Submitted by alexkourtis t3_z1oszv in newhampshire
thenagain11 t1_ixcyizi wrote
Reply to comment by TheMobyDicks in I'm European, how to move to New Hampshire? by alexkourtis
Getting a job isn't the hard part. Finding housing you can afford with that job is the pain.
Bake_jouchard t1_ixd0cdb wrote
Which means the jobs arnt paying living wages
thenagain11 t1_ixd1976 wrote
our tax structure simply relies too heavily on property taxes which is slowly strangling all but the rich and upper middle class. You could raise everyone's wages and all that would happen is taxes and property values would rise with it. We need to reform the way we fund our towns and state infrastructure. We can't afford it as it is and it's going to kill our economy in the next 10-15 years without change.
4ever48 t1_ixdeslj wrote
Agreed. Except it's already killing NH economy. Especially in the north.
Happy_Confection90 t1_ixdgs3c wrote
I looked into this a few months ago and it seems that if we had the same income tax and state-averaged property tax rates as MA, homeowners would need to make well over 50k before they paid more in combined taxes than we do just in property tax now.
And that's as a single earner, it'd probably be even less regressive for dual income families who can "share" the property tax bill between their incomes.
pahnzoh t1_ixd53v5 wrote
If you look at your property tax bill, you'll see the the vast majority of it is itemized to schools.
Sort of problematic if you don't have kids or don't plan to.
You're being forced to pay to school other people's kids. I get that this is the way it's worked for sometime, but I don't think this is exactly ethical. You have the kids, you should pay for their schooling. You don't have kids, you don't have to pay.
That way you're not forced to pay exorbitant property taxes if you don't have kids.
Arthur-Morgans-Beard t1_ixe52he wrote
Who paid for your schooling?
pahnzoh t1_ixeapb6 wrote
You ask that question like a child has any say in the matter.
Arthur-Morgans-Beard t1_ixed08s wrote
So it was taxpayer funded? Pay it back, freeloader.
pahnzoh t1_ixeds3o wrote
Freeloader? I pay plenty of taxes.
Never even said I went to public school.
Why the bad attitude?
Arthur-Morgans-Beard t1_ixees9t wrote
Because, attending public school and benefitting from its teachings only to turn around and say you shouldn't have to fund it as an adult is the ultimate "fuck you, I got mine". I don't like the property tax rate either, but others paid for me to learn and give me the opportunity to turn myself into a functioning adult, so I should pay it back. Unless you have some other brilliant idea on how to do it, it sounds like you think we don't have to educate future generations, or more likely, just the poor kids.
theCatch_man t1_ixe6dtz wrote
This is bad logic. Better schools for anyone’s kids is better for all of us in the long run. Better for the economy, better for society as a whole.
We also pay for plenty of things we don’t use, like anyone under 40 for social security and everyone paying for Medicare even if we don’t use it. We should pay, because social programs are good for the entire population in the long run, and just because you don’t have kids doesn’t mean you won’t benefit from a well educated population.
pahnzoh t1_ixeamk7 wrote
It's not bad logic. I want good schooling too. Through voluntary market exchange like the rest of the products and services I buy. Pay for what you use, and don't pay for what you don't.
I just don't want to use violence and extortion to pay for it.
I would dissolve those socialist programs as well as they are intergenerational extortion.
theCatch_man t1_ixefusf wrote
Again, if I don’t use the highways should I not pay taxes for infrastructure? If I never see a penny of social security should I not pay any income tax? This logic just doesn’t make sense, we can’t just say that since we don’t use something we shouldn’t pay for it.
What about the police or fire departments? My house has never set fire and I’ve never been robbed, but we can’t just tax people who use those services!
pahnzoh t1_ixehf6u wrote
It is hard to come up with a perfect ethical solution when we are born into social systems that have relied on debt financing, political corruption, extortion, taxation, forced governance, and the like.
I don't see any problem with use-based payments for infrastructure. We already have them, they're call tolls. It's just a different way of funding things.
All of these services can be performed by the private market by paying for them. I understand that's not the way we've done it, but you can certainly do it without the government middle man.
It's completely logical, you just haven't heard of it because it's not taught in schools or discussed in media.
theCatch_man t1_ixejbvn wrote
I can definitely see where you are coming from better now. It makes sense, but I still don’t think that’s the right way to view these issues.
I think use-based systems won’t work unless there’s a clear way to tax people fairly. For consideration, think if a billionaire pays $0.50 for a toll versus someone getting paid 7.50/hour. The billionaires’ tax burden is significantly less for that toll than the min. wage worker.
I also don’t think the private market should be a way to pay for roads, infrastructure, and education. I think time and time again, when you let capitalism run rampant, it hurts the working and middle class while benefiting a fraction of the wealthiest people. If all schools were private and looking to increase profits, I don’t understand how that could benefit the common person. I think that may lead to more corruption than in the government. The free market idea needs to be very well regulated, and the government should take on costs that won’t be explicitly profitable (schools, roads, etc) but are either a necessity or provide economic value down the road.
As a side note, I have no idea what “forced governance” you mean.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments