The Tax Man Cometh !

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by jeffk

The way I look at it, the rules by which property is assessed and taxed have been in place for quite a while. Businesses and non residents don't have a vote in the town budget and that is nothing new. Nor is it practical that they should. If non residents voted, they could shrink the budget to save themselves $$$ and face no significant impact. The residents would be stuck with the negative results. Non residents CHOOSE to be here. If they don't like the impact of town spending, they can leave. Further, the biggest impact on shifting taxes to the waterfront owners is not, I believe, the town budget, but instead other non residents bidding up property in a hot real estate market. Your assessed value is impacted by the increased prices they are willing to pay. YOUR property has increased potential value in the current market and THAT is what we are taxed on, estimated current value of our property. You might perceive that your increased value being taxed is "unfair" but that is how it works and has worked.

If you don't like the property tax system in NH, try Vermont or Maine. They have nice vacation property as well.

I'm not saying complaining people should leave but it feels like they sat down at a Poker game and are complaining that the rules are not like those of a game of Bridge.

No doubt it's a fascinating subject.

I do disagree it's not practical for "non full time residents" to have a say in budget related items ONLY. Otherwise it's akin to taxation with out representation right? So lets just say non-resident residents could vote as I suggested. You do bring up a good and valid point in theory all non residents could (if they outnumber full time residents) vote down every spending bill, however I don't believe that would conceptually happen. Here's why, property owners whether full time or not have a vested interest in the well being of the town where they own property. Certain towns are more desirable and some of that can be attributed to improvements in the aesthetics to basic services offered. To think that it is beneficial to starve a town where you hold a major investment seems at face value rather far fetched and self defeating. At the same time, there may be a little more resistance to frivolous spending or acceptance of projects that are simply way over priced and beyond what is prudent and reasonable for the town as a whole. See this is where I think to myself why the hell would full time residents ever vote anything down when they get such a huge return on a very small investment?

Not sure what the correct answer is I guess it comes down to the number of non residents to residents. I feel so long as the residents have the scales tipped slightly in their favor then there is no harm in letting non residents vote. That would assume that if all town residents voted in a block for a provision and all non residents in a block against, the provision would pass. However I don't see that ever happening, believing that most people are reasonable and requests to support the town, particularly critical departments would get overwhelming support from all.

[jeffk]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

No doubt it's a fascinating subject.

I do disagree it's not practical for "non full time residents" to have a say in budget related items ONLY. Otherwise it's akin to taxation with out representation right? So lets just say non-resident residents could vote as I suggested. You do bring up a good and valid point in theory all non residents could (if they outnumber full time residents) vote down every spending bill, however I don't believe that would conceptually happen. Here's why, property owners whether full time or not have a vested interest in the well being of the town where they own property. Certain towns are more desirable and some of that can be attributed to improvements in the aesthetics to basic services offered. To think that it is beneficial to starve a town where you hold a major investment seems at face value rather far fetched and self defeating. At the same time, there may be a little more resistance to frivolous spending or acceptance of projects that are simply way over priced and beyond what is prudent and reasonable for the town as a whole. See this is where I think to myself why the hell would full time residents ever vote anything down when they get such a huge return on a very small investment?

Not sure what the correct answer is I guess it comes down to the number of non residents to residents. I feel so long as the residents have the scales tipped slightly in their favor then there is no harm in letting non residents vote. That would assume that if all town residents voted in a block for a provision and all non residents in a block against, the provision would pass. However I don't see that ever happening, believing that most people are reasonable and requests to support the town, particularly critical departments would get overwhelming support from all.

Your take on this would put the residents in the position of HOPING that non residents are reasonable and fair and even altruistic in dealing with their vacation town. Yet the very tone of this thread begins with trying to prevent the town from getting an accurate assessment of the value of a property and the advice about tax assessment is NOT to let the assessor in the house to achieve an complete valuation. People talk about making changes to their property that they KNOW increases the value and then trying to figure out how to keep that information from the assessors.

I understand and emphasize with the desire to keep my property taxes low. However, I think the vote should stay with the people that live in a town and are most impacted by the decisions made in town voting. When I know my town needs a new fire station (at a reasonable cost) or a new fulltime town employee, I can support that need, even if taxes have to go up. I would rather have the non residents dependant on MY sense of reasonableness and fairness rather than me dependant on them and having to live with the their "I don't use it so I don't want to pay for it" outcomes.

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by jeffk

I would rather have the non residents dependant on MY sense of reasonableness and fairness rather than me dependant on them and having to live with the their "I don't use it so I don't want to pay for it" outcomes.

There you illustrate the very problem - those that are voting aren't paying the lions share so they don't have to care paying pennies on the dollar of what they vote for. Those that are paying the majority are forced to sit down, shut up and don't whine or complain, you chose to buy here. But why is that? Why not say hey full time residents chose to move into a town where the majority of property owners are non-residents? Those are the people that are paying the majority of the tax burden so sit down, shut up and enjoy the nearly free ride? LOL of course the latter is frowned upon yet interesting the former is perfectly fine but equally obscene.

I guess I have a fundamental problem with people being taxed and have zero say in decisions that directly effect those tax bills.

Again I do not believe that if allowed non-residents would be an overwhelming voting block against any town spending initiative. It is simply not in their interest to do so. What do you think would happen to property values in a town that is poorly run because it is cash starved? On the other hand I think a lot of these big ticket items with multi million dollar bottom lines might just receive far more scrutiny than they do now. That I see as a good thing. Nobody is going to vote down a new fire truck if it is needed.

[bilproject]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

No doubt it's a fascinating subject.

I do disagree it's not practical for "non full time residents" to have a say in budget related items ONLY. Otherwise it's akin to taxation with out representation right? So lets just say non-resident residents could vote as I suggested. You do bring up a good and valid point in theory all non residents could (if they outnumber full time residents) vote down every spending bill, however I don't believe that would conceptually happen. Here's why, property owners whether full time or not have a vested interest in the well being of the town where they own property. Certain towns are more desirable and some of that can be attributed to improvements in the aesthetics to basic services offered. To think that it is beneficial to starve a town where you hold a major investment seems at face value rather far fetched and self defeating. At the same time, there may be a little more resistance to frivolous spending or acceptance of projects that are simply way over priced and beyond what is prudent and reasonable for the town as a whole. See this is where I think to myself why the hell would full time residents ever vote anything down when they get such a huge return on a very small investment?

Not sure what the correct answer is I guess it comes down to the number of non residents to residents. I feel so long as the residents have the scales tipped slightly in their favor then there is no harm in letting non residents vote. That would assume that if all town residents voted in a block for a provision and all non residents in a block against, the provision would pass. However I don't see that ever happening, believing that most people are reasonable and requests to support the town, particularly critical departments would get overwhelming support from all.

With the change from a domicile (Must live in the state for so many days) definition of residency to a resident definition. Anyone who rents or owns property in New Hampshire can claim residence in the state. By RSA definition one must present a lease or tax Bill, obtain a New Hampshire drivers license, register a vehicle if they own one and register to vote to become a resident. Many out of state property owners may have one spouse declare New Hampshire residents and then vote in local elections which is where the real power is.

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by bilproject

With the change from a domicile (Must live in the state for so many days) definition of residency to a resident definition. Anyone who rents or owns property in New Hampshire can claim residence in the state. By RSA definition one must present a lease or tax Bill, obtain a New Hampshire drivers license, register a vehicle if they own one and register to vote to become a resident. Many out of state property owners may have one spouse declare New Hampshire residents and then vote in local elections which is where the real power is.

I'm already a NH resident. Just not a resident of Meredith. I have my hands full with my home town as it is I need to remain a voter there. My taxes on my primary residence are atrocious. Unfortunately there is a steady influx of new "residents" who were not satisfied in screwing up just where they came from, but need to screw up everywhere they go. It ain't just people from MA either although many are. Seeing a lot of NY, CT, RI and NJ transplants too. Not to say that all transplants are lumped into a single category and bad - many get it, moved away and don't want what they left behind to follow. We like and welcome them!