Increased spending = increased taxes
It’s community budget season so it’s no surprise that we’re getting a daily dose of spending requests from what ever the favorite cause of the day happens to be. There seems to be an expectation for the property owner to shoulder more of the burden from a growing number of sources. Your tax bill is a simple formula; increased spending requires an increase in tax dollars.
.
Thanks to our newly elected State representatives, including Laconia's Judith Reever and company, we’ve just been stuck with paying a portion of the mismanaged State worker’s retirement fund. On top of that they stuck each community with the bill to pay for there extended health insurance program that covers all children up to 25 years of age. This generation of “Helicopter Parents” wouldn’t expect anything less for their little darlings. If only mom could get the government to pay for the laundry she’s doing for her hapless 25 year old that’s still living at home, but I digress...
.
The trend is to push the cost of these new State programs onto the property tax payer which of course will fuel the fire for a broad based tax. The small community of Gilford alone will shoulder about $300,000 of this new burden before we even get to hear the litany of life threatening expenditures for our community and that’s just on the municipal side. Most of our local taxes are paying salaries, benefits, seminar fees, association fees and dues to the point where there is little left to provide the actual tools to do the jobs we hired them to do.
.
Did you know that the NH Fire fighter association dues, that we pay, are contributing toward creating new legislation that will place police a fire fighter’s salaries and benefits out of reach to public scrutiny? Under our current body of legislatures this bill will undoubtedly pass without so much as a whisper of opposition, putting their annual salaries and benefit increases on autopilot for ever! If elected, Barack Obama’s 8 billion dollar education proposal simply gives teachers even more money and benefits with absolutely zero accountability. Even with all this spending, tax payers never seem to be paying enough to educate a child, provide public safety or stop crime.
.
In spite of these growing pressures on the property tax payer, the special interest groups just continue to pile on. On your door step knocks requested money for the “free library”, additional sports programs and outside agencies that are every where but outside of your tax bill. These are arguably great causes but should you be required to pay for them under the threat of forfeiting your home? Is this why we need an income tax or a sales tax? Ask the good folks of Massachusetts if this has solved their problems. I’m sure that if we just give the government more money these problems will be solved. The only way to stop the madness is to tell your elected officials to stop piling on or vote them out of office!
In spite of these growing pressures on the property tax payer, the special interest groups just continue to pile on. On your door step knocks requested money for the “free library”, additional sports programs and outside agencies that are every where but outside of your tax bill. These are arguably great causes but should you be required to pay for them under the threat of forfeiting your home? Is this why we need an income tax or a sales tax? Ask the good folks of Massachusetts if this has solved their problems. I’m sure that if we just give the government more money these problems will be solved. The only way to stop the madness is to tell your elected officials to stop piling on or vote them out of office!
Comments
I noticed that the first commenter did not get a response to a very good question so I would like to ask the same question. What is the number of the bill to which you are referring? Thanks.
Posted by: Matt | November 29, 2007 07:51 AM
The Bill I'm referring to is HB-88. This bill failed last year but will most likely pass this year. It is getting watered down a little because its primary purpose is to improve work place safety. The problem portion of this bill is the "evergreen protections". This clause reduces the union requirement to only 5 employees. It then states that at the end of a contract compensation can not be reduced and health insurance remains paid for and will be paid. Increases continue until a new contract is issued. This clause prevents any attempts to pass on the increases in health insurance to the employee. If passed, our elected officials would be required by law to maintain full benefit and compensation with increases. The public has no vote on these increases.
At least that's the way it was explained to me by a Fire fighter. A fire fighter who fully supports this bill for obviuos reasons.
Posted by: Terry Stewart | November 29, 2007 09:30 AM
For one it is a Senate bill and not a House bill, And it probably wont even be brought up again this year never mind pass. And I am sure it wasnt a Gilford Firefighter you got your info from. If it was they havent been keeping up on issues and not all firefighters are ready to jump on the band wagon with filing. If it were to pass with the number being 5 our group would have to split in order to file. The Firefighters would have the numbers but the Officers would not. We have no interest in having two different groups.
Posted by: Scott Mooney | December 1, 2007 01:43 PM
I'd like to thank those of you who have corrected me on my interruptation and the actual name of the bill itself. My printing of HB-88 was strictly a brain cramp. I am aware that it is SB-88.
I have issued a correction to the paper that printed it. According to the some State employee web sites there is still a lot of activity on SB-88 so it is far from dead. It is nice to know that the Gilford firefighters would prefer not to split over the issue. I'd like to think that the town of Gilford does a good job of supporting it's fire fighters.
Posted by: Terry Stewart | December 3, 2007 02:15 PM