Waterfront Poor

[ITD]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

Yah, back in the 1960's & 70's, before the spreader technology was improved, I can remember the elderly employed by the highway dept as sand tossers. Positioned in the rear bed of a snowplow truck, they all would wave and smile between shoveling sand off the truck and onto the road, as the truck moved ahead. They were paying off their property taxes at the minimum wage, which now in NH is way up to $5.15/hour.

How good is this? A payment plan so's the elderly can stay in their homes, work off their prop taxes, and get some fresh air exercise, too.

Don't ya know, his Peterborough, sand-tossing job was actually Robert Frost's inspiration for 'The Road Not Taken." Nope, too slick, better not take that road!



16 tons of sand....heck.,,,that's only half a dump load.

There you go Less, now your thinking outside the box, even Henry Ford himself must have begun like this. Keep up the good work.

In my little town here in Deval country, they let seniors work the polls as a way to get a break on their taxes. I wonder if there is anything like this in NH?

[fatlazyless]

Originally Posted by ITD

There you go Less, now your thinking outside the box, even Henry Ford himself must have begun like this. Keep up the good work.

In my little town here in Deval country, they let seniors work the polls as a way to get a break on their taxes. I wonder if there is anything like this in NH?

New Hampshire is truly a different state than Massachusetts. If Governor John Lynch ever ever ever took himself a Cadillac DeVille instead of a Ford Crown Victoria, which is what Governor Deval Patrick did for himself, then Granite Staters would be a-scream-n, bigtime.

And there was a NH news story about some Republican state reps somewhere with a proposal that sets up a program for the old folks to do town work at 5.15/h, min wage, to be work-n off their prop taxes. There's a few plans like that float-n around.

What's really float-n around is the 'large & in-charge' Democratic Party, turnout numbers at the NH primary!

[wifi]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

What's really float-n around is the 'large & in-charge' Democratic Party, turnout numbers at the NH primary!

Possibly things have been manipulated to look this way:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...9191306AA8GoyX

[fatlazyless]

Originally Posted by wifi

Possibly things have been manipulated to look this way:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...9191306AA8GoyX

....................

In 2000, the last NH primary where both parties had contested races, the Republicans had 236,802 votes cast, and in 2008 it remained about the same with 238,548 votes cast.

In the Democatic primary in 2000, there were 154,639 votes cast, and in 2008 it increased up to 258,322 votes cast.
(source Wikipedia)

So, out of all the votes cast in last Tuesday's primaries, it was Democrats with 56% and Republicans with 44% of the total votes cast. This is a big switcheroo from prior contested primaries in 1988, 1992, and 2000 where the G.O.P. had the bigger majority of votes cast.

Senator John Sununu and Governor Jeanne Shaheen have no doubt noticed these numbers.


........................update

Found this www.unionleader.com editorial, Sunday Jan 13, and here's the first two pararaphs.

Turning out: Another primary victory

"More than half a million people voted in Tuesday's presidential primary, making yet another case for the value of the New Hampshire primary.

The total number of voters was 526,553. That's more than half the voting-age population of New Hampshire - not registered voters, but the entire population aged 18 and older. That's an astounding turn-out."

.............................

526,553 total voters

239,000 (45.4%) Republican voters

288,000 (54.6%) Democratic voters

...............................

[wifi]

You are making the assumption that there are an even percentage of each party that cross the border to vote, and that this election carries the same weight in the voters mind (in each particular party) that previous elections have.

I don't think you can make such assumptions.

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by wifi

You are making the assumption

You can pretty much stop right there. All of FLL's "statistics" posts revolve around assumptions, guesses, bad extrapolations and misinterpretations.

Add a dash of trolling and serve warm.

[SIKSUKR]

I'm so glad we don't have a political section on this forum cuz it really keeps those discussions from occurring!
I for one do not have liquid assets of a million but do have real estate that has equity of that.If you have assets of a million you ARE a millionaire.Can you assets lose value whether they are liquid or not?Of course.It does not matter if it's in your bank account or not.You are more likely safer with your asset in your home than in most other vehicles.

[VitaBene]

I think we are all getting wrapped up in the definition of "millionaire" when (and I hate to say this) being a millionaire aint what it used to be! Technically it is true that a person with assets of $1M or more is a millioniare but let's be realistic, that 1M today buys far less and means far less than it did 30 years ago.

I guess if I added my life up we would squeak into the millionaire category- I sure as hell don't feel like one! I live a good life, make a decent living, and like most of the folks on this board, live up to my means and essentially pay check to pay check (solid 401Ks and kid's college plans but according to the money guy not enough cash reserves if one of us lost our job).

I will certainly say that when using MA as a comparison state with a combination of property and income taxes I pay far more in MA combined than if I sold the MA house and NH Winni access house, and bought a nice, not extravagant Winni lakefront house. We pay $6K alone in property taxes on a $550K house (bought for 199.7K in 94).

Like most everyone else here, I hate taxes but love services I personally favor a flat tax such as a sales tax so the richer people who consume more expensive goods pay more than those who do not.

There are two huge issues facing us that will certainly effect our taxes in the next 30 years- 1) unfunded pension liabilities (guess which taxpayers guarantee those) and 2) the spiraling costs of health insurance that most governments provide to not only for their employees and families, but also for most retirees for life (contracts were written when health insurance was not that expensive and it was an easy benefit to throw in). These two things are going to cost us a lot of $$$ as a country, state or town and therefore individually.

I feel bad that people have felt the squeeze of their property taxes. NH's system of taxation is not perfect but it is better than most. Perhaps those that are real estate millionaires will have to tap some of that equity.

Regards

[Weirs guy]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

So, out of all the votes cast in last Tuesday's primaries, it was Democrats with 56% and Republicans with 44% of the total votes cast. This is a big switcheroo from prior contested primaries in 1988, 1992, and 2000 where the G.O.P. had the bigger majority of votes cast.

Of course the dems numbers could have been skewed by undeclared voters voting democrat now that will change over to republican for the actual election....