Moultonborough Taxes

[longislander]

In addition to attending the meetings, we also need to elect people that are going to be Fiscally Responsible. Given the revenue that Moultonborough can generate, we need people who actually propose what the town needs, and not some of these pie in the sky proposals like we had at the last town meeting.

The people who attend are those wanting the new budget to pass each year. It goes up EVERY year, despite the number of students dropping every year. It is insane to be paying 17M/year for 480 students, when our whole town (separate budget) runs on 10M. That tells you how out of control our school costs are.

RIGHT-ON!

I believe the MoBo school board has announced March 9, 2024 as the next annual school district meeting date. That is a Saturday. MoBo voters need to attend and vote.

While you are there vote for SB2 for next year so everyone can vote through a ballot at the annual elections. This way if you are not here in March, you can send in an absentee ballot and still have your voice heard.

Rumor has it that there's a petition for SB2 adoption for the school district. Another reason to attend the school district meeting. For all of the SB2 naysayers that say SB2 prevents being informed, where were you for the school district meeting!

[ITD]

Originally Posted by longislander

RIGHT-ON!

I believe the MoBo school board has announced March 9, 2024 as the next annual school district meeting date. That is a Saturday. MoBo voters need to attend and vote.




Rumor has it that there's a petition for SB2 adoption for the school district. Another reason to attend the school district meeting. For all of the SB2 naysayers that say SB2 prevents being informed, where were you for the school district meeting!

SB2 removes the ability to modify line items at town meetings, one of the best tools to stop crazy spending. It's a bad move for this town especially with the pressures to increase spending. Regardless of what the school committee votes, it still needs to be voted at town meeting and the amount can still be changed on the floor if the majority desires. That ability goes away with SB2.

I wasn't at the school committee meeting, maybe you can fill me in with your experience there?

[longislander]

ITD

I wasn't at the school committee meeting, maybe you can fill me in with your experience there?

Sure!

Did you mean annual school district meeting or the Nov. 14 school board meeting. And, there are many different school committees. I attended both the annual and the Nov. 14th meetings.

The annual school district meeting, that is what we are talking about, was sparsely attended. I actually stood in the far aisle at the end of that meeting and counted 50-70 potential voters. A lot of them were/are school staff. There appeared to be more young kids then adults (sic).

Without getting too technical...

SB2 removes the ability to modify line items at town meetings

No it doesn't. The warrant discussed at the SB2 deliberative session can and is modified/changed by the voters attending. The Tuesday ballot cannot be changed. Traditional meetings decide the warrant then and there and vote. "Reconsiderations" can be done till the end of the meeting, especially if folks have already left the meeting. MoBo is wise to that and will vote a motion to "not reconsider". Rules are set by moderator/ state statute.

Here's the town stream of the 2023 annual school district meeting. The camera folks used an wrong title ... deliberative session... it was not unfortunetely.

https://townhallstreams.com/stream.p...id=51&id=51684


Note the total time it took for a meeting with a $17 million budget: 8:58 minutes, and if you bothered to view, how many questions/motions at the mic ... zero!

[John Mercier]

But it is very hard to compare the systems and outcomes.

Moultonborough had 19.4% of students on free/reduced lunch... while a higher ranking Sunapee (10th) had 15.9% on free/reduced lunch.
Sunapee spent about $1400 less per student... but its ranking is going down, while Moultonborough is going up.

Sunapee has 12 less students. So the overall bill would be pretty close.

Inter-lakes has about twice as many students, a slightly lower free/reduced lunch percentage (17.7) spent about $5300 less per student, but dropped 26 places in the standings from last year.

[longislander]

It is not difficult, or shouldn't be, comparing needed capital expenditures to "wish lists" by "unmonitored" officials, no matter the system; non-sequiture.

Free lunches to kids compared to free lunches to administrators and officials wanting to give their "kids" EVERYTHING ... well.

I know. Well ... a deep hole in the ground ... like they're trying to do to our wallets!

https://www.education.nh.gov/who-we-...-lunch-program

[John Mercier]

Without knowing what the State will deem adequate sort of is.

Anything beyond adequacy is a ''want''; that the town has to determine it is willing to pay for under the Local ED rate.

[longislander]

New Hampshire law requires that all public schools provide an adequate education to all students.

One definition:

An adequate education in New Hampshire is defined as one that provides all students with the opportunity to:

Master the core academic subjects of reading, writing, mathematics, science, and social studies. This includes developing the skills and knowledge necessary to be successful in further education and the workforce.

Develop critical thinking and problem-solving skills. This includes the ability to analyze information, solve problems, and make rational decisions.

Become effective communicators. This includes the ability to read, write, speak, and listen effectively in a variety of contexts.

Develop positive social and emotional skills. This includes the ability to work cooperatively, respect others, and manage emotions.

Is that with or without cell phones?


Then again...NEW HAMPSHIRE EDUCATION LAWS UNANNOTATED
—————————
2021–2022 EDITION Page 317

"193–E:2 Criteria for an Adequate Education.
An adequate education shall provide all students with the opportunity to acquire:
I. Skill in reading, writing, and speaking English to enable them to communicate effectively and think creatively and critically.
II. Skill in mathematics and familiarity with methods of science to enable them to analyze information, solve problems, and make rational decisions.
III. Knowledge of the biological, physical, and earth sciences, including environmental sciences that investigate the complex interaction of physical, chemical, and biological processes that take place on the earth, to enable them to understand and appreciate the world and the engineering, socio economic, and geopolitical challenges around them.
IV. Knowledge of civics and government, economics, geography, history, and Holocaust and genocide education to enable them to participate in the democratic process and to make informed choices as responsible citizens.
V. Grounding in the arts, languages, and literature to enable them to appreciate our cultural heritage and develop lifelong interests and involvement in these areas.
VI. Sound wellness and environmental practices, including outdoor recreation, to enable them to enhance their own well-being, as well as that of others.
VII. Skills for lifelong learning, including interpersonal, environmental education, and technological skills, to enable them to learn, work, communicate, and participate effectively in a changing society and environment.
Source. 1998, 389:1. 2005, 257:15. 2007, 270:3, eff. June 29,
2007. 2020, 29:12, eff. Sept. 21, 2020. 2021, 210:2, Pt. V, Secs. 1 and
2, eff. Oct. 9, 2021.

https://www.education.nh.gov/sites/g...d-complete.pdf

And now hang a dollar figure on it. Maybe they will say bitcoin must be used to pay!

Some MoBo folks are inclined to Taj Mahals. Is that adequate.

[John Mercier]

The Legislature will need to decide what the new figure for adequacy is...
But requiring payment in bitcoin is forbidden by the US Constitution.

[longislander]

The comment about bitcoin was a joke.

However I'll bite:

Whether or not requiring payment in Bitcoin is forbidden by the US Constitution is a complex question that has not been definitively answered by the courts. There are a number of arguments that could be made on both sides of the issue.

Arguments in favor of the constitutionality of requiring payment in Bitcoin

The Coinage Clause: The Coinage Clause of the US Constitution gives Congress the power to "coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and to fix the standard of weights and measures." This clause has been interpreted to give Congress the power to regulate all forms of currency, including digital currency like Bitcoin.

The Legal Tender Act: The Legal Tender Act of 1933 made it illegal to refuse payment in US dollars for any debt. This law has been interpreted to apply to all forms of currency, including digital currency like Bitcoin.

The General Welfare Clause: The General Welfare Clause of the US Constitution gives Congress the power to "lay and collect taxes, pay the debts of the United States, provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States." This clause has been interpreted to give Congress the power to regulate all aspects of the economy, including the use of currency.

Arguments against the constitutionality of requiring payment in Bitcoin

The Contracts Clause: The Contracts Clause of the US Constitution prohibits states from passing any law that "impairs the obligation of contracts." This clause has been interpreted to mean that states cannot pass laws that make it more difficult for people to pay off their debts. Requiring payment in Bitcoin could make it more difficult for people to pay off their debts, especially if they do not have access to Bitcoin.

The First Amendment: The First Amendment of the US Constitution protects the right to freedom of speech. This right has been interpreted to include the right to use any form of currency that you choose. Requiring payment in Bitcoin could restrict people's freedom of speech by limiting their choices of currency.

The Due Process Clause: The Due Process Clause of the US Constitution prohibits the government from taking away someone's property without due process of law. This clause has been interpreted to mean that the government cannot take away someone's money without a valid reason. Requiring payment in Bitcoin could take away people's money without a valid reason, especially if they do not have access to Bitcoin.

The ultimate question of whether or not requiring payment in Bitcoin is forbidden by the US Constitution by the court system will probably not happen any time soon.

How about Dunkin Donuts gift cards ... any better!

Also,
The Constitution can be amended.

[John Mercier]

US Con Art One Section 10.

The States have no authority to make anything other than Silver and Gold a tender in payment of debts.

A State can choose to accept other formats of payment, but can not require them.

It has actually been hashed out... with several people going to prison.

Same with this...
The State may not mandate any expense upon a local subdivision - even a public school - so the requirement to provide an adequate education is a State financial responsibility.

That is why they lost the current two rounds of traditional public school funding lawsuits.

Now we wait for the NHSC. Should they concur with the Superior Court, then it is up to the Legislature.

The Legislature can balk; and stall to an election year.
That is what they did the last time.

Or they can get to it during this session, and have something placed into law so that come election time they can say they upheld their constitutional duty.

I'm betting on the first.

[longislander]

Article I Legislative Branch
Section 10 Powers Denied States
Clause 1 Proscribed Powers
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

It says no state ... it doesn't mention federal gov't.

The Coinage Clause of the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 5) does not explicitly prohibit the federal government from making anything other than silver and gold a tender in payment of debts. However, the Supreme Court has held that the Coinage Clause does implicitly limit the federal government's power to make legal tender.

In the 1884 case of Legal Tender Cases, the Supreme Court held that the Coinage Clause does not grant Congress the power to make anything other than gold and silver coins legal tender. The Court reasoned that since the Coinage Clause only grants Congress the power to "coin money" and "regulate the value of foreign coin," it did not intend to grant Congress the power to make paper money legal tender. The Legal Tender Cases primarily involved the constitutionality of the Legal Tender Act of 1862, 12 Stat. 345, enacted during the American Civil War. The paper money depreciated in terms of gold and became the subject of controversy, particularly because debts contracted earlier could be paid in this cheaper currency.

The Court's decision in Legal Tender Cases has been criticized by some scholars, who argue that the Court's interpretation of the Coinage Clause is too narrow. They argue that the Coinage Clause simply grants Congress the power to regulate the currency, and that this power includes the power to make paper money legal tender.

Despite this criticism, the Court's decision in Legal Tender Cases has never been overruled, and it remains the law of the land. As a result, the federal government is not prohibited from making anything other than silver and gold coins legal tender, but it is limited in its ability to do so.

Secondly,
Is reference is being made to the recent two decisions of the ConVal case by a single judge Ruoff, or the two Claremont decisions?

Probably the ConVal case. That is, presently, a Rockingham County case and is not yet binding on the state. It will be binding on the state, if and when, the NH Supreme Court grants certiorari and decides on the case. If it doesn't get heard by the NH Supreme Court, then what. Legislature v. Judge Ruoff? Or, is it binding only in Rockingham county? It would be surprising if the NH Supreme Court would not intervene, but nothing requires it to do so.

Federal and NH state constitutions can be amended.
Federal:An amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress, or, if two-thirds of the States request one, by a convention called for that purpose. The amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths of the State legislatures, or three-fourths of conventions called in each State for ratification.

NEXT!

[John Mercier]

Why would the federal government make you pay your State level taxes?
And why would the federal government decide that it should be in bitcoin?

[longislander]

Why would the federal government make you pay your State level taxes?
And why would the federal government decide that it should be in bitcoin?

The federal gov't has no jurisdiction on state taxes.The federal gov't is in Bitcoin, but not as currency.
"Uncle Sam’s stash of some 200,000 bitcoin was seized from cybercriminals and darknet markets"


https://www.wsj.com/finance/currenci...llion-78ce0938

[John Mercier]

But the subject is a State tax for a State mandate.

Since the federal government isn't going to be involved, and the State can't require payment in bitcoin, there is no way for that to happen.

The questions are simply will the NHSC concur with the lower court? And will the Legislature act to uphold the State Constitution should that occur?

Since the State sets the adequacy rate... anything above the adequacy rate is simply extras or the State adequacy rate is not high enough to provide what is deemed adequate.

For example, should the State set the adequacy rate at $8000, then the voters should deem any sum above that to be extraneous. A want instead of need.

It is something they will need to think about at town meeting in the Spring... as we should have some idea by then at least whether the SWEPT non-donor town condition will be found unconstitutional. If it is, Moultonborough and others will return to donor town status and have to carry that cost.

That will be above whatever the local voters approve for their school budget.
It will probably have to be phased in again. And a low-income primary home carve out be supplied... though hopefully they don't do something foolish and have to end up in court again.

[tis]

A couple of years ago " Moultonboro Speaks " posted what it would cost towns if the latest donor deal was passed. We wouldn't be happy. I didn't see Moultonborough on the list but Wolfeboro and Tuftonboro were inconceivable. I think Glen Cordelli was one of the sponsors.

[longislander]

A couple of years ago " Moultonboro Speaks " posted what it would cost towns if the latest donor deal was passed. We wouldn't be happy. I didn't see Moultonborough on the list but Wolfeboro and Tuftonboro were inconceivable. I think Glen Cordelli was one of the sponsors.

Good comment.
When Paul was running that forum he may have been a selectman, before becoming our fine moderator.

https://moultonborospeaks.blogspot.com/

It should not be confused with the Facebook entry.

I'm out-a-here for this thread. (Yea ... they say! )
I can only take so much opinion without a posting of the source of the comments, if I can comprehend the verbiage of the argument. I don't need the last word. It looks like the Google searches just keep going back to what was originally said by many contributors ... round and round ... worst than kicking a dead dog. Maybe it's me!

Maybe a new thread will come out after tomorrow's NH Supreme Court oral arguments in Daniel Richard vs. Governor Chris Sununu, et al.

"On Monday, October 30, 2023, the New Hampshire Supreme Court, on their own initiative, scheduled oral arguments for November 29, 2023, at 9 a.m., in a highly-anticipated election law case of Daniel Richard vs. Governor Chris Sununu, et al.

This case poses the following questions:

Who is qualified to vote in New Hampshire?
Who is qualified to vote absentee in this State?
Who is required to “sort,” “count” and certify the votes in the towns and cities?
Are voting machines constitutional in N.H?
Can the legislature delegate its law-making power under the State and U.S. Constitutions to an unelected body of bureaucrats (the NH Ballot Law Commission) to make election laws (including voting machine laws), and the ability to suspend State and Federal election laws?
The use of vote tabulation equipment to conceal the counting of un-verified and uncertified absentee ballots and the illegal certification of the election results."


https://www.nhpatriothub.org/2023/10...-29th-at-9-am/

Wonder what opinions the Google searches will produce on this.

Triggered by a U.S. Supreme Court decision SCOTUS decision from June 27, 2023, in Moore v. Harper

https://granitegrok.com/mg_mancheste...chard-v-sununu

[John Mercier]

Not pertinent to the subject.
Regardless of any outcome, it would not change the property tax in Moultonborough.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by tis

A couple of years ago " Moultonboro Speaks " posted what it would cost towns if the latest donor deal was passed. We wouldn't be happy. I didn't see Moultonborough on the list but Wolfeboro and Tuftonboro were inconceivable. I think Glen Cordelli was one of the sponsors.

Under the current conditions, if SWEPT is redistributed... Moultonborough would keep about $2M of the State Ed tax and send the rest to Concord.

I think someone in the thread estimated that the State Ed tax collected in Moultonborough equaled four or five million... so it would be millions of dollars flowing from Moultonborough to other municipalities.

[tis]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Under the current conditions, if SWEPT is redistributed... Moultonborough would keep about $2M of the State Ed tax and send the rest to Concord.

I think someone in the thread estimated that the State Ed tax collected in Moultonborough equaled four or five million... so it would be millions of dollars flowing from Moultonborough to other municipalities.

Yes, he showed a chart of what it would cost each town and we would see huge increases if passed. I remember last time poor little Freedom who doesn't even have a school was a donor town. Manchester didn't quite know what to do with the money they got so they build an athletic field. And after years studies proved that the children of Franklin, Claremont and other receiver towns were not any better educated. Throwing money at everything isn't the answer.