Taxes in NH

[FrankChodorov]

The operative word is WON'T, not can't.

you won't because you can't...(my offer to jane stands for anyone here)

If you can show where I have advocated for the collective ownership of anything then I will leave the forum.

Do you want to trade your house in NH for one of our houses is south central PA?

no - I want equal freedom in NH and NH is closer to it than PA even though Harrisburg (and 16 other cities) have a split rate property tax system because of all the other taxes on human efforts (labor and capital).

[Braddogg]

Rent! Then you will never see a tax bill.

The ol' ostrich technique?   

[aries]

Rent! Then you will never see a tax bill.

The ol' ostrich technique?   

If you can't see it, it's not there!

completely unrelated:
I just had a crazy idea about kickstarting the FSP by getting libertarians in one (small) town and eliminating the property tax there. Thread to follow after a day of thought about this.

[Rhiannon McKinnon]

Matt,

"I just had a crazy idea about kickstarting the FSP by getting libertarians in one (small) town and eliminating the property tax there"
That idea has been brought up before.  While an excellent idea, it didn't work out because of the way that it was presented.  There's plenty written about it on both boards if you search for "free town project".  Concentrating our numbers in a specific area to "outvote the shitheads" (as one of the major personalities involved so eloquently worded it) would certainly allow us to eliminate taxes, zoning, and other useless laws much more quickly.  If you read about what happened with the FTP idea, you can see the inherent disadvantage in this approach.  Taxes are unpopular enough that perhaps a "user pays" system could be enacted if it was proposed as a voluntary tax relief measure....anyone who wanted to cut their taxes by "unsubscribing" or opting out of government services could do so voluntarily, and government would shrink accordingly with the decreased funding.  For example, for a $xxx reduction on your tax bill, you could put your name on a list of properties that police would not respond to calls from.  Same goes for the fire department if you wanted to save another $xxx a year, and so on.  The people who want the full range of government services could keep their huge tax bills if they'd like, so let them.  Most people want the full range of government services, and are willing to pay for them, so that is where the argument of "we don't want you to cut this out of the budget, you can't take away the police department" comes from.  An individually voluntary and incremental system of tax relief has a better possibility of being voted in.  Probably the most despised property tax is the "school tax", a large majority of people would love to get rid of that one entirely.  This one could be eliminated by the same "user pays" strategy (you only have to pay it if you have children registered in the public schools), but due to the incredible inefficiency of public school systems, it would require complete privatization in one quick stroke, which is simply too big of a leap to make for most people.  If you speak in terms of voluntary and incremental tax relief, "user pays" does seem to have a chance in some respects (in other words, if it's not too big of a step at once for the average person to wrap their head around, and won't reduce government services for those who do not wish to see things change).  After all, as Ian put it, property taxes are high enough that "it's like going back to paying rent again"....someone else (can't remember who offhand) said something like "my banker told me I could afford the mortgage but not the taxes, so I didn't get the loan"....plenty of people are simply fed up to the point where they might consider "unsubscribing" to government services that they don't use.  Perhaps you can somehow incorporate a platform of voluntary and incremental tax relief into your campaign?

~RM's husband

[aries]

Matt,

"I just had a crazy idea about kickstarting the FSP by getting libertarians in one (small) town and eliminating the property tax there"
That idea has been brought up before.  While an excellent idea, it didn't work out because of the way that it was presented.  There's plenty written about it on both boards if you search for "free town project".  Concentrating our numbers in a specific area to "outvote the shitheads" (as one of the major personalities involved so eloquently worded it) would certainly allow us to eliminate taxes, zoning, and other useless laws much more quickly.  If you read about what happened with the FTP idea, you can see the inherent disadvantage in this approach.  Taxes are unpopular enough that perhaps a "user pays" system could be enacted if it was proposed as a voluntary tax relief measure....anyone who wanted to cut their taxes by "unsubscribing" or opting out of government services could do so voluntarily, and government would shrink accordingly with the decreased funding.  For example, for a $xxx reduction on your tax bill, you could put your name on a list of properties that police would not respond to calls from.  Same goes for the fire department if you wanted to save another $xxx a year, and so on.  The people who want the full range of government services could keep their huge tax bills if they'd like, so let them.  Most people want the full range of government services, and are willing to pay for them, so that is where the argument of "we don't want you to cut this out of the budget, you can't take away the police department" comes from.  An individually voluntary and incremental system of tax relief has a better possibility of being voted in.  Probably the most despised property tax is the "school tax", a large majority of people would love to get rid of that one entirely.  This one could be eliminated by the same "user pays" strategy (you only have to pay it if you have children registered in the public schools), but due to the incredible inefficiency of public school systems, it would require complete privatization in one quick stroke, which is simply too big of a leap to make for most people.  If you speak in terms of voluntary and incremental tax relief, "user pays" does seem to have a chance in some respects (in other words, if it's not too big of a step at once for the average person to wrap their head around, and won't reduce government services for those who do not wish to see things change).  After all, as Ian put it, property taxes are high enough that "it's like going back to paying rent again"....someone else (can't remember who offhand) said something like "my banker told me I could afford the mortgage but not the taxes, so I didn't get the loan"....plenty of people are simply fed up to the point where they might consider "unsubscribing" to government services that they don't use.  Perhaps you can somehow incorporate a platform of voluntary and incremental tax relief into your campaign?

~RM's husband

I wouldn't incorporate that, I don't think it's right. The government should not be providing things on an opt-in/opt-out basis. Private entities can. If the government wants to supply public water, but only to those who pay their opt-in tax, they should sell the water company to a private entity who can do that. I'd rather the government lower taxes by selling off their waste removal/public transit/water, etc, than lower taxes from one person to another, based on how much of it they "use."

It isn't really government if you aren't coerced into paying for it. It may be government employees, but if their jobs rely on consumers paying for a service, they aren't public.

[Braddogg]

It isn't really government if you aren't coerced into paying for it. It may be government employees, but if their jobs rely on consumers paying for a service, they aren't public.

I agree, which is why I love the idea   The government should allow for competition in these areas (water, trash, police).  This, combined with the user pays system, would essentially eliminate the force involved with government.  My town (Tewksbury, MA) almost tried this with trash collection (for example, leave one barrel a week, pay $50; leave 2, pay $75; etc.), but it failed the vote.

[tracysaboe]

Rent! Then you will never see a tax bill.

The ol' ostrich technique?   

If you can't see it, it's not there!

completely unrelated:
I just had a crazy idea about kickstarting the FSP by getting libertarians in one (small) town and eliminating the property tax there. Thread to follow after a day of thought about this.

That was part of the whole point of Grafton I thought.

Completely elliminating the "City", and "City School" taxes. That would get rid of a good 90+% of the property tax rate. Hopefully, in the not too distant future the STate-wide School tax will go away too. Then all we'd have left is the County. Which I think is pretty much the smallest of them.

I would be totally up for that. Let me know Aries.

Tracy

[Fluff and Stuff]

That was part of the whole point of Grafton I thought.

Completely elliminating the "City", and "City School" taxes. That would get rid of a good 90+% of the property tax rate. Hopefully, in the not too distant future the STate-wide School tax will go away too. Then all we'd have left is the County. Which I think is pretty much the smallest of them.

I doubt anyone really thought they could eliminate the town and town school taxes in NH.  Maybe make them much lower?

[aries]

I doubt anyone really thought they could eliminate the town and town school taxes in NH.  Maybe make them much lower?

A simple majority of libertarians in the town could.

Some towns, like Millsfield and Cambridge have no taxes at all.

I should say... because they're unincorporated places. Of course Millsfield has about 36 people, Cambridge has like 10.

They are putting in ritzy condos in Millsfield for rich folk to get away from and not pay taxes on.

[Fluff and Stuff]

I doubt anyone really thought they could eliminate the town and town school taxes in NH.  Maybe make them much lower?

A simple majority of libertarians in the town could.

The vast majority of libertarians support some low taxes so it would take a hell of a lot more than a simple majority to do that. 

[tracysaboe]

A simple majority of libertarians could at least cut them in half or better.  Even more for the public school part of it as most libertarians are opposed to government schools.

Tracy

[FrankChodorov]

A simple majority of libertarians could at least cut them in half or better.  Even more for the public school part of it as most libertarians are opposed to government schools.

I thought libertarians didn't believe in the tyrrany of the majority...you know two wolves and a sheep deciding what is for lunch (even though in nature we know that the wolves are few and the sheep many)??

[Russell Kanning]

I guess some do.
I might not fit the term.

[aries]

A simple majority of libertarians could at least cut them in half or better.  Even more for the public school part of it as most libertarians are opposed to government schools.

I thought libertarians didn't believe in the tyrrany of the majority...you know two wolves and a sheep deciding what is for lunch (even though in nature we know that the wolves are few and the sheep many)??

We don't like it but we'll exploit it if we have to live with it anyway.

Use the tools you're given.

[Braddogg]

I thought libertarians didn't believe in the tyrrany of the majority...you know two wolves and a sheep deciding what is for lunch (even though in nature we know that the wolves are few and the sheep many)??

Is it really tyranny when it's the REMOVAL of force?