Waterfront Poor

[Woodsy]

BUT!!! I seriously think there are a MANY here who just don't get it...

Check out this link: http://www.meredithnh.org/taxhis.php

The tax rate per/$1000 has dropped from $18.99 in 2000 to $10.91 in 2007!

The reason the tax rate has dropped is because of a small increase in population (approx 10%) and a large increase in assessed property values.

If you check out the link above and use FLL's post about his property values as a guideline (not picking on FLL, just using his own numbers to plug into the equation) this is what you come up with....

In 2005 Meredith's tax rate was $15.95/$1000, so if FLL's property was assessed @ $250,000 the property tax that year = $3987.50

In 2007 Meredith's tax rate was $10.91/$1000, so if FLL's property was assessed @ $801,000 the property tax that year = $8738.91

So then you figure out the increase in values...

801,000/250,000 = 3.20
8738.91/3987.50 = 2.19

So while FLL's property more than tripled in value, his taxes only doubled! It seems to me like thats a pretty good deal, especially when you consider all of the ranting and raving FLL has done about taxes! FLL wants the property taxes on an $800,000 property to be affordable on a truck driver's salary! No offense FLL, but thats some darn wishful thinking! But I digress...

Now lets go one step further into the hypothetical realm!

The state implements a flat rate income tax of 3.5% with the first $20,000 exempt. If you make $50,000/year you will pay approximately $1050 in income tax. This income tax results in the elimination of the State School portion of the property tax. This results in a $2.15 reduction to the 2007 Meredith tax rate, changing the rate to $8.76/$1000. So FLL's 2007 tax bill would then be $7016.76... (801 x 8.76) a reduction of $1722.17.

Then you subtract the income tax from the property tax savings $1722.17 - $1050.00 = $672.17 total tax saved. Of course if FLL makes more than $50,000/year the savings is reduced and vice versa, if FLL makes less than $50,000/yr the tax savings is increased. But this is all based on things being static... and we all know when it comes to money and politics everything is very fluid!

While FLL may have a small tax savings initially, that savings is going to diminish over time. The Meredith town portion of the tax rate will incrementally increase as will the county portion. If FLL is lucky his salary will increase equally relative to all of the other factors. If not, well he is pretty much in the same boat he is now...

But here is the kicker.... Now we have opened Pandora's Box!! We have created a huge reoccuring cash cow for the boys in Concord! The state will be able to increase the income tax at will to fund "necesarry and important" projects! Pretty soon we will be like our neighbors to the south... an income tax, a sales tax and a property tax!

I say... THANKS, BUT NO THANKS! NO NEW TAXES!!

I am truly sorry that some people are being forced to sell thier homes because they cannot afford to pay the property taxes on them as well as the mortgage and upkeep. However, the blame lies squarely on the American economic principle of supply and demand... there is a very short supply of waterfront property, and unfortunately there is a very high demand for it. Your property values (and property tax bill) increased exponentially because your neighbors took the big $$$ offered to them and sold out...

Woodsy

[Irish mist]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

BUT!!! I seriously think there are a MANY here who just don't get it...

Check out this link: http://www.meredithnh.org/taxhis.php

The tax rate per/$1000 has dropped from $18.99 in 2000 to $10.91 in 2007!

The reason the tax rate has dropped is because of a small increase in population (approx 10%) and a large increase in assessed property values.

If you check out the link above and use FLL's post about his property values as a guideline (not picking on FLL, just using his own numbers to plug into the equation) this is what you come up with....

In 2005 Meredith's tax rate was $15.95/$1000, so if FLL's property was assessed @ $250,000 the property tax that year = $3987.50

In 2007 Meredith's tax rate was $10.91/$1000, so if FLL's property was assessed @ $801,000 the property tax that year = $8738.91

So then you figure out the increase in values...

801,000/250,000 = 3.20
8738.91/3987.50 = 2.19

So while FLL's property more than tripled in value, his taxes only doubled! It seems to me like thats a pretty good deal, especially when you consider all of the ranting and raving FLL has done about taxes! FLL wants the property taxes on an $800,000 property to be affordable on a truck driver's salary! No offense FLL, but thats some darn wishful thinking! But I digress...

Now lets go one step further into the hypothetical realm!

The state implements a flat rate income tax of 3.5% with the first $20,000 exempt. If you make $50,000/year you will pay approximately $1050 in income tax. This income tax results in the elimination of the State School portion of the property tax. This results in a $2.15 reduction to the 2007 Meredith tax rate, changing the rate to $8.76/$1000. So FLL's 2007 tax bill would then be $7016.76... (801 x 8.76) a reduction of $1722.17.

Then you subtract the income tax from the property tax savings $1722.17 - $1050.00 = $672.17 total tax saved. Of course if FLL makes more than $50,000/year the savings is reduced and vice versa, if FLL makes less than $50,000/yr the tax savings is increased. But this is all based on things being static... and we all know when it comes to money and politics everything is very fluid!

While FLL may have a small tax savings initially, that savings is going to diminish over time. The Meredith town portion of the tax rate will incrementally increase as will the county portion. If FLL is lucky his salary will increase equally relative to all of the other factors. If not, well he is pretty much in the same boat he is now...

But here is the kicker.... Now we have opened Pandora's Box!! We have created a huge reoccuring cash cow for the boys in Concord! The state will be able to increase the income tax at will to fund "necesarry and important" projects! Pretty soon we will be like our neighbors to the south... an income tax, a sales tax and a property tax!

I say... THANKS, BUT NO THANKS! NO NEW TAXES!!

I am truly sorry that some people are being forced to sell thier homes because they cannot afford to pay the property taxes on them as well as the mortgage and upkeep. However, the blame lies squarely on the American economic principle of supply and demand... there is a very short supply of waterfront property, and unfortunately there is a very high demand for it. Your property values (and property tax bill) increased exponentially because your neighbors took the big $$$ offered to them and sold out...

Woodsy

All very logical, and no doubt true. The problem, of course, is emotion. And people are very emotional about this issue. You and I.....and many others can preach on this board over & over & over again how a new tax system will just shuffle the chairs around the deck, and that in the end a guy like FLL will be paying the same taxes, or more. But guess what? He does not care, nor do the people like him out there care. It's too emotional, it hits too close to home, and I understand that.

The best you can do is put the facts out there, and hope people can get past their emotions.......but it's a very tall order to expect everyone to do so.

[Rattlesnake Guy]

The state is a bit like we are. If they have an extra 30% in their pocket, they are going to buy something they didn't realize they needed before they had the money.

[fatlazyless]

How's this sound for my payment plan for the town prop tax? Next June when I owe another $4300., what say I just pry a wheel barrow full of old shingles off the side of the cottage and deliver them to the tax collector with a note attached.

'Dearest Madame Tax Collector, as your assessment says my place is worth $801,000 total, then these here old shingles must easily be worth $4300, correct? Thanks very much, and will be back next December with more shingles.....till then,,,,,,&.....bye bye for now, dearie!'

fondly,
fll

ps, ...hey, it usually works at the truckstops....

[secondcurve]

That is a great idea. You can notify the local Newspapers so they can get pictures of the cheap millionaire as he tries to circumvent his property tax bill!

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by Irish mist

The best you can do is put the facts out there, and hope people can get past their emotions.......but it's a very tall order to expect everyone to do so.

I agree and disagree. Yes Taxes and the afforadability to pay those taxes are emotional. However, there are no FACTS in these cases. Now Now be patient, don't go getting flustered. A long time ago a wise man told me, numbers don't lie, but liars can number. Once again patience is a virtue, Woodsy numbers made sense in his post. There is no doubt in that. But If I so choose I could show you a set of numbers that would make a new taxing structure make sense. You can make the numbers tell you what ever you want.

The main point here is this, no matter what, in the end the state is going to collect what ever it needs to. to make the system function. Now you can go on saying no new taxes, and just let property taxes go up. Or you can step back and think about this, from another angle. If a income tax is put into place, it is going to hit those that make the most harder then it hits those who don't. Thus making the playing field a little bit more even. As it stands right now, some one like me who really isn't matarialistic, could have a modest place on the water, make millions and pay the same amount of taxes as someone with a similarly modest place, that is just making ends meet. This is not about reducing taxes that isn't going to happen. It is about shifting the tax burden. The more I listen to some of you that are against income taxes, the more I wonder if you are the rich millionaires that are worried about having to give some of there money away. ( now don't get all boiled I know your not ). What this is all really about is the American dream, to have the ability to better yourself. If tax Burdens are not evenly distrubuted among the classes, kiss the American dream good bye.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

...The main point here is this, no matter what, in the end the state is going to collect what ever it needs to...

Why "the State" is the hundreds of thousands of voters that choose every two years to determine its fate by the folks they send to represent them in Concord.

And each and every election they overwhelmingly send, whether Democrat, Republican or Independent a majority of representatives that have pledged to reject either an income or sales tax.

FLL constantly reminds us that the Republicans were removed from power during the last election cycle and replaced by Democrats. What he forgets to mention is that the majority of Democrats elected to the House and Senate, and more importantly our Democratic Governor, also elected and successfully ran on a platform of NO income or sales tax!

Thats right folks, the Democrats ran on the log standing Republican principle of no new (income or sales) taxes and were successful in gaining control of Concord. And despite the actions of a few in the minority they have kept that pledge throughout their first annual session and there is no serious thought or action before this second session to introduce any major new statewide tax. Yes, there's the same handful that throw their crazy tax ideas to the wind each session, but as in the first session no one takes them seriously.

No sane legislator or Governor that wants to return to power during an election year in New Hamshire is going to do so by campaigning on an income or sales tax.

Why?

Because in election after election and poll after poll and constituent after constituent they understand that the majority of New Hampshire residents, few of whom enjoy paying taxes, realize that the current structure even with its belmishes and all still leaves them in much better stance than their neighbors surrounding them.

Its really that simple. Most politicians survive to serve another day because they take the time to understand their constituent's needs and desires. Yes, they realize that no tax scheme is perfect. They realize that under any scheme some prosper and some struggle. There is simply no such thing as a fair tax, life is simply too complicated and societal demands far to great to offer a "one size fits all" solution.

But the point is mute, even though capable of lively discussion. The good people of New Hampshire settle this argument every two years. And by the looks of things to come, not only during this present second half of the legislative season but also the upcoming fall election, I would wager that the good people of New Hampshire are still in no mind set of believing that a new statewide tax will somehow reduce or eliminate their current local or statewide taxes!

[Irish mist]

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

I agree and disagree. Yes Taxes and the afforadability to pay those taxes are emotional. However, there are no FACTS in these cases. Now Now be patient, don't go getting flustered. A long time ago a wise man told me, numbers don't lie, but liars can number. Once again patience is a virtue, Woodsy numbers made sense in his post. There is no doubt in that. But If I so choose I could show you a set of numbers that would make a new taxing structure make sense. You can make the numbers tell you what ever you want.

The main point here is this, no matter what, in the end the state is going to collect what ever it needs to. to make the system function. Now you can go on saying no new taxes, and just let property taxes go up. Or you can step back and think about this, from another angle. If a income tax is put into place, it is going to hit those that make the most harder then it hits those who don't. Thus making the playing field a little bit more even. As it stands right now, some one like me who really isn't matarialistic, could have a modest place on the water, make millions and pay the same amount of taxes as someone with a similarly modest place, that is just making ends meet. This is not about reducing taxes that isn't going to happen. It is about shifting the tax burden. The more I listen to some of you that are against income taxes, the more I wonder if you are the rich millionaires that are worried about having to give some of there money away. ( now don't get all boiled I know your not ). What this is all really about is the American dream, to have the ability to better yourself. If tax Burdens are not evenly distrubuted among the classes, kiss the American dream good bye.

I've always said on this board that if you, or anyone, could show me one state, just one in the United States where the total tax burden on its citizens went down after new, or extra taxes were added to the mix then I would look at it......such has never happened. It's a spending problem as most of us know.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

{Snip}
This is not about reducing taxes that isn't going to happen. It is about shifting the tax burden. The more I listen to some of you that are against income taxes, the more I wonder if you are the rich millionaires that are worried about having to give some of there money away. ( now don't get all boiled I know your not ). What this is all really about is the American dream, to have the ability to better yourself. If tax Burdens are not evenly distrubuted among the classes, kiss the American dream good bye.

Tax burdens have never been evenly spit amongst the "classes", (I really don't like that word). If you sit down and look at who pays the federal income taxes, you'll see that the highest wage earners among us pay most of the burden. Now the spinmeisters will start throwing percentages at you saying how lower wage earners pay a larger "share" (percentage) of their wages, but in the end those with the highest wages pay the most.

Now an interesting thing to observe is that a high wage earner may not be wealthy. High wage earners have a huge tax burden via the income tax, on top of that most or some need to have the best car, the biggest house, and a highly comsumptive lifestyle which in the end keeps their net worth low because this lifestyle is expensive.

An interesting read is the book called "The Millionaire Next Door" by Stanely and Danko. The book points out that the typical millionaire in the US isn't who you would suspect. Most are not driving around in Bentlies, BMWs or Mercedes. Most are frugal and inconspicuous. They shop at Walmart and have aluminum boats. (Ok, I made up the aluminum boat part, but they are more likely to be seen in a Grand Cherokee or a Chevy.)

Resigning yourself to the "fact" that taxes are going to go up is a dangerous thing to do. It's pretty much what happened during the sixties and seventies. Remember the Carter years? What a dismal disaster that was, high interest rates, high taxes. In the eighties taxes got cut and things started booming. In the nineties taxes started creeping up until in 2000 the wheels started coming off the bus. More tax cuts in 2001 and the economy came back.

Spending is the problem, transplants used to big things are fueling this, I believe. They move to NH because of the low cost of living, but want a huge public safety building, big recreation centers, trash collection or at least big beautiful transfer stations. All this costs money.

Adding new taxes will make the problem worse. It sounds great, the new tax will be dedicated to the schools, hooray. But what happens is that the portion of the property tax formally dedicated to the schools now becomes "free" cash. Instead of being used to lower the property tax rate, some noble or not so noble "priority" ( that the politicians wouldn't have dreamed of before) becomes important, must have and is funded with the free cash. The property tax payer gets nothing back. Or better yet, the politicians start saying that the rich property owners should not be getting a huge windfall via lower taxes. It needs to be spread to all the citizens, even those who don't pay taxes (earned income credit).

Don't fall for it.......

[KonaChick]

ITD...Great Post!!

[fatlazyless]

"Don't fall for it." says ITD. Hey, what the closing of Wasau Paper in Groveton means is it's also the closing for www.goroehl.com, or www.roehldriver.com at the same time. Roehl had a long time established freight route between Groveton and Ohio & Indiana to some big magazine-book publishing places. Good bye job, but the property tax, unlike an income tax, never goes away! ...later

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

"Don't fall for it." says ITD. Hey, what the closing of Wasau Paper in Groveton means is it's also the closing for www.goroehl.com, or www.roehldriver.com at the same time. Roehl had a long time established freight route between Groveton and Ohio & Indiana to some big magazine-book publishing places. Good bye job, but the property tax, unlike an income tax, never goes away! ...later

Why would Roehl also have to close down?

[Weirs guy]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

"Don't fall for it." says ITD. Hey, what the closing of Wasau Paper in Groveton means is it's also the closing for www.goroehl.com, or www.roehldriver.com at the same time. Roehl had a long time established freight route between Groveton and Ohio & Indiana to some big magazine-book publishing places. Good bye job, but the property tax, unlike an income tax, never goes away! ...later

First of all it stinks you've lost your job less, not something I would wish on anyone and a difficult situation.

Now lets ask this, had we have had an income tax that would have "gone away" with your job, would you still not have a light bill, propane bill, food, clothes, gas, cable, phone, ect.?

While you are not paying your income tax, does the government stop spending your portion, say perhaps the portion of your taxes the government would have use to pay unemployment benefits?

Theres still no easy answer, someone still needs to either feed the tax beast, or curtail it. I vote to curtail!

[ITD]

The thing about an income tax, is when you lose your job you still have to pay it on your unemployment income. Where does the unemployment income come from you ask? Why it comes from taxes. So you pay income tax on tax being disbursed.

Speaking of paying taxes on taxes, I'm sure I'll be corrected if wrong, but don't state income taxes have to be paid on Social Security payments. Yep, I'm pretty sure it does. Imagine that, having to pay property tax AND income tax on your Social Security payment.


Oh, wait a minute, the $22,000 exemption, hmmm, yeah that should protect Social Security payments, I wonder if that would ever make it to the final new tax legislative bill....

Don't fall for it..........

[fatlazyless]

Here's some more info on the big primary turn-out for the Democrats.

"Since 1980, there have been four primaries where both parties had contested primary elections: 1988, 1992, 2000,and 2008.

In 1988, 1992, and 2000, there were more votes cast in the Republican primaries than in the Democratic primaries. The Republican margin was almost 40,000 votes in 1988 and almost 80,000 votes in 2000.

So, to see in tuesday's primary a Democratic margin of 48,671 votes would indicate a big change and bode well for NH Democrats."
Ron Klain, NY Times

Reading election result tea leaves is probably just a lot of talk, and what counts is the November election but it is pretty interesting don't you think?

How do you think Senator Sununu feels about this party turn-out switcheroo what with his predicted close battle with three term Governor Jeanne Shaheen?

Here's an easier way to digest the primary turnout. Out of the total of all votes cast, it was 56% Democratic verses 44% Republican. This is a very big switch from the results of the prior primaries.

"The number of votes cast in the NH Republican primary this year, 238,548, is about the same as the 236,802 cast in 2000 according to Wikipedia, the last time that it was contested.

However, 258,322 votes were cast in the NH Democratic primary this year compared to only 154,639 in 2000. That's huge.

It means the higher Democratic participation didn't come out of Republican participation. (Glossing over any demographic changes in the intervening years, since I didn't have that data readily available.) Almost 130,000 more NH primary votes were cast this year than in 2000, and almost all of that increase was on the Democratic side.

Wow! What's the opposite of "voter apathy?"

...Posted by Daniel D. (Independent in Oregon)
.........................

So, why am I voting for Romney anyway? Oh yeah...the Winnipesaukee summer white house and the waterski vote. Mitt can still set an old wood stepladder on top of an old wood aquaboard and waterski that setup all around the scary waters of two mile long, Rattlesnake Island.....now, that's a presidential balancing act!

[Island Girl]

Tell Mitt to stay away from Rattlesnake Island.. we don't need the Secret Service crawling around on the island ....