Here’s what they had to say…
“I found the tax calculator to be inaccurate, therefore I remain distrustful of this plan. Furthermore, my personal situation will be changing within 1-2 years, therefore I would be extremely hesitant to base future tax situation on financial statements from 2 years ago. This seems to benefit families with homes and children. Shouldn’t they be paying for the decision they made on where to live, work and how many children to have? Stop trying to spread your cost basis to your neighbors please. I’ve already educated my family and made my own wise decisions based on my ability to pay. Please do the same for your family.” — Beverly
“Fair and equitable taxes would be great! As a single, childless homeowner approaching 50 years old, with a less than 700 square-foot home, my taxes are two times what my actual mortgage payment is a month.The state needs to do more to cover education costs in the state. I am all for paying A FAIR portion towards education, but the current structuring with town and state funds is completely unfair.” — Meagan
“If I had a personal choice, it would be to keep taxes as they are. I am a renter, and my rent includes the property tax, and with that I have no choice nor say. But when it comes to income tax and taxing goods, I say do not tax them.” — Charles Wetzel
“YES to Andru Volinsky’s tax plan to lower property taxes, fund schools equally, and get the ultra rich to contribute their fair share.” — Karolina
“Income tax matters to me much more. I’d rather pay more taxes in total than pay a small income tax and a small property tax for several reasons. Once the government gains access to your income, the tax doesn’t tend to stay at the set low percentage but will rise to 4%, 5%, or even 10% in the next ~20 years. An income tax will also increase the filing and bookkeeping burden. An income tax would eliminate the possibility of paying lower total taxes and saving more for retirement by simply living in a smaller home. For those residing abroad, an income tax would also increase total taxation, since foreign countries can’t make tax agreements eliminating double taxation directly with individual U.S. states. And finally, when almost all taxes come from a single source, the total burden of the government is much easier to estimate than it would be to sum the costs individually from a property tax, an income tax, and potential other tax buckets.” — Lasse Pitkäniemi
“Although I see some benefit in the 3-3 plan, I’m not convinced it’s a good idea. I’m a NH native—born and raised. I’m proud of NH being a state without income or sales tax, but those considerations aside, here is why I overall don’t support the plan: The property tax in NH varies from town to town. But the availability of good schools and municipal services does too. It’s a choice. I like having choices. I moved from Southern NH, where I grew up, to Western NH. I now have significantly fewer municipal services. I also have significantly lower taxes. Having choices is good. If all towns have a flat tax across the board, it not only takes away my choices but also impacts what the towns can offer residents in terms of schools and services. It would also impact property values. There are a lot of “small towns” in NH. The evolution and growth of a town’s ability to offer services goes hand in hand with the amount of taxes collected. If you remove that, I think more towns would struggle to properly grow or sustain their current service levels unless they raise home property values beyond their already high levels just to recoup more money. Meanwhile, a 3% increase in income (annual raises, better positions) could potentially outpace the increase in property values, leading to a faster rise in the amount of tax collected. It would also impact younger people who earn above the homestead exemption but do not yet own a home. The misery index for these kids is already pretty high. I can’t see how this would help.” — Denise C
“I am writing to express my serious concerns regarding the consistent increase in property taxes in our community. Since moving to New Hampshire three and a half years ago, we have seen our tax assessments rise every year. If this trend continues, my husband and I will not be able to afford to live in our home when we enter retirement in three years. At the current rate of increase, the only way for us to remain in our residence would be for me to continue working indefinitely, which is not a sustainable solution.” — Doreen Strouse
“Given only two choices—lower property taxes or no income tax—I would choose lower property taxes. But what truly matters to me is a fair and equitable tax system, and that is more complex than those two options. I believe a fair income tax system, without loopholes for the wealthy and investors, could be a critical part of a stable and equitable economy. I also believe that big businesses and corporations need to pay their fair share of taxes and help support the strong public education system that has produced the highly capable workforce our state has relied on for decades. So yes, I support an income tax paired with meaningful relief for middle-class property taxpayers, while also ensuring strong, sustained investment in public education.” — Susan Kane
“Our leaders in Concord need to do their jobs and support public education. I am retired, and I believe we all have a responsibility to support all children in public schools—not vouchers, which mostly benefit families who don’t need them or are already sending their children to private schools with public dollars. Religious schools shouldn’t receive any public funding unless they start paying property taxes, like I do. I am very concerned about the direction of our state. The so-called ‘New Hampshire advantage’ doesn’t exist anymore.” — Randy J. Perkins
“Thousands of New Hampshire residents are already paying income tax—to Massachusetts. According to an agreement between the states, if your state has an income tax and you work in an adjacent state, you pay your home state’s income tax. If your home state doesn’t have an income tax, you pay the income tax of the state where you work. This used to infuriate me when I worked in Massachusetts. I paid the full 5% income tax to Massachusetts, yet I wasn’t eligible for any benefits afforded to Massachusetts residents. If New Hampshire passes a 3% income tax, it would save interstate commuters the 2% difference while giving New Hampshire the money it needs to improve schools and lower property taxes. I say we pass the 3–3 plan and recapture some of the money we currently pay to other states.“ — John McInnis
“The knee-jerk reaction against a state income tax in New Hampshire is like suggesting we eat babies (sorry to bring that up again, but it’s just as ludicrous). What about an income tax only for those earning over a certain amount per year—say, $500,000? How else can we rein in property taxes that unfairly burden lower- and middle-income residents, seniors, and others on limited, fixed incomes? Especially when the New Hampshire Legislature refuses to follow the New Hampshire Constitution and adequately fund public schools, resulting in those costs falling back on local governments, which have only one way to pay for them: raising property taxes. A vicious circle.” — Mary Livingston