of being grateful they DEMAND more, thinking that it's free money. Well no it's not and it's about time everyone equally shares the load.

BTW anyone 65 and older should get a 25% reduction in thier property taxes, period across the board regardless of income.

[Woodsy]

There is talk of a "Tax Cap" in Laconia, similar to the one in Franklin.

"Under the cap, annual spending and tax increases would be limited to the increase in the federal urban consumer price index. The cap could be overridden by a vote of five of the six council members."

http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll...-1/citizen0101

I am in agreement with the tax cap as a way to control costs. The stickler will be as always the unions, but I am sure the politicians will find a way to muddle thru.

While a tax cap will not help with your property value assessment. There is really no way to stop your value from increasing, short of a market crash, It will however affect your tax rate, stabilizing it at the minimum, hopefully reducing it somewhat.

I don't agree with property tax breaks for anyone, regardless of age or income.


Woodsy

[rrr]

I haven't seen an answer to dpg's question: If you put it on the market - could you get what it's assessed at?
In Tuftonboro - I don't think so. I've seen properties on the market the last year or two at prices lower than what they are now assessed at - and they didn't move.

Woodsy - your comment: 'People who own second properties do not have any kind of vested interest in the well being of the town or city that the property is located.' - hit me a bit like the Granite Heads comment hit you.
I own a second property - of course I have a vested interest in the well being of the town! First, it plays a significant role in the value of my investment. Second, I am counting the days until the second property is the only property. I've seen posts from others with similiar plans.

[BroadHopper]

I live in Massachusets briefly during the time Proposition 2.5 became law. The Unions fully endorsed the tax cap. Yet, years down the road they wish the hell it wasn't enacted. They requested all the cities/towns to override it.
I don't think tax caps will be effective as long as there is some provisions for override.
As a NH native, I strongly feel the present NH legislature are made up of granite heads, air head, chickens with no heads etc. Look at the mess they created trying to come up with a formula for education?? That should have been simple! And with the EZ-Pass, they hired a questionable firm in NJ that have been audited many times by various states. I could go on and on. The big frosting on the cake is to have laws that allow sex offenders and pediophiles off with little jail time and fines!
Sorry to vent, but they don't get my vote!
My family even lost the family heirloom on the lake due to taxes and an unscrupulous state legislature next door whose 'land grant' turn our dock into a 'dry dock'.

[Woodsy]

To answer DPG's question... probably. The property assesments are based on what similar properties have sold for. Now if the market is cooling as some pundits suspect, then its entirely possible the answer could be no. You always have the option of filing for a tax abatement if you think you are over assessed. This potentially opens a can of worms, you run the risk that in some cases they will assess your property value even higher. I am sure there are exceptions, but when your property values start reaching into the high 6 digit, low 7 digit range, the number of potential buyers diminishes drastically, so properties tend to be for sale alot longer.

"People who own a second property - of course I have a vested interest in the well being of the town! First, it plays a significant role in the value of my investment. Second, I am counting the days until the second property is the only property. I've seen posts from others with similiar plans."

Most (not all) 2nd property owners have very little interest in what goes on in thier town unless it will effect thier tax rate (wallet) or their property value. Thats the problem in a nutshell! It has been my experience to watch many a 2nd property owner complain about anything that was going to increase thier tax rate regardless, if it was good for the full time residents or not. The proposed Laconia HS is just one of those projects easily pointed to. MaryS brought up Moultonborough Academy as another. I am sure there are many other projects and town expeditures that can be used as examples too. Most 2nd property owners just want to minimize thier cost of ownership.

As far as the EZ Pass fiasco, I just went from Laconia to Virginia Beach and back to get a boat. With the exception of the Cheasapeake Bay Bridge, every single tollbooth had an EZ Pass lane. The company may be questionable, but there is no sense going with a different company that nobody elese uses! I wish I had purchased a transponder before I left. It would have save alot of time.

Woodsy

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by ITD

Sorry M+M but I strongly disagree with you here. One of our country's greatest assets is its education system although I agree it’s not perfect. One of the reasons it is great is that it is publicly funded, therefore blind to the economic status of its attendees (of course we could argue that statement, but again nothing is perfect). Requiring parental units to "fund the majority of the expense" would be disastrous as the majority of parental units are stretched to the limit just trying to feed and clothe their kids.

I hear you but as I said originally you could have a more "fair" system and not necessarilly like the results. We end up with taxes the way they are because the majority of voters want what they want (sometime good things, other times not so good) and can't afford to pay for it in a fair way, thus we end up with a, in this case, good result but paid for via an unfair means. I, a person w/o children, pay more as a result of someone else making a decision to have kids, kids thay appparently couldn't afford to have otherwise.

Originally Posted by ITD

I suppose I could go for the parental units paying the majority of the costs of education if that attitude were applied across the spectrum. Lets see, seniors pay the majority of medicare, the poverty stricken pay the majority of welfare, retirees pay the majority of social security, people whose houses burn down pay the majority of fire protection, crime victims pay the majority of police costs, you can see where I am going here, not a pretty picture.

Hmmm first let's start with the easy ones. In the case of social security the oringinal intent was that the "retirees" do pay the cost, they just do it before the are retired. Yes, I end up paying for my parents and someone else pays for me but the intent was not to have retirees living off someone else's $$'s (except for the initial batch). Fire, police and such fall into the catagory where we all pay for it because we're all as likely to use or need the services. Welfare, as a form of "poverty insurance" is touted as a service like the aforementioned (though I'm sure there are plenty of arguments to made pro/con this viewpoint). These are different from schooling in 1 important aspect; I don't get a choice in whether I'm a crime victim or laid off or a brush fire burns down my house and the person having a child does (or should) make a conscious decision to have one and accept the responsibilities (and resultant costs) of that decision. Why should "I" pay for "your" kid ? What do you think about a "welfare mom" having 6 kids by 5 different fathers ? Is is "fair" that we all pick up that burden ? Again I'm not saying that shifting the burden in the manner I've suggested would nessecarily be as "pretty" or as desirable as the present system, all I am saying is that it would be more fair, tax-wise. Moving to a more fair system, where and when we practically can, is the moral high ground. Recognizing where and when the existing system is unfair, but perhaps the lesser of evils, and not simply saying akin to "like it or lump it" is the first step.

I would say the reason we don't like "taxation w/o representation" is because it can become an unfair system. If you're going to take away the product of someone's efforts, letting them have a say in the manner is the least that should be done. Perhaps they get voted down but it's as close to fair as can be had given how we as a people decide these things. In this regard I deem both NH's property and MA's income tax, wrt non-residents, as unfair. That you'll never see the situation change is an example of why people should have some say in how their $$'s are spent. One last thought ... perhaps many years ago when most people were born, grew up, lived and died in the same area the existing system made more sense but todays mobile society is going to force some changes.

[JPC]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

JPC... It’s truly amazing to me how ignorant and self centered some people are. Calling the residents of NH “Granite heads”? Really what is wrong with you? You come here to this state as our GUEST, and use our (the citizens of NH) lake and then whine about having to pay the taxes on the property? Quite frankly, just leave.


I as a NH resident (Laconia) have no desire to pay any more in taxes than is required.

Woodsy

Woodsy, I am a NH resident and have been for 30yrs. I've seen what happens to retired folks who can't afford the taxes and have been forced to sell. And I'm not just talking about the Lakes Region either. I used the term "GRANITE HEAD" to refer to people who just cannot see beyond the end of thier nose when it comes to different methods of taxation to releive the property tax burden (Sales/Income). As far as your concerened the current tax structure has been in place since the beginning of time and you don't want it to change. It benefits you the way it is now because your property value is probably much lower then lake front so your tax burden is also much lower.

Another thing, I keep hearing that lake front owners should stop whining about taxes when their property's valuation (net worth) is so high. That value means didly squat until you sell! See, if there was an income tax then the State could capitalize on the Capital Gains Tax.

I just hate the attitude "If you can't afford it, sell and get out"

I bet you didn't vote for Fernald who supported reducing property tax for an income tax. Seniors on fixed income would have little or no Income Tax.

Yes I know, I heard it also, all politicians are corrupt and they would steal our money if we gave them a chance. But I was brought up to beleive that "We The People" can make a difference.

Enough rambling on!

[kunamola]

If you are going to make an appointment for an appeal, or even to ask questions, about Tuftonboro house values do not wait. You only have four days this week (two are already gone) to call the town and make the appointment. August 25 is the last day to call. Follow the infomation you received in the letter and the tax booklet. You can check the avitar website using the log on instructions in your booklet to find property that is similar to yours. It is not very easy to use, but with patience and hunting and pecking you might find something. one hint is that instead of looking at each segment of the property on the website separately (land, buildings, features, etc) click on the "print card" on the top right of the page and you will see everything about the house on one page.

Like you I am shocked at the increase. This is a township that provides, to the summer resident, only a few services: access to a small library, a summer swim program if you have children of the appropriate age (parks and rec.) and a transfer station (which no longer takes the septic tank waste and charges for many items you might need to get rid of), a small police department (which could be miles away when needed) and a volunteer fire department (which would arrive in time to dampen down the ashes). The amount and level of services in proportion to the amount of taxes due is way out of line with most other localities and states. Add to that no representation and you get to foot the bill for all those who live in New Hampshire and refuse to spread the tax burden by maintaining the government totally on a property tax. The burden will only grow for people without representation (second home owners) as long as the local and state governments follow their voters wishes and thus do not seek other items and services on which to attach a tax.

[jrc]

Funny that a "fair" tax system is always one that shifts the tax burden to someone else. No matter what tax system we have someone will complain that it is not fair.

[dpg]

Wow - that was a long wait. Thanks for hightlighting my question.

[Merrymeeting]

Woody, adding to what many others have stated, I actually care MORE about what happens where my "second home" is located than the first because I plan on owning it longer and living there longer. In addition, my parents live there now (in another part of town). I think your generalization is almost as bad as the term that got you started on this.

I would also disagree somewhat with your tax arguments. In exchange for your 5% contribution to the MA tax coffers, you get a government that more actively supports business development and the infrastructure to support it, thereby creating the very jobs that many NH residents complain that they have to pay income taxes on. Is it perfect? Absolutely not! But... if you don't like it, get a job somewhere else!

Finally, for all. The myth I do think needs to be debunked is the one of taxation without representation. As always, money talks. You can be sure that any lakes town government will be concerned about what the tax paying non-residents think if they are organized and have a coherent, strong position. I've seen it done. Towns are not dumb enough to take this money for granted. You can attend town meetings and have your voice heard. You can write letters to the editor to influence opinion, and you can volunteer service to the community that engenders support for you when you ask for it.

One point Woody and I do agree on is that those who just want to whine are not going to get anywhere.