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.
No state has ever successfully "corrected" property tax burden by adding new statewide taxes. Every attempt at doing so inevitably ends with a higher total tax burden, and more power centralized in the statehouse.
Sadly, we can never pass a per-child tax to cover the true cost of schools, so "fair and equitable" is already off the table.
A+ for deflection.
Quote:
Relying so heavily on the property tax means that, on average, the lowest-income people pay the highest percentage of income in state and local tax, while the people with the most income pay the lowest percentage of income in tax.
It is a system that taxes the elderly out of their homes. It is a system that makes homes unaffordable to young families because the monthly property tax bill often exceeds the mortgage payment. And it is a system that, for the wealthy, is the next best thing to Monaco.
Where else do people pay substantially different tax rates for the same type of property?
people pay 100 times more in Manhattan for a studio condo, meanwhile the person living on staten island pay $5000/ year for. 25x75 lot. wake up bro, sounds like you want a free meal.
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. ohhhh K but they are still paying on the actual house and 4 acres, correct????? soooooo what's the problem???
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. there is no scheme, nothing is hidden, in NH you get current use if you have over 10 acres, however you still pay on the square footage of your home just like the poor feeble elderly couple down the road
Not sure what you mean. no? I basically said to back up your claim of elderly losing their homes with references. you provided nothing.
Sounds like you might have made some poor property choices and now everyone's got to pay?
Not sure what you mean. no? I basically said to back up your claim of elderly losing their homes with references. you provided nothing.
I said there are numerous articles online about people losing their homes to high taxes - and also had given the name of a non-profit housing organization (homesahead.org) that deals with this issue on a daily basis. Later I posted a quote from an article written by a former state senator ... here is part of it:
Quote:
It is a system that taxes the elderly out of their homes. It is a system that makes homes unaffordable to young families because the monthly property tax bill often exceeds the mortgage payment. And it is a system that, for the wealthy, is the next best thing to Monaco.
Quote:
Sounds like you might have made some poor property choices and now everyone's got to pay?
I am not proposing anything other than people with land in current use pay a greater (fair) share of taxes like everyone else. The current system is unsustainable and it's either that gets reconfigured to account for it's abuses and unfairness to other taxpayers -- or the state enacts a NH representative proposed "school tax" on incomes above a certain level -- or a broad based sales tax like 1/3 of legislators favor.
This is why calls for a school tax and broad based income tax are picking up steam. And people here are telling me that someone paying under $100/ year in taxes on 50 acres of land in NH is fair to other taxpayers based on the way schools are funded? Give me a break.
Like I mentioned earlier clearly we disagree. I think I came across a bit harsh yesterday. But it might have been the sangria typing. I think NH's system works. I know more than a few families up there who raised their families there over the last 10 years. Somehow they managed. It's never easy for young families starting out. What they need to do as others before, is sacrifice, and save their money. I don't know anyone who had a house given to them but I do know many people who over spend but feel the system is rigged against them.
Back to the elderly losing their homes, that's anywhere in this country, it happens, life really isn't fair.
I thought part of the incentive for current use besides the tax break was to keep development down. Take away CU and many landowners will sell, and developers will thrive. Now you lose your greatest state asset to housing. I see it as a flip side to your argument.
One last thing. Compared to NY, NH is a bargain.
This is why calls for a school tax and broad based income tax are picking up steam. And people here are telling me that someone paying under $100/ year in taxes on 50 acres of land in NH is fair to other taxpayers based on the way schools are funded? Give me a break.
The questions below are serious:
From the article you cited, the average per pupil spending is $18,991. Do you believe the money is well spent? Do you have a break down on what the money is spent on (salaries, retirement, buildings, books, sports, ...)?
“I’d like to compliment your taste in art by having some of our student’s work displayed here,” he said. “And we hope we’re going to be able to afford an art program for our students next year.”
Are you in favor of paying an extra $1000 / year in taxes for art classes? Are you in favor of your neighbors (but not you) paying an extra $1000 / year in taxes for art classes?
For $19k / student / year, New Hampshire students should be getting a platinum-plated education with the current budget. If they're not, it's time to find out where the money is going, because it isn't going to what most people would consider education.
Like I mentioned earlier clearly we disagree. I think I came across a bit harsh yesterday. But it might have been the sangria typing. I think NH's system works. I know more than a few families up there who raised their families there over the last 10 years. Somehow they managed. It's never easy for young families starting out. What they need to do as others before, is sacrifice, and save their money. I don't know anyone who had a house given to them but I do know many people who over spend but feel the system is rigged against them.
Back to the elderly losing their homes, that's anywhere in this country, it happens, life really isn't fair.
I thought part of the incentive for current use besides the tax break was to keep development down. Take away CU and many landowners will sell, and developers will thrive. Now you lose your greatest state asset to housing. I see it as a flip side to your argument.
One last thing. Compared to NY, NH is a bargain.
Love Sangria!
Yes, compared to LI NY, no comparison. When people ask me about NH or ME, I always tell them it’s nicer than the Hamptons without the price or attitude, lol.
From the article you cited, the average per pupil spending is $18,991. Do you believe the money is well spent? Do you have a break down on what the money is spent on (salaries, retirement, buildings, books, sports, ...)?
No
Quote:
.
Are you in favor of paying an extra $1000 / year in taxes for art classes? Are you in favor of your neighbors (but not you) paying an extra $1000 / year in taxes for art classes?
Art classes are not going to cost each property owner an extra $1000/yr. I am in favor of providing a well-rounded education to all students. I don't want my taxes to go up - I want them to go down. $18k is a ridiculous amount to be paying per child for education. NH has given itself a self-inflicted wound in the way it funds school costs and that wound is infected and spreading. If you have a funding source to help lessen the burden that brings taxation in-line with what others pay - why not use that? Most people don't have a clue that they are subsidizing the large land owner down the street and if they did - they are going to question why.
To the other poster - Current Use was enacted at a time when NH was facing mounting pressures of development - especially in the southern tier. Just because a property gets taxed at a normal rate doesn't mean it is going to get developed - a lot of land will get absorbed by an abutter or a conservation easement can be placed on it. Some will get developed just like the tens of thousands of existing lots under 10 acres may get developed at some point - but the demand clearly isn't there because they remain vacant. Maybe instead of giving people with land in current use a tax break - we should tax them normally and then add a hefty "development fee" to any new lot created. That would be fairer - no? and it would thwart development.
No
Art classes are not going to cost each property owner an extra $1000/yr. I am in favor of providing a well-rounded education to all students. I don't want my taxes to go up - I want them to go down. $18k is a ridiculous amount to be paying per child for education. NH has given itself a self-inflicted wound in the way it funds school costs and that wound is infected and spreading. If you have a funding source to help lessen the burden that brings taxation in-line with what others pay - why not use that? Most people don't have a clue that they are subsidizing the large land owner down the street and if they did - they are going to question why.
To the other poster - Current Use was enacted at a time when NH was facing mounting pressures of development - especially in the southern tier. Just because a property gets taxed at a normal rate doesn't mean it is going to get developed - a lot of land will get absorbed by an abutter or a conservation easement can be placed on it. Some will get developed just like the tens of thousands of existing lots under 10 acres may get developed at some point - but the demand clearly isn't there because they remain vacant. Maybe instead of giving people with land in current use a tax break - we should tax them normally and then add a hefty "development fee" to any new lot created. That would be fairer - no? and it would thwart development.
I'm willing to bet a large portion of the spending is for retired teachers - pensions and health care. Basically, these were underfunded when the now retired teachers were working, and now the bill is due. The high taxes now are to pay for the low taxes 30 years ago.
As far as paying for it, I suspect if the funding is changed (no guarantee, but if), it will be to have people in the high property value towns (primarily those within commuting distance of Boston) pay more in property taxes, and those funds are then redistributed to the lower property value towns. I would be surprised if people who own land in "current use" have the income to make a dent in school funding, the bills are just too large.
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.
