Town Warrant Article 27 - Two 'Grok Thumbs Down
Two “Grok” Thumbs Down
BUMPED and UPDATED:
The Blogging Councilor has picked up on this nonsense and has a post here - go read it!
This initiative is being put forth by a group that wants to institute broad-based taxes on all of us. The latest attack has been by putting warrant articles in about 80 town elections calling for the removal of the pledge.
Their thought is that if the pledge doesn’t exist then politicians wouldn’t be seen as reneging on their word when the tax is instituted.
The main argument for bringing this new tax to life here is that it will greatly reduce our property taxes. This argument requires a belief that the politicians in Concord that don’t pay their bills to the counties, towns and cities now will properly fund local government and schools. I wonder what imaginary world that these people live in.
This report is very good at showing the effective property tax rate for residential property in NH at 13th to 15th place out of 50 states. When you take the total burden of all taxes paid it is not hard to figure out that our actual tax burden is among the lightest in the nation.
And Greg has it exactly right - one cannot just look at one tax, all taxes have to be taken into effect.
The comment over there also caught my eye. From Jane:
Basically these articles would like you reject the Pledge by discouraging candidates from taking it or not voting for candidates who have taken it so they can leave the dialog open for more discussion about ‘fairer’ taxes. This is a non-binding resolution. But it is the first step in the demonization of the Pledge and those who take it, under the premise that they are preventing the legislature from considering more ‘fair’ ways of taxation.
You cannot legislate away the ‘free speech’ of candidates. Candidates will continue to take the pledge as offered by CNHT as seen here: (and hopefully at our annual picnic on July 5t, 2008)
http://www.cnht.org/images/pledge.jpg
Even Governor Lynch signed our Pledge.
The Pledge is our NH Advantage.
Granite State Fair Tax Coalition (which is not for fair taxes, just taxes
Article 27: To see if the Town will vote to approve the following resolution to be forwarded to our State Representatives, our State Senator and our Governor:It seemed that the sponsor for this article was Mr. Rogers as he was the one that moved the question (reasoning: why would someone move the question if one was not in favor of it?). Yet, at no time did he mention that it is really the GSFTC that is pushing this!
Resolved: We the citizens of Gilford, NH believe in a New Hampshire that is just and fair. The property tax has become unjust and unfair. State leaders who take a pledge for no new taxes perpetuate higher and higher property taxes. We call on our State Representatives, our State Senator and our Governor to reject the “Pledge”, have an open discussion covering all options, and adopt a revenue system that lowers property taxes. (Submitted by Petition)
Why do I think this is silly? Earlier, he had stood up and advocated for spending more taxpayer money on supporting the Outside Agencies / Non-Governmental Organizations. Effectively, this is 'I want the Town to spend more, but let someone else pay for it!"
Now, I am of the camp that property tax monies should be spent solely on local government activities but I will address that again in another post.
Several counter arguments to this were offered:
- Lower spending results in lower taxes
- Adding additional tax revenue streams will not result in lower property taxes in the long run (the saddest example of this is NJ).
- We lose local control of how taxes are gathered and spent.
Did anyone else notice that while folks spoke against the article, giving what I thought were valid reasons, no one spoke at all in favor of it (or at least, even trying to give a rebuttal)?
One important issue, at least to this transplanted New Hampshire-ite of 22 years, would be the total loss of control of what is the largest tax revenue stream in the state. Once gone, that control will never return. And given the stupidity of the Democrats now controlling the levers of power in Concord and seeing that they, in less than one year, are spending the State into a deficit, do you really want to take that fiscal governor off?
Now for the hypocrisy bit (in my opinion): Mr. Rogers wants the Town to spend the money for the outside agencies yet he complains that local property taxes are too high? Now he doesn't want to pay for the stuff he wants us to “buy”? This is supposed to be fair and just? Consider it – on one hand, he wants everyone in town to pay for services but probably not him? Yes folks, there is a connection – wanting to spend more money in the Town Budget causes increased property taxes. Yet, here he is, crying that property taxes are too high! Is this a case of cognitive dissonance or what?
Next, I believe that this is a Trojan Horse, and here is a great example of that.
I mentioned the “Purple People” earlier. These were the folks, sponsored by the Service Employee International Union (“SEIU”), that would be in purple shirts with “I'm a Healthcare Voter” emblazoned on it. They would come up to you and ask “Are you in favor of healthcare that is affordable for all people”? Well, of course you'd be – how could you be against that (until you really started to think about it)? Well, lots of people signed their petition.
That petition was then presented, with millions of well meaning signatories, as proof that Universal Healthcare is being demanded by the American citizens (and you wonder why I'm not enamored with unions....). A simple question in one area resulting in its use for another agenda. A Trojan Horse.
This Trojan Horse effort by the GSFTC is not all that well disguised and it is an agenda of getting a broad based tax established in New Hampshire. They are trying all over the State to set the stage for either an income or a sales tax. Never do they attempt to solve the problem by attacking the spending problem but rather they wish to make the revenue side all but impossible for the ordinary citizen to control. Unlike the Carbon Coalition (who were at least honest enough to let people know) with their article last year, these folks are aiming for title of “pernicious” for their article and their lack of transparency.
Let me continue by pulling this article apart:
Resolved: We the citizens of Gilford, NH believe in a New Hampshire that is just and fair.
Pure pap. Who doesn't want a “just and fair” New Hampshire? I rarely see people holding signs stating “let's be unjust and “screw you” - do you? The problem in this case is always in the definition – what is just and what is fair? In this case, Mr. Rogers is talking out of both sides of his mouth – spend more but get someone else to pay for it. If he was being honest, and truly believed in wanting lower taxes on his property and for what he is paying, he would be trying to aid those that are having a hard time paying for those taxes by advocating for a more minimalist local government and for people keeping more of their money. And studies have shown that when people feel more secure financially, they are more willing to help out those in need. It has also been shown that when the responsibility of helping others is moved primarily to the government sphere, individual citizens give less of their time – and their money. Why should they – the Government is responsible!
All in all, what he is advocating is NOT just and not fair – he just wants what he wants regardless of the impact.
The simple answer is to answer the question “what is the proper role of government with respect to its citizens capability to pay”? We ALL would like LOTS of stuff done for us – it is ALWAYS easy to say “Yes!” to new proposals to provide this new service or enlarge that present service. It is hard, however, to say “no”. Unfortunately, those that say “no” are often characterized as being cheap and stingy, or uncaring and cold-hearted. Skip, there are people who need to be helped!
Yes, and maybe that number might well be less if government took less of their money too!
Mark my words, there are those that do need assistance and we as a society need to provide them. However, we do need to be careful of ramifications of such ill advised articles such as this one – else we end up like New Jersey with not only a property tax but also a sales tax and an income tax and lots of other taxes.
After all – It is the Liberals that always want to have Government do more and force everyone to support their ideas by involuntarily raising taxes. And to repeat, notice that Mr. Rogers did not take stand to rebut the above arguments.
The 'Grok recommendation is to vote against it.
That petition was then presented, with millions of well meaning signatories, as proof that Universal Healthcare is being demanded by the American citizens (and you wonder why I'm not enamored with unions....). A simple question in one area resulting in its use for another agenda. A Trojan Horse.
This Trojan Horse effort by the GSFTC is not all that well disguised and it is an agenda of getting a broad based tax established in New Hampshire. They are trying all over the State to set the stage for either an income or a sales tax. Never do they attempt to solve the problem by attacking the spending problem but rather they wish to make the revenue side all but impossible for the ordinary citizen to control. Unlike the Carbon Coalition (who were at least honest enough to let people know) with their article last year, these folks are aiming for title of “pernicious” for their article and their lack of transparency.
Let me continue by pulling this article apart:
Resolved: We the citizens of Gilford, NH believe in a New Hampshire that is just and fair.
Pure pap. Who doesn't want a “just and fair” New Hampshire? I rarely see people holding signs stating “let's be unjust and “screw you” - do you? The problem in this case is always in the definition – what is just and what is fair? In this case, Mr. Rogers is talking out of both sides of his mouth – spend more but get someone else to pay for it. If he was being honest, and truly believed in wanting lower taxes on his property and for what he is paying, he would be trying to aid those that are having a hard time paying for those taxes by advocating for a more minimalist local government and for people keeping more of their money. And studies have shown that when people feel more secure financially, they are more willing to help out those in need. It has also been shown that when the responsibility of helping others is moved primarily to the government sphere, individual citizens give less of their time – and their money. Why should they – the Government is responsible!
All in all, what he is advocating is NOT just and not fair – he just wants what he wants regardless of the impact.
The property tax has become unjust and unfair.Gee, I wonder why? If you look back and time and plot the percentage rate increase of taxes, they have generally well outpaced that of inflation. I can agree with this statement (just not the entire context of his article). Thus, how do we make it just and how do we make it fair?
The simple answer is to answer the question “what is the proper role of government with respect to its citizens capability to pay”? We ALL would like LOTS of stuff done for us – it is ALWAYS easy to say “Yes!” to new proposals to provide this new service or enlarge that present service. It is hard, however, to say “no”. Unfortunately, those that say “no” are often characterized as being cheap and stingy, or uncaring and cold-hearted. Skip, there are people who need to be helped!
Yes, and maybe that number might well be less if government took less of their money too!
State leaders who take a pledge for no new taxes perpetuate higher and higher property taxes.I will repeat - No they do not. Let's be clear – it is State AND local leaders that continually agree to have government do more and more that perpetuate higher and higher taxes of all kinds (not just property taxes) that raise the need for higher taxes. It is fault of State and Local leaders that never decide to review what is being done and ratchet services backward. To wit; when is the last time that you heard of a bevy of services being cut? Heck, governmental and advocacy types scream bloody murder if a program is just funded at the same level it was the year before (to them, that IS a cut)!
We call on our State Representatives, our State Senator and our Governor to reject the “Pledge”, have an open discussion covering all options, and adopt a revenue system that lowers property taxes. (Submitted by Petition)Instead, it should read:
We call on our Local Officials, our State Representatives, our State Senator and our Governor to have an open discussion covering all present and planned serves options, and adopt a plan to evaluate all services and their cost to see if they fit the financial capabilities of their citizenry to support them with respect to being with a point of the overall inflation rate. (Should be submitted by Petition)In other words, why does government have to be all things to all people? Can the adults in our town and state stand up and declare that we are adults and not seen as mere wards of the State? Why is it that some, many of the Liberals, always insist that Government can fix problems? Why don't they rally people themselves and charge ahead and fix the problem on an individual basis?
Mark my words, there are those that do need assistance and we as a society need to provide them. However, we do need to be careful of ramifications of such ill advised articles such as this one – else we end up like New Jersey with not only a property tax but also a sales tax and an income tax and lots of other taxes.
After all – It is the Liberals that always want to have Government do more and force everyone to support their ideas by involuntarily raising taxes. And to repeat, notice that Mr. Rogers did not take stand to rebut the above arguments.
The 'Grok recommendation is to vote against it.
Comments
How do you really feel? Your logic becomes all the more tortuous the more aggressively you seek to apply it.
Posted by: michael kitch | February 15, 2008 11:07 AM
I could see the potential for other taxes to be more equitable.
However the root cause of higher property taxes is
"OUT OF CONTROL SPENDING"
at all levels !
Posted by: Mike | February 19, 2008 02:35 PM
I am always amazed at the lack of knowledge in Gilford as to who really pays the property taxes in the town. Given the seasonal nature of our property owners (prehaps 60/70% of the property tax revenue comes from non residents), if and I do mean if, an alternative source of tax (sales or INCOME) were enacted. These non residents would see lower property tax bills, while the local residents would be antying up the INCOME or Sales tax. Be very careful what you wish for.
Posted by: David Wieland | February 20, 2008 02:01 PM
1 - The pledge is not ‘honored by the state’, but by the candidates who take it. Our current governor took it as did many of our fiscally responsible local legislators.
2 - This attempt to pass warrant articles to 'dump' the pledge is nothing more than demonization of same and of those who would take it. You cannot legislate away the free speech rights of those who wish to take the pledge, which is essentially a campaign promise to keep taxes low.
3 - Studies (http://www.yankeeinstitute.com) prove that adding an income tax or sales tax does NOT lower property taxes as proven by Conn. which has both sales and income tax as well as high property taxes. So accusing pledge takers of keeping taxes high, is an unproven foregone conclusion. Show me ONE study that has property taxes going down as a result of an income tax. You can’t!
4 - The group known as GSFTC is NOT 'grassroots' but being run by national and international outside interests, who are tax-exempt themselves. (http://www.nhfairtax.org/aboutus/organizations.php) They DO NOT belong in town meetings looking to pave the way for more taxation at the state level.
Boot them right out!
Posted by: Jane | February 23, 2008 10:28 AM
I wonder if anyone who is in favor of a broadbased tax being imposed on us REALLY believes that it will lower our property taxes.
This line of logic would require a complete dismissal of the fact that we live in a state that doesn't pay it's obligations and a county that reduces revenue projections to make a point to the taxpayers about the problems at the state level.
Any broadbased tax would go directly to the state and I could not even be convinced to have a hope that the money would make it to the local communities.
Look at your property tax bill. It shows funds being raised for education (the state is paying for this?), the county assessment (we have just witnessed what happens here) and the city/town.
In Laconia we have a Spending-Tax-Cap in place because of the rate of increases experienced. Towns have the town meeting/SB2 voting to help control spending. If you want to reduce the taxes then elect representatives that know how to say "NO" to wasteful spending.
Posted by: Greg Knytych | March 9, 2008 09:14 PM