The continuing frustration over dramatic, annual increases in local property taxes has not only divided many communities . . . but, according to some recent polls, it has finally convinced a majority of New Hampshire residents that a broad-based sales or income tax is essential.
This significant shift in public opinion stems from a increasingly militant coalition of frustrated property owners who either can’t afford or are unwilling to pay higher property taxes and numerous social activists and special interest groups who see a broad-based sales and/or income tax as a untapped financial resource with vast potential to fund their endless list of personal causes and crusades at a time when voters are demonstrating growing opposition to approving ever larger taxes at local town meetings.
Violently opposed to those forces are the “Live Free or Die” ideologues anxious for others to “read their lips”. Their political rhetoric takes on the flavor of a down-home religion, requiring its adherents to prostrate themselves on the alter of the well-known New Hampshire “pledge”. Historically, a failure to swear allegiance to the gospel of no new or broad-based taxes has ended more than one political career.
In an uneasy alliance with those anti-broad-based taxers are a small but growing number of people who believe government should only undertake and fund a limited number of activities which can not otherwise be provided by individual citizens. Their seemingly rational approach to the nature and role government has unfortunately been too frequently discarded along with most remnants of the concept of individual responsibility. These people believe that all government should be much smaller, far less intrusive and a great deal less expensive. As such, they are philosophically opposed to any and all new spending.
While the battle between these forces will rage on over the course of the next few years, the odds are strongly in favor of the imposition of some sort of broad-based tax in New Hampshire by the middle of the decade.
Operating on that assumption, the people of New Hampshire must begin to seriously consider the scope and limits of any such taxing authority. These residents must insist that any legislation presented to the voters for passage as a constitutional amendment contain very specific safeguards.
If not, any new taxes implemented at the State level will simply become yet another open-ended invitation for the special interest groups to continue their insatiable thirst for dollars at the public trough at the expense of the of the public; the individuals who must pay for their extravagance.
- As there is currently a constitutional requirement that all new, State mandated programs be funded at the State level, there must be absolute assurances that neither the Governor, State Legislature nor any State agency will be able to use the proceeds of a broad- based tax to raise monies for programs they will subsequently mandate for implementation by local cities and towns.
- The alleged justification for a broad-based sales or income tax is to relieve (reduce) local property taxes.
- Therefore, there must be an aggregate, dollar-for-dollar reduction in local property taxes to offset the revenue raised by the State and subsequently redistributed to local communities.
- Concurrently, there must restrictions placed on cities and towns, preventing them from raising local property taxes in future years by more than a certain percentage in any single year without a two-thirds (better yet, three-fourths) override community vote; akin to Proposition 2 1/2 currently holding local taxes somewhat in check in Massachusetts.
- The scope of a State sales or income tax and its rate must be set and subject to a two-thirds (again, better at three-fourths) vote by the State’s electorate to raise the rate or broaden its scope.
- The sacred cow of education has been one of the prime focal points in the recent broad-based tax debate in New Hampshire. Many people previously opposed to a State sales or income tax now appear ready to support one if the total, net funds raised were to be earmarked for education. However, while many claims concerning unequal opportunities for students in poorer school districts may have some merit, money alone will never produce better educated students!
Meantime, as local school budgets consume some 75% to 90% of a each city’s/town’s budgets, taxpayers have a absolute right to demand higher levels of accountability from their school system.
Therefore, as part of any statewide funding program for public education, there must be far greater standards of accountability of both teachers and administrators. Two key ingredients in this direction should be elevated standards of acceptable student performance (not settling for today’s often mediocre standards of performance) and a merit-based evaluation system (thereby eliminating the tenure system, which simply rewards those whose heart continues to beat).
Finally, as the debate over whether a broad-based tax should, or should not be implemented, there must be a
parallel examination over the nature and role of government in a free and democratic society. This discussion needs to address the scope and limits of services which any government should perform as well as the types of expenditures which should legally allowed by local governmental bodies. Cities and towns must no longer be allowed to fund non-municipal activities, no matter how worthwhile their aims.
The premises of democratic majority rule has always been tempered with the safeguard that at no time should the will of the majority be permitted to infringe on the rights of the minority, or even that of a lone individual. Local governments must prohibited from acting as fund raising, taxing and/or collection agencies for private enterprises, no matter how noble or sacred their missions. Other than supporting primary governmental services, individuals should never be forced to pay for non-essential activities or any private sector efforts . . . to do so is both immoral and obscene in a free society and repugnant to our American way of life!
New Hampshire property owners pay some of the highest real estate taxes in the United States. The rate at which these taxes are growing inevitably increases at a much greater pace than either the rate of inflation or the average income of the taxpayer person who must foot the bill. And, the time may have arrived when alternative methods of funding local municipal services may be necessary.
However, any such restructuring of New Hampshire’s tax code must be made only after serious, objective study and must provide protections for local taxpayers from the possible excesses of both State and Local governments and those of the endless line of special interest groups.
