![]() |
![]() |
|
|||||||
| Home | Forums | Gallery | Webcams | Blogs | YouTube Channel | Classifieds | Register | FAQ | Members List | Donate | Today's Posts | Search |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
#1 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 67
Thanks: 1
Thanked 43 Times in 20 Posts
|
New bill out of committee with an ought to pass recommendation.
100$ annual fee for waterfront property 50$ annual fee for water access property on lakes impounded by state owned dams. To be collected by towns and remitted to the dam fund. https://gc.nh.gov//bill_Status/billi...2190&inflect=2 |
|
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 889
Thanks: 278
Thanked 764 Times in 271 Posts
|
Just more state revenue grab. Not sure it is well written, as section 1 VI calls for interest at 8% per year on taxes...does not mention the feee. But this bill calls the $100 a fee. Wonder if that interest payment would stand up in court against a fee when it is not stated it is against the fee, but as a tax. Wonder if they will issue a sticker and charge an extra fee for that? Wonder how this will all work as people deduct taxes for federal income tax purposes.....most usually use their checks $'s paid to get the amounts. Will this now be tax fraud if you don't go back and parse out the "fee"...or is it a "tax".
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 | |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Gilford, NH and Florida
Posts: 3,160
Thanks: 749
Thanked 2,277 Times in 986 Posts
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Lakes Region
Posts: 816
Thanks: 42
Thanked 185 Times in 116 Posts
|
so many people also use the lake from day boaters to fisherman to tourists on the Mount... and yet they tag the waterfront owners with yet another fee...
|
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2021
Posts: 3,987
Thanks: 3
Thanked 680 Times in 562 Posts
|
Boating fees and mooring fees for the dam fund are under other bills.
They either need to raise the $8 million or breach the dams by lowering them to the lowest level possible before removal. This is that "want"/"need" issue. So removing it from general taxation is going to be an ongoing discussion. |
|
|
|
| Sponsored Links |
|
|
![]() |
| Bookmarks |
|
|