Who is paying taxes and who is not?

Guest Post by Rep. Tom Oppel (D-Canaan)

Please let me introduce you to Tom Oppel our elected state representative from Canaan, NH. I first met Tom when he testified on a funding bill in 2023 as the chair of the town of Canaan’s economic development committee. Tom then ran for state rep. He’s got a deep background in journalism (which started in NH), public policy and political consulting. I hope you’ll give him a read here and subscribe to his Substack column.

Find Tom here.

Thanks.

Mississippi

In my 30s, I left New Hampshire and moved to Mississippi, where I spent nearly 10 years — first as a journalist and then as a political operative. I served as press secretary on the campaign of the first African American elected to Congress from Mississippi since Reconstruction then the next year on the campaign and ultimately the staff of one of the state’s last progressive Democratic governors. I learned more about culture, history, music, literature and politics through day-to-day life than my formal education, which was underpinned by a largely white European perspective.

Language was, of course, a key part of my education in the South. Expressions like y’all or fixin’ to (as in I’m fixin’ to finish writing this column) became second nature and remain to this day as part of my linguistic repertoire. And I met and continue to hold as friends dear wonderful Southerners of all races who worked to reach beyond prejudice to make life better for all.

Mississippi for decades has routinely finished last in most good measures of the quality of life and first in most that are bad. A signature slogan of our successful gubernatorial campaign in 1987 was “Mississippi will never be last again.” We made progress but didn’t get nearly as far as we had hoped. As aways, there was strong opposition to change, especially from those at the top of the food chain. But one of my favorite rejoinders to those who supported the Magnolia State’s status quo was,“If we’re so smart, why aren’t we rich?”

That comeback burns in my head every time I hear New Hampshire’s Democratic leaders enforcing their “revenue gag rule.” It is an absolute prohibition about discussing the most important question facing New Hampshire: a tax scheme favoring the richest 5 percent of our state at the expense of the other 95 percent. It is not based on policy or values; it is wholly a political calculation.

For over 50 years, New Hampshire Democratic leaders have been cowed by the ghosts of Bill Loeb and Mel Thomson, the prime movers behind “The Pledge,” a commitment to oppose any broad-based tax under any circumstances. It is the same as pledging to never raise your home thermostat above 32 degrees no matter the outside temperature. Who cares if people and pipes freeze? We’re saving money!

With an annual salary of $100, it is no accident that the New Hampshire General Court is dominated by those who are retired or have some individual wealth, inherited or earned, because they own and operate their own business. There is nothing wrong with belonging to any of those groups. But it is inherently undemocratic that those interests dominate every political discussion because the interests of younger citizens, working-class individuals and families, and older folks on a fixed income not augmented by substantial retirement or investment benefits are either underrepresented or not represented at all.

Too many mainstream Democratic leaders cling to the orthodoxy that taking “The Pledge,” even talking about raising revenue, is the third rail of New Hampshire politics, guaranteed to earn an electoral loss. But as someone who has been engaged in electoral politics for over 30 years, I strongly believe their calculation is wrong, and I think New Hampshire electoral history demonstrates my point.

Since 1992, House Democrats won majorities only four times out of 17 election years, a .235 batting average. Three of the years in which Democrats won a majority were among the biggest wave elections for Democrats nationally. In last 20 years, Democrats have averaged 167 seats in the 400-seat House, 34 seats short of a majority. Only once in that time were Democrats able to hold a majority for more than one biennium, and in every election year in this century at which control of the redistricting was at stake, the Republicans prevailed and drew a map helping them maintain their sustainable majority.

I firmly believe our inability to sustain a majority is directly related to the fact that while we advocate strongly for public schools, health care, housing, child care and a host of other progressive issues, we come up short when we are asked, “How are you going to pay for that?” For too long, Republican political operatives and many of their candidates have gotten away by accusing Democrats of wanting to raise taxes, while claiming the GOP supported cutting taxes. Our silence on the revenue question, as the saying goes, essentially serves as consent to the GOP framework.

But the issue isn’t about who’s for raising and who’s for cutting taxes. Over the last 10 years, Republican tax cuts helped the wealthiest 5 percent of our state — both individuals and corporations — but in cutting taxes for the wealthy and well connected, the GOP made the other 95 percent pick up the tab through higher property taxes. The GOP tax cuts focused on cutting business taxes, paid mainly by the largest and richest corporations, and eliminating the Interest and Dividends Tax, paid largely by people in the top 5 percent of wealth.

An Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy shows the wealthiest 1 percent (those with family incomes above $700,000) pay just 2.6 percent of their income in taxes. Those with family incomes below $35,000 — the bottom 20 percent — pay more than three times as much, nearly 9 percent.

So the real issue is about who is paying taxes and who is not. GOP’s policies allow those with the most to pay the least. A fairer policy — and a winning political message — is about reversing that so that everyone pays a fair share. And that is, by the way, exactly what is required by the New Hampshire Constitution.

Thanks, Tom. Again, to read Tom’s posts and to become a subscriber, go here.

There is no recorded version of this post.

I’ll be back next week. Be careful out there.