The SWEPT is a shell game that already puts the cost on the local tax payer. Because there is no redistribution of excess collections in property rich districts, it is not a true broad based tax.
Ahhh good old Loeb an out of stater who corrupt as he was & his personal deviances comes back to haunt us. Dad a die hard republican back in the day, newspaper man himself (but a weekly paper) had many Republicans he supported. Mel Thompson & Loeb (not because he had a daily news paper) were two he had great distaste for. Didn’t care for their politics. As a kid I once asked him since he disliked Loeb so much, how come he was getting the Union Leader. His response in so many words was, always know what the other guy is doing. I recall him frequently disputing his editorials. Don’t think he felt an outsider who failed else where should be so involved a influence State politics.
A proposition with some support: Thinking people are not against taxes; rather, they are against unfair tax systems (e.g., one where others (I’m looking at you, oligarchs) do not pay their fair share). Republicans since Goldwater/Reagan have bastardized this sentiment by repeating the lie that taxes are inherently evil because they steal the taxpayer’s money.
With our public education system and our infrastructure crumbling because of our state's anti-tax policies, it is time to consider novel approaches to raising revenue. It's a terrible time to use a bill like this to tie the hands of future legislators who might try to fix a broken and unsustainable tax system.
It's an open question as to whether this bill would make the statewide education property tax (“SWEPT”) unconstitutional, putting added burdens on the already unfairly taxed property tax payers of our state. We already have one of the most regressive state and local tax system in the country. Why make things worse for ourselves?
In our daily lives, we adults expect to have to pay for decent products and services. Why, when it comes to funding public goods like education and infrastructure, do we believe that NOT paying will produce better results? This no-tax ideology is doing real harm to our children, our communities, and the future fiscal health of our state.
One interesting, nay, confounding fact: Loeb never lived in NH. He was all over Vt and Mass and elsewhere with publishing schemes, but NH is the only one that took hold.
Thank you, Andru. Here's my submission: This resolution binds future legislatures and is unwise. An ideological preference for one type of tax or another is a matter to be debated, not placed in the fundamental constitution of our state for all time by legislative fiat. Taxes are how we fund government and are NOT theft by definition, (that is silly and sophomoric unless you believe that government itself in any shape or form is unnecessary), although they may be regressive, with no linkage to one's ability to pay and placing a disproportionate burden on the poorest citizens and communities. On the other hand, they may be progressive and linked to one's ability to pay and thus distribute the burden of funding the operations of a democracy in a fair and equitable manner. Placing a prohibition on income taxes in the state constitution is a statement of an ideological preference that, when looked at closely, is not widely shared by the people of the state. Put it to a ballot.
The SWEPT is a shell game that already puts the cost on the local tax payer. Because there is no redistribution of excess collections in property rich districts, it is not a true broad based tax.
Ahhh good old Loeb an out of stater who corrupt as he was & his personal deviances comes back to haunt us. Dad a die hard republican back in the day, newspaper man himself (but a weekly paper) had many Republicans he supported. Mel Thompson & Loeb (not because he had a daily news paper) were two he had great distaste for. Didn’t care for their politics. As a kid I once asked him since he disliked Loeb so much, how come he was getting the Union Leader. His response in so many words was, always know what the other guy is doing. I recall him frequently disputing his editorials. Don’t think he felt an outsider who failed else where should be so involved a influence State politics.
A proposition with some support: Thinking people are not against taxes; rather, they are against unfair tax systems (e.g., one where others (I’m looking at you, oligarchs) do not pay their fair share). Republicans since Goldwater/Reagan have bastardized this sentiment by repeating the lie that taxes are inherently evil because they steal the taxpayer’s money.
Thank you for this legislative alert.
My submission:
With our public education system and our infrastructure crumbling because of our state's anti-tax policies, it is time to consider novel approaches to raising revenue. It's a terrible time to use a bill like this to tie the hands of future legislators who might try to fix a broken and unsustainable tax system.
It's an open question as to whether this bill would make the statewide education property tax (“SWEPT”) unconstitutional, putting added burdens on the already unfairly taxed property tax payers of our state. We already have one of the most regressive state and local tax system in the country. Why make things worse for ourselves?
In our daily lives, we adults expect to have to pay for decent products and services. Why, when it comes to funding public goods like education and infrastructure, do we believe that NOT paying will produce better results? This no-tax ideology is doing real harm to our children, our communities, and the future fiscal health of our state.
Please vote against CACR 12.
Great comment
One interesting, nay, confounding fact: Loeb never lived in NH. He was all over Vt and Mass and elsewhere with publishing schemes, but NH is the only one that took hold.
Thank you, Andru. Here's my submission: This resolution binds future legislatures and is unwise. An ideological preference for one type of tax or another is a matter to be debated, not placed in the fundamental constitution of our state for all time by legislative fiat. Taxes are how we fund government and are NOT theft by definition, (that is silly and sophomoric unless you believe that government itself in any shape or form is unnecessary), although they may be regressive, with no linkage to one's ability to pay and placing a disproportionate burden on the poorest citizens and communities. On the other hand, they may be progressive and linked to one's ability to pay and thus distribute the burden of funding the operations of a democracy in a fair and equitable manner. Placing a prohibition on income taxes in the state constitution is a statement of an ideological preference that, when looked at closely, is not widely shared by the people of the state. Put it to a ballot.