L/rain
48°
L/rain
Hi 50° | Lo 43°

Letter: What about an income tax?

Has there ever been a study done to determine if the property tax could be replaced by an income tax? Most of our taxes are regressive: They hit the middle- and lower-income people the most. If we had an income tax that replaced the majority of the property tax, what would the numbers look like?

Could it be just a percentage of the federal tax so we would not have to create a bureaucracy to collect it?

I find the casino revenue as well as the other “sin” taxes to be irresponsible. We need to be self-sufficient and not rely on the addictions of our neighbors to pay our way.

If there is such a study, where might I find that information?

PATRICIA SHERMAN

Newbury

Legacy Comments12

Giving more money for government and politicians to spend or giving them another source is like giving an alcoholic a steady supply of alcohol and a credit account where he can get more at a store if he wants to. If we institute an income tax, property taxes may go down for a year or two but they will go back up because politicians will keep spending more and more and more.

what happened to the focus like a laser on jobs the left boasted in their campaign

as faithful as the sun rises in the east...... a democrats only solution to every single one of their made up problem is MORE TAXES....we have a SPENDING problem not a TAXING problem

Congratulations to all Catholics on the election of Cardinal Bergoglio as their new Pope Francis. “Cardinal Bergoglio had a special place in his heart and his ministry for the poor, for the disenfranchised, for those living on the fringes and facing injustice.” Meanwhile, the people of low per capita income Claremont are struggling to pay for the cost of educating their children at a local education tax rate that is 18 times the rate paid in New Castle, the highest per capita income town in NH. There are many other examples of this type of economic injustice occurring in various towns throughout NH. I suggest that all Catholics, and all Christians who value the teachings of Jesus, should consider following the examples set by Jesus and Pope Francis, and ask their Governor and their Legislators to find a solution for more equitably sharing the statewide cost of educating our children. http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/pope-francis-his-name-reflects-his-ministry-for-the-poor/2013/03/13/4a2cc8ce-8c27-11e2-9f54-f3fdd70acad2_story.html

Even the election of a new Pope seems to lead to the property tax diatribe about New Castle. I do not find that there is a gap in economic injustice. If you own prime land or inherited it in a town with a high property tax, then you can sell it and move to a town with a lower rate. It is that simple.....pay your fair share. If my property is worth $100,000 and my tax rate is $32, I pay $3200, if a persons property is worth $800,000 and their tax rate is $13, they pay $10,400. We should not pass an income tax to give the property rich a break. New Castle has a small school and few students, they pay less. Get over it, that is the way it is. Who are the "disenfranchised"? The "middle class"? Those facing "injustice" and do they have any responsibility whatsoever for their lot in life???

Nationwide polls indicate support for higher taxes on high incomes. A NH tax on high incomes could be used to help the NH towns that are struggling to pay sky high local education tax rates. How about we do something like this: Charge a 5% individual income tax, with a $4000 tax credit for taxpayers residing in NH. That would result in $0 tax due on incomes under $80,000. Examples of net tax due under this formula: $100,000 income, $1000 tax. $150,000 income, $3500 tax. $200,000 income, $6000 tax. $1,000,000 income, $46,000 tax. The income tax paid would be partially offset for residents of the NH towns that are currently experiencing extremely high local ed rates, by using the income tax proceeds to lower their local ed property tax rates. The NH Advantage should not apply only to the wealthy, as it does currently.

The problem with an income tax is that it won't replace the property tax entirely. Only about 10 to 15% on average goes to the state, the rest goes to town/city and then the county. So about $750 to $1250 of your entire proper tax goes to the state. If they use the 5% tax rate and follow the Massachusetts model, then someone making $50k a year ends up paying about $2000 as an income tax. It ends up being an addition, not subtraction for total tax liability. I can tell you as a student in Rhode Island which as an income tax, it was harder to live there on a modest income than it is in New Hampshire. When I moved to NH, I couldn't believe how much more money I had to live on vs. RI. The issue with an income tax or sales tax is that it isn't a scenario where existing taxes are reduced equally and these new taxes are added, but it adds tax to everyone, even the poor, retires and the middle class.

An income tax is a far fairer way to go for everyone. As you progress in life with earnings going up, you pay a little more, later in life when you earn less your taxes go down. This affects everyone the same. Forcing the very young or old to pay 60% to 70% of their income just to provide the basics in life is unfair. Lower the property tax to say 25% of today's rate and raise an income based tax to “equal” today's amount. No additional tax. From this day forward the politicians must use any new revenue on exactly what they asked the money for. NO more asking for roads taxes and then shifting the money elsewhere. If the citizens don’t vote new money for “new” projects – then they don’t happen…… The tax rate on business has little to do with hiring or growth, if the demand for a product is there any good business person will expand and hire. No business will expand without having the greater product or service demand.

Jim, "no more shifting" Agreed! Additional tax burdens, passed on the pretense of some meritorious cause, finds its way into the general fund. We know what happens from there.

A sales tax would be more fair than an income tax. An income tax penalizes tax-payers for saving; a sales tax would not. For those who must see the wealthy tax-penalized - logically people who make more – buy more and thus would pay proportionally more tax. This could only be effective if a realistic sales tax replaced the myriad of taxing systems currently in place. That would take a brave step by the legislature but is possible.

Every study - and I mean every - comes to the following conclusion. General sales taxes are terribly regressive. They penalize low income families whose life circumstances require that they spend just about everything they earn. Those that can save pay no tax on the money that they don't spend. I suppose this is where you come up with the "...penalizes tax-payers for saving..." idea. Add to that the fact that large internet merchants have lobbied themselves tax-free status, and sales tax seems a very poor substitute or supplement to the property tax.

Never happen! It would require an adult conversation, and adults are in short supply in the state house. For now, I'd settle for somebody who can reject "the pledge" and win an election.

Post a Comment

You must be registered to comment on stories. Click here to register.