M/sunny
52°
M/sunny
Hi 71° | Lo 38°

Tax Foundation: N.H. has 8th-best tax climate in nation

New Hampshire has the eighth-best tax climate in the nation, according to a new report from the Tax Foundation.

The conservative think tank’s 2014 State Business Tax Climate Index, released yesterday, ranked all 50 U.S. states based on their taxes – property, income, sales, unemployment and corporate.

Wyoming finished first overall, while New York came in last place. New Hampshire took the eighth spot overall, down from seventh place in last year’s report.

In terms of corporate taxes, though, this year’s report ranked New Hampshire 48th among the states, prompting several calls yesterday from Republican leaders for reform.

“This should serve as another red flag to lawmakers that we need to take a serious look at our approach to business taxes in New Hampshire,” said House Minority Leader Gene Chandler, a Bartlett Republican.

“This dubious ranking should be a wake-up call to every state elected official who says that they are concerned about creating jobs in New Hampshire,” said Greg Moore, the state director of Americans for Prosperity.

Methinks AFP and its legislative minions protest too much. If they want a reduction in taxes they pay on their profits, they're going to have to work for a source of revenue that is sufficient and reliable enough to replace it. I hear nothing but crickets chirping from the business community when it comes to alternative ideas for revenue in order to grant their wishes, so tough cookies, corporate NH: tag, you're it until you work for a better idea.

Here is the best way to raise revenue in New Hampshire, a comprehensive plan to fund education and cut property taxes. We need a restricted sales tax. Groceries, clothing, prescriptions and used cars below $7500 would be exempt. Therefore, those who can afford less will be able to get the necessities and avoid a sales tax. Tax everything else with a 6% sales tax. Fund the schools with this tax and the legislature should pass a law that would stop communities from increasing property taxes more than 1% per year and remove school funding taxes with a clause that towns could no longer fund schools. That would solve many problems including reduction of property taxes and people who spend on the extras pay on those extras....... and would not be as damaging as an income tax.

and next year the democrats raise the sales tax to 7% and the next year... well any rational person sees where this goes

I saw this on WMUR, and we come in 48th in best tax climate for corporate taxes, we also come in 46th in best property tax climate, which seems to not have gotten as much publicity in the headline. So if you are a fat cat this is the state for you. Only us poor peons have to worry about losing our homes because of living in a state where only 4 other states have higher property taxes than we do.

Man, I miss the "vote up" buttons on this forum.

turning that post to ashes is the fact that 2 major companies announced this week their move to..... drum roll please....... NH

Subtitle should read: Democrats doing everything they can do to end that. Thank-goodness the GOP senate have stopped them in their steps.

Just think what the property tax rate would be with a 4% income tax where all the income from it went to public education . The state of NH is last in state aide to education....and if they doubled it they still are last ! NH is 7th in per-capita income..!st in per-capita property tax and the state ranks 47th in per-capita state spending. Local spending ...especially in property poor towns..is off the charts The property tax is very regressive in nature. The state of New Hampshire has balanced its budget on the backs of the cities and towns for decades . New Hampshire is not a poor state it is a cheap state ! The local property tax is crushing the average and retired citizens. Those that understand the problem are those that just moved in or just move out !

I agree completely. We ARE cheap... the only reason our poverty level is so low is because poor people simply can't afford to live here. Housing is too expensive, for one thing. It's not as if there something about the state that automatically makes people more wealthy, just by living here. That, and the absence of income tax makes us attractive to rich people who move here from out of state. Notice I did not say "Job Creators." The myth that all (or even most) rich people are job-creators who must be preserved and sheltered at all cost is killing this country.

Well, are you suggesting that we be less "cheap" and ask poor people to flock to our state so that we can develop even more dependency programs? But I am so sorry that you resent the accomplished people who know how to manage their income. Many are "job creators" not because they personally create jobs but because they invest in companies that do create jobs. It is stunning that Keynesian progressives or as I call them punitive progressives hate accomplishment, self determination, anyone who is successful and takes care of themselves, etc. Cheap? LOL.

The deal with taxes is the overall tax burden. I have relatives who live in MA. They have cheaper property taxes, but when you add up the taxes they pay on income, and sales taxes, and all the other MA taxes, my property tax is beginning to look like a good deal. Sales taxes are often raised depending on who is running the state. How the money is spent is the issue. NH does get a great deal of income from second home ownership because of our state having lakes etc. We also are not cheap when it comes to spending on our students. We have towns with high unemployment and high cost per student. I can assure you that it is a lot cheaper to rent in NH than it is in MA. Sales and Income Taxes hurt the poor the most.

If you are middleclass or lower the tax load in mass is lower than NH!

RabbitNH- there is one difference. In Mass you have a choice of what you can buy and pay taxes on. If you have a large income you pay a little more, buy a lot of goodies then you pay a little more in taxes. In NH it is all based on property and then the larger property owners don't actually pay the tax due to "current use". When a person retires, loses a job, has to take a job that pay less in NH - their tax rate goes UP in comparison to their income. They pay a bigger share of their income in taxes. NOT so in Mass.

Incorrect Jim. MA is ranked #8 on overall tax burden where folks pay 10.4% of their income to taxes. Income tax alone is 5.3% and they want to raise that to 6.25%, You pay that income tax if you make over 8,000. NH is ranked #44 for overall tax burden. We pay 8.1% of our income on taxes. You do pay taxes if you are in current use, they are discounted but you still pay. You get a lower per acre rate. You also are incorrect about who owns land in NH under current use income wise. You also do not factor in revenue gained from timber tax, or tax if you take your property out of current use, employment in wood products, etc. My family lives in MA. I know how much they pay in MA taxes. They call it Taxachussetts for a reason. Look at their taxes in regards to gas, cigs, etc.

Exactly. Thank you for summarizing so well.

To RabbitNH below- no reply button. I worked in Mass for many years so I am aware of the income tax in Mass. I think you are deliberately side stepping the real issue. In NH if one makes $100K and pays $8K in property tax they pay 8% of their income. If a person retires, loses a job or takes a lower paying job for whatever reason and then makes $50K, still pays the $8K in property tax, then they are now paying 16% of their income in taxes. Double. The less you make the higher the percentage of ones income is paid, simple math. In Mass you can buy a cheaper car, don't smoke, don't drive as much or whatever to lower the taxes you pay. Your choice. Every fact from my statement on owners of land in current use came from the My Space website which is 100% for "current use". They were showing who and what groups have property in current use. The land can be posted "private" while in current use, it can be subdivided and sold as one desires as long as there are 10 or more acres left it can go right back in "current use". One can do that as often as they want. There are ~27,000 land owners with property in current use. Those are the facts. Lower the tax rate on all the land and people would not complain they need to sell because the taxes are so high -- in a property tax state.

I am not side stepping anything. What do you suppose someone who makes 100,000 pays in state income tax, it is 5,000. Someone making 45,000 pays 2,400. Add that on to your property tax in MA. That tax does not change no matter what your wages are. It is set at 5.3% of your income. Ask anybody in MA what they pay for car insurance compared to NH, gas etc. MA also has capital gains tax. The fact is that if you live in MA you pay more of a tax burden. Look it up. MA you pay 10.4 of your income in taxes, in NH you pay 8.1. MA is ranked #8 for tax burden and NH is rated 44. As far as Current Use goes, you are not discussing what revenue current use brings in, so you are the one who is side stepping here. How much revenue does the state get with Timber Tax? How many folks are employed in the Timber Industry, etc.

If we added a 4% income tax, politicians and progressives would find more ways to spend the revenue and in all states with an income tax, the overall tax burden is much higher. Adding an income tax will not reduce our overall taxation. And "spending" per se, does not guarantee a better outcome for anyone in the education system. It is about the talent and dedication of the educator and those in the system. Let me give you an example. A home pays a property tax of $4000. The family earns $75,000 and after a 5% income tax is instituted and all deductions and exemptions are taken into account, that person would probably pay $3000 anyway. You think that their property taxes would be just $1000. Even if they saved $500 per year that is only $10 per week. Families need to keep hundreds and thousands more of their income, not pennies!

Please read ...I said " 4% income tax where all the income from it went to public education ."....Your local taxes will drop a lot....and you have "local control"

Yes, I read that and it is a pretty big hope that it will only go to education and I doubt that the government will allow any "local control".

Eighth is good but number 1 would be better. Just think what the property tax rate per $1,000 would drop to if we included the 50% of the state that is exempted under "Current Use". Facts: Only 4% is farm land, most are 10,20,30 acres plots behind private homes, the property can be 100% posted no trespassing, most are owned by the highest income bracket, the land (all or part) can be sold to a person or developer at any time. Facts show "current use" is not about keeping farms open, not about the big timber plots up north, not about the poor, not about open land usage by the public. A property tax state that exempts over 50% of the property just because it is larger???

think of the possibilities that Jim offers - we could now put cluster developments of homes everywhere. Each owner would be able to sell their land to the highest bidder and we could put McMansions everywhere. Remove all land from "current use" and it will all immediately be up for sale and we can develop it all....YIPPEEEEEEE

But that is already being done today, any land owner can sell that land anytime they want to anybody they want. With all the land included in the tax base, the rate per thousand will drop for everyone in the state. Simply pay the tax on the "present value" of your property - no more no less. Are you implying that there is no available land in other states with lower tax rates, that all the land is for sale or it has all been bought up for McMansions? Somehow I know you don't believe that.

I am not implying anything - I know for a fact that if landowners with land under current use have their taxes raised with your harebrained scheme then those lands will immediately be put on the market and NH will have development in areas that the citizens prefer be left undeveloped. The worst part of your solution is that TAXING is NOT the problem - SPENDING IS THE PROBLEM. The State budget skyrocketed under democrats and that is NOT the NH frugal Yankee, common sense, self reliant way of the NH citizens heritage.

Current use is not the issue. I have 20 acres of land on current use and if current use was to end, I would be forced to sell. Four developers have pursued me for that land to build 4-5 houses. If families moved into those houses, school expenses would rise and people would pay more property taxes in general to support that. I know at least 10 other people in the same boat. I have not seen very many Mcmansions in my town or any town near. The closest McMansions I have viewed are those on nob hill in Concord over the hill from the hospital and most of those (viewing the political signs on the lawns) belong to bleeded heart progressives. Maybe those were not McMansions but Marxmansions.

Post a Comment

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