UL: Tax revolt in the North Country?

[KBCraig]

I plan to contact this fellow, and the Lancaster Taxpayers' Association. My kinda folks, and my future neighbors!

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=David+Alan+Ezyk%3a+The+view+tax+is+spurring+a+North+Country+taxpayer+revolt&articleId=02ca141b-44c6-420b-8c1b-c9119f04acb6

David Alan Ezyk: The view tax is spurring a North Country taxpayer revolt

By DAVID ALAN EZYK

IN THE 1760s, King George III's "commissioner of revenue administration" was George Grenville, who wrote and implemented the Stamp Act for use in the colonies. To the British, the Stamp Act was simply a good decision for raising revenues. For the colonists, it was an unreasonable demand by a distant government that didn't care about the opinions or economic welfare of its people.

The biggest problem with this tax was that it was levied without the consent of the colonial legislatures or the people, and it confirmed that the colonists were subjects, not citizens. Many esteemed British parliamentarians opposed the Stamp Act, and Parliament finally repealed it and forced George Grenville to resign.

Across the state of New Hampshire, a similar situation has quietly made its way out of the shadows, with hauntingly familiar undertones emanating from town to town. The North Country is without question one of the freest of free places on the globe. Enter the view tax.

Last Thursday, the New Hampshire Department of Revenue Administration (DRA) and members of the Assessing Standards Board (ASB) hosted a public forum on real estate taxation to solicit comment from the citizenry at the UNH Cooperative Extension Office in Lancaster. Both the DRA and the ASB were expecting a small turnout and a ho-hum, business-as-usual meeting. To their surprise, more than 160 concerned citizens packed themselves into a room where the fire code limited capacity to 100.

The governor and all legislators should pay close attention to the message being sent by the people concerning the view influence factor surcharge: enough is enough. By their own admission, the commissioner of the DRA and the ASB chair both stated that the methodology for assigning a dollar value to a view had a long way to go. This begs the question that if a view can't be measured by a sanctioned, universal means, should taxpayers be charged for it? The answer is an easy one for taxpayers: absolutely not.

But it is the governor's cash cow, and the DRA's politically appointed commissioner and assessors will continue to worm their way through more meetings by using confusing statistics, trite lip service and bureaucratic doublespeak. When it was confirmed by an ASB member that a property owner was actually charged for a potential view, ASB and DRA appeared to lose all credibility. Shortly after, the meeting was adjourned.

The folks that travel to visit us once in a while from Concord need to make sure they are well rested and have their state vehicles' oil changed. They'll be making lots of trips up here to over-capacity crowds because many people have seen their freedom infringed upon by having to pay an arbitrary amount of money for something as subjective and immeasurable as a view. I'd almost recommend they buy a parcel of land up here. But, if they build on it and can see anything, heaven forbid!

The view tax is just the tip of the iceberg in a sea of uncertain and desperate leadership. It has significant bearing on the most expensive commodity we taxpayers shoulder: education funding. The governor and legislators from his side of the aisle need a new cash cow because it won't be long until our Supreme Court reluctantly makes its decision on education funding and the people of New Hampshire, much like the colonists, make sure the view influence factor is killed with no chance of an afterlife.

We who proudly adhere to the motto "Live free or die" must take it as an obligation to inform the folks who represent us and work in Concord, with one voice, that we are citizens -- not subjects. We shall not have our freedom stolen right before our very eyes.

[Tom Sawyer]

Wow good article...
Kevin you should definitely follow through on your idea to contact these people. This is a struggle worth supporting.

[aries]

I think I know his son.

A few years and I'll be living in the North Country too (hopefully), so I'll be another voice to object to the view tax

[KBCraig]

They have a website, linked from CNHT, but no contact information on it. I'll look up Mr. Ezyk and give him a call.

http://www.lancastertaxpayers.org/

Kevin

[atr]

But it is the governor's cash cow, and the DRA's politically appointed commissioner and assessors will continue to worm their way through more meetings by using confusing statistics, trite lip service and bureaucratic doublespeak.

Sounds like a good guy, but unfortunately he falls into the trap of believing the view tax is a "cash cow." It is no such thing. In fact, it does not increase government revenue one penny.

[cathleeninnh]

Aren't there some small county and state property tax rates that don't "float". Then if something like the view tax sends assessed values soaring, so do those taxes?

Cathleen

[FrankChodorov]

property taxes are based on market assessments of values.

since market values float as the result of all factors including views so do property taxes...

market values have nothing to do with spending though.

[atr]

Aren't there some small county and state property tax rates that don't "float". Then if something like the view tax sends assessed values soaring, so do those taxes?

Good point. On my tax bill I believe the state and county taxes amount to around 15% of the total amount. However, county and state taxes are calculated the same way as town taxes, with the tax rate based on the budget. This means that towns like Orford, with lots of beautiful scenic views of the Connecticut River valley, fight the view tax--they want other towns to pay more so they can pay less.

[Rocketman]

But it is the governor's cash cow, and the DRA's politically appointed commissioner and assessors will continue to worm their way through more meetings by using confusing statistics, trite lip service and bureaucratic doublespeak.

Sounds like a good guy, but unfortunately he falls into the trap of believing the view tax is a "cash cow." It is no such thing. In fact, it does not increase government revenue one penny.

Happy to see you on this forum, atr.  Would you mind briefly explaining this?

[atr]

Sounds like a good guy, but unfortunately he falls into the trap of believing the view tax is a "cash cow." It is no such thing. In fact, it does not increase government revenue one penny.

Happy to see you on this forum, atr.  Would you mind briefly explaining this?

Yes, I'd be glad to. Here's what I posted recently on another thread:

Eliminating the "view tax" would NOT reduce tax revenue.

Technically speaking, eliminating the view tax would reduce taxes for people with valuable views. Meanwhile, it would increase taxes for every other owner of property with a lesser-valued view.

This means that all the people fighting the view tax are not fighting to reduce taxes: they are fighting to simultaneously reduce taxes for some people and increase taxes for everyone else. On net, the towns end up getting exactly the same revenue with or without the view tax.

The reason? The tax rate is set based on the total budget divided by the tax base (basically the sum total of all taxable property assessments in the town). So, if the tax base goes down, which it would if the view tax were eliminated, the tax rate would go up.

The reason I post this is that I wish people who want taxes to go down would work on getting taxes to go down, rather than expending so much energy working to shift taxes from some people to others. I do not mean to suggest that the view tax is "fair" (or unfair). It is merely part of a property tax system that aims to tax based on the "market value" of real property. Obviously, a house with a nicer view will typically command a higher price than the same house with an inferior view.

[Dreepa]

Eliminating the "view tax" would NOT reduce tax revenue.

Technically speaking, eliminating the view tax would reduce taxes for people with valuable views. Meanwhile, it would increase taxes for every other owner of property with a lesser-valued view.

This means that all the people fighting the view tax are not fighting to reduce taxes: they are fighting to simultaneously reduce taxes for some people and increase taxes for everyone else. On net, the towns end up getting exactly the same revenue with or without the view tax.

The reason? The tax rate is set based on the total budget divided by the tax base (basically the sum total of all taxable property assessments in the town). So, if the tax base goes down, which it would if the view tax were eliminated, the tax rate would go up.

The reason I post this is that I wish people who want taxes to go down would work on getting taxes to go down, rather than expending so much energy working to shift taxes from some people to others. I do not mean to suggest that the view tax is "fair" (or unfair). It is merely part of a property tax system that aims to tax based on the "market value" of real property. Obviously, a house with a nicer view will typically command a higher price than the same house with an inferior view.

Just as elderly exemptions, vet exemptions etc but the burden on others.
That is what our tax groups has been telling people.... we need to work on lowering budgets.

[FrankChodorov]

Just as elderly exemptions, vet exemptions etc but the burden on others.
That is what our tax groups has been telling people.... we need to work on lowering budgets.

we have to stop offering exemptions that the heirs then get to capitalize on and start offering liens instead...

oh yes and start reducing budgets...better yet - share the socially created surplus (economic rent) directly and equally so nothing needs to be budgeted + 40% overhead.

[Dreepa]

Just as elderly exemptions, vet exemptions etc but the burden on others.
That is what our tax groups has been telling people.... we need to work on lowering budgets.

we have to stop offering exemptions that the heirs then get to capitalize on and start offering liens instead...

oh yes and start reducing budgets...better yet - share the socially created surplus (economic rent) directly and equally so nothing needs to be budgeted + 40% overhead.

Frank are you working on the city of Concord to reduce the budget?

[FrankChodorov]

Just as elderly exemptions, vet exemptions etc but the burden on others.
That is what our tax groups has been telling people.... we need to work on lowering budgets.

we have to stop offering exemptions that the heirs then get to capitalize on and start offering liens instead...

oh yes and start reducing budgets...better yet - share the socially created surplus (economic rent) directly and equally so nothing needs to be budgeted + 40% overhead.

Frank are you working on the city of Concord to reduce the budget?

no, shifting taxes...

[Dave Ridley]

this is not a fight we newbie residents picked with the government over taxation, it is one that the mass of northern NH residents have picked.   That means it is all the more important to back them up, and that's what I will do.    Though maybe I will urge them more toward opposing all taxes while I"m at it.   

So far all I've done is posted their events to the calendar, talked to Bob Elwood and done a demonstration inside the DRA.  But I'll do more as I'm able.