Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
IMO, it's the parents who need to pay more in taxes, to help cover the costs of educating their own children. Especially if they have more than one child. And having three children is just selfishness on their part.
Parents with children in school today will pay taxes for the rest of their lives which will support educating future generations. The children will grow up and pay taxes too. Societies need children to continue. Just because you chose not to participate doesn’t mean you get a free pass. If anything you are the selfish one for choosing to be the end of your lineage. Imagine a society where nobody had kids. Who would you pay to take care of you in your old age with all that tax money you saved? People should be having more kids.
Parents with children in school today will pay taxes for the rest of their lives which will support educating future generations. The children will grow up and pay taxes too. Societies need children to continue. Just because you chose not to participate doesn’t mean you get a free pass. If anything you are the selfish one for choosing to be the end of your lineage. Imagine a society where nobody had kids. Who would you pay to take care of you in your old age with all that tax money you saved? People should be having more kids.
Save your breath. I've been arguing this shortsightedness for years with her and others on this board. The way that NH funds public education makes this a not-uncommon attitude and I can understand why - when you're paying $6K towards your local school system and you have no kids, I bet it can be a shock. But somebody did it for you and somebody will do it for your kids, unless we go back to the dark ages or the Little House on the Prairie frontier. I don't think most people realize how much our demographics are changing in the coming decades and how that will affect our economy. I work in public higher ed and see the slow decline of youth in NH
Save your breath. I've been arguing this shortsightedness for years with her and others on this board. The way that NH funds public education makes this a not-uncommon attitude and I can understand why - when you're paying $6K towards your local school system and you have no kids, I bet it can be a shock. But somebody did it for you and somebody will do it for your kids, unless we go back to the dark ages or the Little House on the Prairie frontier. I don't think most people realize how much our demographics are changing in the coming decades and how that will affect our economy. I work in public higher ed and see the slow decline of youth in NH
Six out of ten counties in NH have a greater percentage of the population over age 65 than under age 18. That will grow to nine out of ten counties in less than 5-10 years.
Last edited by GraniteStater; 09-25-2019 at 12:37 PM..
Save your breath. I've been arguing this shortsightedness for years with her and others on this board. The way that NH funds public education makes this a not-uncommon attitude and I can understand why - when you're paying $6K towards your local school system and you have no kids, I bet it can be a shock. But somebody did it for you and somebody will do it for your kids, unless we go back to the dark ages or the Little House on the Prairie frontier. I don't think most people realize how much our demographics are changing in the coming decades and how that will affect our economy. I work in public higher ed and see the slow decline of youth in NH
Decline of youth, decline of education quality, yet astronomical increase of cost. How can anyone defend that? Is it any wonder that not only do NH people not want a sales or income tax, but want their property taxes to go down? We are not getting our money's worth.
Decline of youth, decline of education quality, yet astronomical increase of cost. How can anyone defend that?
It's easy to defend when you have govt. power behind you. They say taxpayers and voters have a choice - but that is not really true unless you are in the majority. You can't stop paying your taxes or make a reduced payment without catastrophic consequences.
I suggest everyone go to their town tax records and look for properties in current use to see who they are and just how little those people are paying - chances are they are some of the most well-off people in town. See what you are paying for them -- as they could care less about the burden they place upon you to cover school costs.
It's easy to defend when you have govt. power behind you. They say taxpayers and voters have a choice - but that is not really true unless you are in the majority. You can't stop paying your taxes or make a reduced payment without catastrophic consequences.
I suggest everyone go to their town tax records and look for properties in current use to see who they are and just how little those people are paying - chances are they are some of the most well-off people in town. See what you are paying for them -- as they could care less about the burden they place upon you to cover school costs.
The only people creating the burden are those with large families and living out of a rental apartment. Our US school system is broken if it costs taxpayers $200k to put a child through grade school to get a high school degree.
And no, our planet can't sustain every adult going out and having children. And I'd much rather stop paying towards public education and instead putting my money towards retirement. And the social security system is just a pyramid scheme at this point.
And why do I need to have my own children when one of my sisters has two daughters?
And the property tax system for paying for public education is flawed if everyone can escape paying their "fair share" by moving to an area with lower property taxes or just renting instead. A fairer system would be every single adult in America paying the same amount of money towards a public education fund that supports ALL the public schools in America, not just the city or town they live in.
Everybody has educational and social services to provide along with everything else. If people are dumb enough to think that doesn't apply to NH, move there. BTW, I like NH, but don't think you're "getting a deal" so to speak.
I disagree -- not every state provides the same level of "social services", or gets the same value out of the money spent on education.
Funny how the state extracts so much more revenue from citizens in high in CT,ME,VT. The reality is, every state budget is different, New Hampshire's total state budget and per-capita state budget is among the lowest in the nation, despite inefficiencies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by illtaketwoplease
Many people with land in current use can easily afford to pay their fair share for taxes. Other taxpayers have to subsidize them, and in the Lyme, NH's case - it adds over $5 to the tax rate.
That's still working from the flawed assumption that somebody's "fair share" is based on what they can afford to pay, or that not taxing land on the basis of what it could be worth if put to it's highest and best use (building high-density housing, usually), and instead taxing larger lots at a rate reflecting how their are currently used, is somehow "unfair". Down that path lies wealth redistribution and ANC-style land redistribution.
Governments shouldn't be in the business of farming their citizens for all the tax revenue they can get away with extracting.
NH local tax burden is high not low. It's high because of the way education funding works in the state. And don't think that NH is somehow miraculously better with a lower cost structure of funding -- there are many hidden fees placed in the system that gets them revenue (gas tax, food taxes built into pricing the consumer doesn't see, "fees" instead of "taxes" on other things, etc.)
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by illtaketwoplease Many people with land in current use can easily afford to pay their fair share for taxes. Other taxpayers have to subsidize them, and in the Lyme, NH's case - it adds over $5 to the tax rate.
That's still working from the flawed assumption that somebody's "fair share" is based on what they can afford to pay, or that not taxing land on the basis of what it could be worth if put to it's highest and best use (building high-density housing, usually), and instead taxing larger lots at a rate reflecting how their are currently used, is somehow "unfair". Down that path lies wealth redistribution and ANC-style land redistribution.
You don't understand real estate assessments - they are not appraisals. A large parcel is not assessed at what it could be used for - it is assessed comparable to other large parcels in their present use within that zoning district. For it to be assessed for high density housing you'd first have to get it passed zoning and approved for the actual use. My assumption is not flawed because it is not based on what they can afford to pay - it is based on what they actually own. The state or town doesn't care what your income is or what your assets are outside of real estate - they want their money based on assessment and current use property owners make others foot the bill for them. If they can't afford regular taxes then maybe they shouldn't deserve owning their property any longer. They can get some money and keep taxes low by putting a conservation easement on it, sell it to an abbutter who will combine it with their land, or heavens forbid sell it to someone else who can do what they want with it based on the local zoning regs.
Bottomline - current use property owners don't pay their fair share and need to. If you read that article you would see that the Lyme Selectmen questions if it the practice is legal based on the constitutional requirement regarding school funding.
No one's fair share includes paying for bloated, inefficient, unaccountable government. Asking others to pay more without putting in much greater effort to reign in waste is wrong.
Who first said "If they can't afford regular taxes then maybe they shouldn't deserve owning their property any longer"
Quote:
Originally Posted by illtaketwoplease
NH local tax burden is high not low. It's high because of the way education funding works in the state. And don't think that NH is somehow miraculously better with a lower cost structure of funding -- there are many hidden fees placed in the system that gets them revenue (gas tax, food taxes built into pricing the consumer doesn't see, "fees" instead of "taxes" on other things, etc.)
Maybe your personal tax burden is high, but New Hampshire's average tax burden is definitely lower than most states.
Generally a ranking of "total tax burden" specifically takes into account the gas tax, meals tax, auto fees. For example, Forbes states "Our ranking of Best And Worst States for Taxes captures the total tax burden per capita not only for income, property and sales tax, but also special taxes like real estate transfer, personal property taxes on some vehicles, and special tax district fees. " So no, hidden costs are not ignored.
Any way you look at it, Vermont extracts much more revenue from each resident (including hidden taxes) and spends more money per student ($18K versus $15K).
Quote:
Originally Posted by illtaketwoplease
If they can't afford regular taxes then maybe they shouldn't deserve owning their property any longer.
Last edited by Nonesuch; 09-26-2019 at 02:10 PM..
Reason: If they can't afford regular taxes then maybe they shouldn't deserve owning their property any longer.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Who first said "If they can't afford regular taxes then maybe they shouldn't deserve owning their property any longer"
