It creates a permanent new revenue stream that politicians will expand rather than truly offsetting local property taxes long-term.
Connecticut introduced an income tax in 1991, promising property tax relief—it started low (flat ~4.5% or lower brackets), but rates rose to 6.99% top rate, with property taxes remaining among the nation's highest. Massachusetts' sales tax followed a similar pattern.
Even if initial modeling shows ~80% paying less (via the calculator), future legislatures could raise rates, reduce exemptions/credits, or increase spending, leaving residents with both higher income taxes and sustained or rising property taxes.
NH school spending per pupil is already high nationally (often >$26k), with inflation-adjusted increases of ~45% since 2001, while enrollment dropped ~26%. The core issue is administrative bloat, fragmented SAUs (over 100 districts with redundant overhead), and lack of reforms—not insufficient revenue.
New dedicated funding could encourage more spending without improving outcomes. The plan shifts funding sources but doesn't cap or reform expenditures.
NH's lack of income/sales tax is a major draw for residents, retirees, and businesses (high median income, population growth in New England, strong taxpayer ROI rankings). Introducing an income tax could deter newcomers, encourage out-migration (especially higher earners and retirees), and hurt competitiveness vs. other no-income-tax states.
Commuters to MA (tens of thousands) could face complications with tax credits and double burdens.
Wealthier property owners and some middle/upper-middle households (the ~20% per proponents) would likely pay more net; retirees on fixed incomes or those with investment/retirement income might feel impacts despite deductions.
New bureaucracy for collecting/administering income tax. Potential legal challenges under the NH Constitution's uniformity requirements.
Statewide property tax adds a new layer on top of local ones (though intended to fund relief). Revenue volatility from income tax (tied to economic cycles) vs. more stable property taxes.
While designed to be progressive via deductions ($35k per taxpayer, $15k per dependent, homestead exemption), some view it as "income redistribution" that penalizes success or second-home owners/lakefront property wealth. Opponents prefer spending cuts or targeted relief over broad new taxes.
So, before hailing this as a panacea for fixing the State’s tax structure under the guise of “equity”, be prepared for even higher overall taxes for everyone, bigger government, weaker economic appeal, with no guarantee of long-term relief—potentially trading NH's unique low-tax status for outcomes seen in higher-tax neighboring States.
Any future tax policy schemes need to promote and prioritize provable spending discipline. Otherwise, nothing will change; it will only become worse. As they say, “The devil is in the details.” Without real enforcement of spending controls, the outcome is guaranteed.
Have we ever seen a government entity voluntarily shrink or ask for less money? The answer is obvious. The “Revenue Ratchet” is real and only goes in one direction- Up.
Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated. Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything. Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism
that is degrading to another person. Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts. Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness
accounts, the history behind an article.
(1) comment
Potential drawbacks of the 3-3 Tax Plan:
It creates a permanent new revenue stream that politicians will expand rather than truly offsetting local property taxes long-term.
Connecticut introduced an income tax in 1991, promising property tax relief—it started low (flat ~4.5% or lower brackets), but rates rose to 6.99% top rate, with property taxes remaining among the nation's highest. Massachusetts' sales tax followed a similar pattern.
Even if initial modeling shows ~80% paying less (via the calculator), future legislatures could raise rates, reduce exemptions/credits, or increase spending, leaving residents with both higher income taxes and sustained or rising property taxes.
NH school spending per pupil is already high nationally (often >$26k), with inflation-adjusted increases of ~45% since 2001, while enrollment dropped ~26%. The core issue is administrative bloat, fragmented SAUs (over 100 districts with redundant overhead), and lack of reforms—not insufficient revenue.
New dedicated funding could encourage more spending without improving outcomes. The plan shifts funding sources but doesn't cap or reform expenditures.
NH's lack of income/sales tax is a major draw for residents, retirees, and businesses (high median income, population growth in New England, strong taxpayer ROI rankings). Introducing an income tax could deter newcomers, encourage out-migration (especially higher earners and retirees), and hurt competitiveness vs. other no-income-tax states.
Commuters to MA (tens of thousands) could face complications with tax credits and double burdens.
Wealthier property owners and some middle/upper-middle households (the ~20% per proponents) would likely pay more net; retirees on fixed incomes or those with investment/retirement income might feel impacts despite deductions.
New bureaucracy for collecting/administering income tax. Potential legal challenges under the NH Constitution's uniformity requirements.
Statewide property tax adds a new layer on top of local ones (though intended to fund relief). Revenue volatility from income tax (tied to economic cycles) vs. more stable property taxes.
While designed to be progressive via deductions ($35k per taxpayer, $15k per dependent, homestead exemption), some view it as "income redistribution" that penalizes success or second-home owners/lakefront property wealth. Opponents prefer spending cuts or targeted relief over broad new taxes.
So, before hailing this as a panacea for fixing the State’s tax structure under the guise of “equity”, be prepared for even higher overall taxes for everyone, bigger government, weaker economic appeal, with no guarantee of long-term relief—potentially trading NH's unique low-tax status for outcomes seen in higher-tax neighboring States.
Any future tax policy schemes need to promote and prioritize provable spending discipline. Otherwise, nothing will change; it will only become worse. As they say, “The devil is in the details.” Without real enforcement of spending controls, the outcome is guaranteed.
Have we ever seen a government entity voluntarily shrink or ask for less money? The answer is obvious. The “Revenue Ratchet” is real and only goes in one direction- Up.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.