Moultonborough Taxes

John Mercier · 11-27-2023, 10:59 PM

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 · 11-27-2023, 11:11 PM

Quote:

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 · 11-27-2023, 11:59 PM

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 · 11-28-2023, 06:30 AM

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 · 11-28-2023, 08:31 AM

Quote:

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 · 11-28-2023, 01:13 PM

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

CubRun · 12-01-2023, 02:05 PM

Waterfront property owner in Moultonborough for almost 20 years now.
Overall tax bill up 45% from last year.
Part time residents so we just take it up the tail pipe. We will be priced out eventually.

John Mercier · 12-02-2023, 08:24 AM

Quote:

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 · 12-02-2023, 08:52 AM

Quote:

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.

John Mercier · 12-02-2023, 12:05 PM

The system is not about outcomes... as that is local.
It is about State mandates and the State covering those mandates through State taxation as required by the NH Constitution.

LIforrelaxin · 12-04-2023, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Mercier

The system is not about outcomes... as that is local.
It is about State mandates and the State covering those mandates through State taxation as required by the NH Constitution.

That is correct, as I recall when that whole donor / receiver town thing first started, one of the problems was that the money simply went to the receiver towns, and they where not mandated to only used it for execution. The State government was solely interested in showing that funds went to towns...

At the end of the day, the overall problem is the same, NH doesn't seem to generate enough revenue at the state level to fund everything adequately...and I don't just mean education.

John Mercier · 12-04-2023, 01:11 PM

Because the State cannot mandate that a school spend more than its adequacy grants... the was the basis for the current lawsuit.

So if a school is expending $16000 per student, and the adequacy grant is $4100... the school is expending $11900 more per student and any additional grants are used to offset the $11900

The extra $11900 either represents a ''want''... athletic teams/etc... or an unfunded mandated from the State.

Even if we were to use the ~$7300 that the judge proposed... there are no traditional public schools in NH that expend below that.

NH uses sales and income taxes to finance most of the State government...
Fees cover specific areas.

We traditionally focused the sales and income taxes to promote productive uses in NH. Even the D&I was originally introduced to promote investment in NH by making those investments not subject to the tax. That was found unconstitutional, and the tax instead of being repealed went broad. The opposite of what was intended.

But outcomes are variable.
Overall NH ranks fourth highest in reading, so even a school ranking toward the bottom of NH probably ranks very well nationally.
And a school like Moultonborough, ranking in the top 20% for NH (above the mean) would be in the very top nationally.
The same thing would happen in math.

11-27-2023, 10:59 PM	#1
John Mercier Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2021 Posts: 3,526 Thanks: 3 Thanked 627 Times in 516 Posts	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?

11-27-2023, 11:59 PM	#3
John Mercier Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2021 Posts: 3,526 Thanks: 3 Thanked 627 Times in 516 Posts	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.

11-28-2023, 06:30 AM	#4
tis Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 6,814 Thanks: 759 Thanked 1,469 Times in 1,025 Posts	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.

11-28-2023, 01:13 PM	#6
John Mercier Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2021 Posts: 3,526 Thanks: 3 Thanked 627 Times in 516 Posts	Not pertinent to the subject. Regardless of any outcome, it would not change the property tax in Moultonborough.

12-01-2023, 02:05 PM	#7
CubRun Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2015 Posts: 15 Thanks: 110 Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post	Waterfront property owner in Moultonborough for almost 20 years now. Overall tax bill up 45% from last year. Part time residents so we just take it up the tail pipe. We will be priced out eventually.

12-02-2023, 12:05 PM	#10
John Mercier Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2021 Posts: 3,526 Thanks: 3 Thanked 627 Times in 516 Posts	The system is not about outcomes... as that is local. It is about State mandates and the State covering those mandates through State taxation as required by the NH Constitution.

12-04-2023, 01:11 PM	#12
John Mercier Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2021 Posts: 3,526 Thanks: 3 Thanked 627 Times in 516 Posts	Because the State cannot mandate that a school spend more than its adequacy grants... the was the basis for the current lawsuit. So if a school is expending $16000 per student, and the adequacy grant is $4100... the school is expending $11900 more per student and any additional grants are used to offset the $11900 The extra $11900 either represents a ''want''... athletic teams/etc... or an unfunded mandated from the State. Even if we were to use the ~$7300 that the judge proposed... there are no traditional public schools in NH that expend below that. NH uses sales and income taxes to finance most of the State government... Fees cover specific areas. We traditionally focused the sales and income taxes to promote productive uses in NH. Even the D&I was originally introduced to promote investment in NH by making those investments not subject to the tax. That was found unconstitutional, and the tax instead of being repealed went broad. The opposite of what was intended. But outcomes are variable. Overall NH ranks fourth highest in reading, so even a school ranking toward the bottom of NH probably ranks very well nationally. And a school like Moultonborough, ranking in the top 20% for NH (above the mean) would be in the very top nationally. The same thing would happen in math.