NH Sale & Income tax offset with property taxes? (Newbury: buy, luxury)

[jdhpa]

Originally Posted by illtaketwoplease

Not in this circumstance. 2 people owning the same thing in the same town should pay the same amount of tax. Wouldn't you agree?

Did the current owner know how the property would be taxed when s/he bought it? If they're complaining about the status quo they bought into they have no valid grievance.

If people don't accept responsibility for their own decisions, eventually they won't be allowed to make decisions for themselves.

Originally Posted by illtaketwoplease

It is ridiculous to tell people who have lived in a state for 30 years to pack up and move and go somewhere else if their property taxes have increased to the un-affordable level through no fault of their own. Especially if others nearby are being given preferential tax treatment.

Why is it ridiculous for people to move to where it makes more sense for them to be? Some places have a high cost of living, others have a low cost of living. If you're working it can make sense to be in a high cost of living area because that's where your livelihood is. If you're not working it doesn't make much sense to live in a high cost of living area. You'll do both yourself, and whoever is still working and buys your house, a big favor by moving out.

I moved to another state for college because it was the best choice for me. After college I moved to another state because that's where my industry is concentrated, and if I wanted steady employment throughout my working years that's where I needed to be. When I retire I'll move to yet another state because it's the best option for me. I didn't enjoy or want any of those moves. Do what you need to do rather than what you want to do.

Originally Posted by miu

IMO those with school age children ought to pay more in taxes than those who chose to be childless.

What should be done with children whose parents can't afford to pay for their entire education themselves? Deny them an education?

The last time I did a survey, 100% of respondents said their parents didn't consult them before they were conceived and born. Children aren't responsible for their parents' decisions. They get a public education so they have the opportunity to make the most of their lives despite their circumstances.

Rather than punishing children for their parents' choices, do something about school systems whose cost is completely out of control and unjustified. New Hampshire spends $15k / year / student, which is insane:

https://www.governing.com/gov-data/e...upil-data.html


If spending were reduced to (a still expensive) $10k / year / student I'm willing to bet your taxes would go down.

[illtaketwoplease]

Did the current owner know how the property would be taxed when s/he bought it? If they're complaining about the status quo they bought into they have no valid grievance.

If people don't accept responsibility for their own decisions, eventually they won't be allowed to make decisions for themselves.

Let's stay on focus about that example and actual taxes paid by both owners. It does not matter when someone bought a property or how much they acquired it for. It is about equitable taxation of like-type properties based on current value to support the tax base. The status quo IS the reason for complaint among so many property owners in NH. Existing property owners don't have the choice of making decisions for themselves - it is made for them by the taxing authority.

Why is it ridiculous for people to move to where it makes more sense for them to be?

People move for many reasons. It should not be a forced move because of rising taxes paid by some and not by others for similar properties. Your argument would carry more weight if there was fairness and equitable taxation applied to all properties - then it WOULD be a matter of choice - which it is not for some.
And what many people don't realize is that when people are burdened and need to seek help from town or county health and welfare depts - those costs are passed onto taxpayers - so those components of your tax bill rise. It is a very unhealthy situation underlying the current system.


I don't think it is too much to ask for people to pay what other people are paying for similar property.

[Nonesuch]

Originally Posted by illtaketwoplease

2 properties are in Newbury, NH (an already low tax town) - about 1 mile apart. Both raw land. One is slightly over 10 acres and the other is 8.6 acres. Their tax valuations are 60k for the 10 acre lot and 57.9k for the 8.6 lot. Through the miracle of current use - the 10 acre lot pays $8.89 in tax per year, and the 8.6 acre lot owner pays $919.45/yr. If and when the person takes the property out of current use - they would pay a $600.00 penalty - that does not even cover one years worth of taxes if they had been paying their fair share. Criminal all away around.

Not criminal, just poor choices by the person who bought the undersized lot.

You're off by a factor of 10x -- If the lot is valued at $60K, then they would pay $6,000.00 in land use change tax to take the property out of current use.

Originally Posted by illtaketwoplease

Not in this circumstance. 2 people owning the same thing in the same town should pay the same amount of tax. Wouldn't you agree?

I do not agree. Society has decided, and embodied in RSA 79-A:7, that "open land" and farmland in lots smaller than 10 acres are not the same thing. Vermont and Maine, for example, have their own Current Use programs, unfair in their own ways.

Originally Posted by illtaketwoplease

I posted an example above of taxes on 2 nearly identical properties in the same town (Newbury) -- what is your basis for supporting that real life example?

Aside from your getting the math wrong?

Is the goal to extract more revenue from people you perceive as rich, or is the goal to cover the cost of town services?

[illtaketwoplease]

You're off by a factor of 10x -- If the lot is valued at $60K, then they would pay $6,000.00 in land use change tax to take the property out of current use.

You're right - $6000. Still doesn't make up for the past taxes saved by the owner -- or future taxes they enjoy not paying which everyone else must make up for.

Not criminal, just poor choices by the person who bought the undersized lot.

Stupidest reply yet. You are saying that anyone who owns or buys a lot under 10 acres in NH -- or who pays their fair share in taxes on property over 10 acres - has made poor choices.

[grouse789]

Originally Posted by illtaketwoplease

Let's stay on focus about that example and actual taxes paid by both owners. It does not matter when someone bought a property or how much they acquired it for. It is about equitable taxation of like-type properties based on current value to support the tax base. The status quo IS the reason for complaint among so many property owners in NH. Existing property owners don't have the choice of making decisions for themselves - it is made for them by the taxing authority.



People move for many reasons. It should not be a forced move because of rising taxes paid by some and not by others for similar properties.So even though I live in a high cost area, I should be allowed to retire here? And others will pay for me??? LOL Your argument would carry more weight if there was fairness and equitable taxation applied to all properties - then it WOULD be a matter of choice - which it is not for some. Isnt it fair? dont buy something you cannot afford??
And what many people don't realize is that when people are burdened and need to seek help from town or county health and welfare depts - those costs are passed onto taxpayers - so those components of your tax bill rise. It is a very unhealthy situation underlying the current system.


I don't think it is too much to ask for people to pay what other people are paying for similar property.

You "illtaketwoplease"said this..."Wrong again. Why should they pay more? But if they own an additional 50 acres abutting that house which would be valued at say 150k - why should that millionaire pay $60 /yr. in taxes on it under current use when the going rate outside current use for a 150k property would be $2,200/yr.? That's $2140/yr. that other taxpayers have to make up the difference for -- and that's just one property in current use. Then there is a lot down the street that is vacant owned by someone else that is 3 acres and the owner pays $1250/yr. Why are they paying $1250/yr on a vacant 3 acre lot when the millionaire is paying $60/yr.? They are not using any services. The same road gets plowed and the cops still have to patrol the area. Explain to us why that is fair. Meanwhile the elderly couple can't afford the high taxes and is forced out of the home they've lived in for nearly 30 years." Again, just like anywhere else in the world....
I could be wrong, but when you apply for current use, it doesnt encompass your entire property? Is that correct? So youve got 50 acres in current use, but maybe an acre around your house which isnt included in current use? (i thought thats how it worked anyway?) Meaning you arent allowed to place your entire property with home in current use. Which if true, would mean the said "millionaire, would be paying his fair share for the property in which his house is on. Millionaire may be paying $60 on 50 acres, but you arent factoring in his $9000 in taxes for his millionaires home? But I could be wrong, Maybe your house gets included in current use? What ever happend to personal responsibility?
BTW, you still never provided references for your argument.

[Nonesuch]

Originally Posted by illtaketwoplease

You're right - $6000. Still doesn't make up for the past taxes saved by the owner -- or future taxes they enjoy not paying which everyone else must make up for.

future taxes they enjoy not paying???

Once the LUCT is paid and the lot is out of current use, the future taxes are paid at full market value.

Originally Posted by illtaketwoplease

Stupidest reply yet. You are saying that anyone who owns or buys a lot under 10 acres in NH -- or who pays their fair share in taxes on property over 10 acres - has made poor choices.

The program has been around for nearly 50 years, so yes, anybody who bought land in the past half century has little excuse for not doing their research.

Society has decided that "fair share" does not include taxing owners based on the potential market value of big contiguous lots of woodland/farmland. If you think this is an issue that many people care about, feel free to run for state rep with this as your platform.

[illtaketwoplease]

Again, just like anywhere else in the world....

Where else do people pay substantially different tax rates for the same type of property?

I could be wrong, but when you apply for current use, it doesnt encompass your entire property? Is that correct? So youve got 50 acres in current use, but maybe an acre around your house which isnt included in current use? (i thought thats how it worked anyway?) Meaning you arent allowed to place your entire property with home in current use. Which if true, would mean the said "millionaire, would be paying his fair share for the property in which his house is on. Millionaire may be paying $60 on 50 acres, but you arent factoring in his $9000 in taxes for his millionaires home? But I could be wrong, Maybe your house gets included in current use? What ever happend to personal responsibility?

On a property with an existing house and 50 acres - the house is assessed with a standard land value and then the additional acreage is assessed in it's current form. Home (structure/improvement) value is separate. So in my town - in rural zoning - it is a basic 4 acre lot value and then they tack on 46 acres for approx. 1.5k each per acre - or an additional 69k in value. That is what people outside of current use pay. For current use it is different - it follows a magical secret formula based on when it was put into current use that, in the above scenario, gets that property assessment down to where they are paying $60.00/yr. or in the case of that 10 acre parcel in Newbury - under $9/yr.



My argument (and that of many local govt officials) is that the discrepancy in taxation burdens those who pay current value for developed and undeveloped properties not in, or not able to access, the current use tax avoidance scheme.

BTW, you still never provided references for your argument.

Not sure what you mean.

[illtaketwoplease]

The program has been around for nearly 50 years, so yes, anybody who bought land in the past half century has little excuse for not doing their research.

What research would that be?

Society has decided that "fair share" does not include taxing owners based on the potential market value of big contiguous lots of woodland/farmland.

A wealthy, politically connected segment of society - and the Gov. of NH at the time when Current Use was passed was a real estate broker with large land holdings.

[Nonesuch]

Originally Posted by illtaketwoplease

Where else do people pay substantially different tax rates for the same type of property?

Pretty much everywhere.

Vermont, for example, allows current use tax break if you have at least 25 acres and tap trees for maple syrup, while Georgia state law technically allows lots smaller than 10 acres to participate in current use, but actual program administration makes it all but impossible to actually enroll undersized lots.

In all, 49 US States have some form of "current use" tax break; just in New England alone Vermont, Connecticut, Maine, Rhode Island and to a lesser extent, Massachusetts all have a tax break program, most with a minimum acreage required for at least some categories (e.g. New Hampshire has no minimum lot size for farms, including tree farms). Some states go even further; five states impose a flat tax rate (ranging from $0.50-$3.00 per acre) on woodlots, usually with a minimum size.

Many states also are even more lenient about land use change, with a much lower penalty for taking land out of current use, as low as paying just 3 years worth of tax savings.

[illtaketwoplease]

Pretty much everywhere.

I meant outside of current use programs. All of which are tax avoidance schemes.



And how many of those other states put the tax burden on property owners like NH does ?