Oh, if only Hooksett Rep. David Hess was right and the Democrats were "laying the groundwork for an income tax." Sadly, most New Hampshire Democrats in leadership positions, even those who have long supported an income tax, were quickly cowed by Gov. John Lynch's repeated veto threats. Though they may cross their fingers behind their backs when they do so, they have largely obeyed the Republican pledge not to support a new broad-base tax. Their predecessors in 1999, when the House and Senate each passed a different form a bill creating an income tax despite then-Gov. Jeanne Shaheen's veto threat, showed more courage.

Yesterday, lawmakers attended the second day of a two-day summit held by the House Ways and Means Committee to hear testimony about New Hampshire's tax structure. Because the committee's chairwoman, Democratic Rep. Susan Almy of Lebanon, has voiced support for an income tax in the past, some Republicans, including Hess, saw the event as part of a conspiracy to kill the so-called New Hampshire advantage that comes with not having a general sales or income tax.

The committee was careful to ensure that the representatives of both sides of the issue had a chance to air their views. That didn't quiet critics who treat the state's unfair tax structure like previous generations treated suicide, cancer and divorce, something that should not to be discussed in public. But silence allows ignorance to prevail and problems to worsen. Putting all the options as all parties see them on the table, as the committee did, is a wise approach.

Every tax hurts some people more than others, but the cost of paying for government should be shared as fairly as possible.

Arguments about which services are necessary and which aren't, and which level of spending is appropriate, are inevitable and good. But no matter what spending level the most representative legislative body on Earth deems appropriate, the question of how to raise that money must be answered. Economies, demographics and societies change. Tax structures must change with them or inflict undue pain on some while largely sparing others. That's been the case with New Hampshire's tax structure for a long time.

A sales tax would have to be extraordinarily high to raise enough money to fund government, since the state already taxes many commodities and would almost certainly exempt essentials like food, clothing and medicine. That leaves an income tax.

As many at the summit pointed out, unlike an income tax, which is based on ability to pay, the tax on a property owner does not fall when income shrinks or vanishes. More than half the state's residents pay more than 5 percent of their income in property taxes. Some, including retired homeowners and the lower middleclass pay much more. Others, including wealthy people with modest homes or families with two top-tier incomes, pay relatively little.

The lack of a tax structure capable of consistently raising adequate revenue also means - as the state is seeing now - that the mentally ill and others who depend on state services suffer more. It means that tuition charged by the University of New Hampshire is the second highest of any public university in the nation. It means that investments that could save big money - programs to cut prison recidivism rates, for example - aren't made.

Does the advantage that New Hampshire gains by not having an income tax make up for the unfairness of the system and the suffering of those who can't afford to pay the heavy cost of the state's unique reliance on property taxes to fund government? That's a question New Hampshire citizens and lawmakers must ask, not just at a two-day summit, but over and over again.

Our answer is no.