What Tax is Fair? - Granite Grok

What Tax is Fair?

The Granite State Fair Tax folks are back trolling for a broad based tax on the idea that it is more fair?  Fair to whom?  That’s always the question but it never tries to address why we need a tax, and why we need to control how much of it the government can collect, or how easily they can grow it.

And back in May of 2010 I once again tried to make the case for property taxes as better way to control the flow of revenue into the government.  It may or may not be my most persuasive but it is my most recent.

 

May 25 2010 ‘Why Property Taxes’

I have argued at great length on why relying primarily on local property taxes is the best mechanism for keeping government small.  But no matter how often I bring it up someone always tries to make the point that it’s not fair.  Why should the people who actually own the physical land in the state have to bear the burden of the costs associated with the governance of that land and the people who live on it? (That’s not exactly how they say it, I’m just translating it into common sense.) 

I happen to think that question answers itself, and as I’ve stated before should act as a necessary mechanism for filtering out unnecessary spending and over aggressive revenue seeking by busy bodies at every level of government.  Yet I am still confronted with the issue of New Hampshire’s unfair property tax burden–to which I now respond, what burden?

Who does not pay property taxes in New Hampshire?   I can’t think of anyone.

Businesses factor in costs of goods and expenses into their operations of which a portion is property taxes.  The cheeseburger, the spa treatment, that coffee—every item or service includes the cost of property taxes.  That means residents, and tourists alike, even people just passing through are bearing that burden in everyday commerce already.  

Renters pay property taxes as part of their rent.  They are no more able to escape them than the guy or gal who owns the property—the same guy or gal who might improve the rent they charge (as a matter of competition for people who rent property) by running a more efficient business or by holding the government they pay taxes to more accountable for the cost of that government. 

Business and industry from phone to internet to electricity, all roll property tax costs into the prices we pay.  And home owners, most of whom make up the majority of registered voters in most towns, see the cost of government twice a year in two lump sums right where it needs to stay.  In their face. 

So we have a sales tax of sorts—embedded in the more obvious and visible property tax.

We also have an income tax, as property taxes affect how much business can pay employees, and in how much of your take home income you get to keep and how much of it you have to set aside for the cost of government .  

Regular Sales and Income taxes act upon you like the frog slowly boiled in water.  Property taxes are more like being thrown into a freezing lake,  every now and again.  The latter allows you to see the shock of how much government really costs,–which is more likely to inspire you to ask questions and hold officials and bureaucrats accountable;  the former strives to intentionally hide those costs and the revenue needed from you until it has fiscally killed you. 

So as you can see there is no such thing as an unfair property tax burden.  There is only "the tax burden."  "The tax burden" is the real cost of government.  The real cost of government reflects the desire of politicians to spend more and more of your money, and in the case of some politicians, to then find ways to continuing taxing you so that you are less and less inclined to notice either the taking or the spending of your hard earned dollars.

One is direct and more transparent.  The other is intentionally deceptive.  (And in case you’ve forgotten, the liberals and Democrats overwhelmingly prefer the latter.)

And yes, people who pay property taxes on their homes, also pay those tiny fractions of other peoples taxes in goods and services but this is not an undue burden.  It acts as an additional incentive to keep government smaller, limited, restricted to only what is really necessary.  It motivates free market competitors to find efficiencies that keep their costs down to attract your business.  Then there’s that whole New Hampshire advantage thing we’ve got going for us.  That didn’t happen because we have an additional sales or income tax.  It happened because we don’t.

We should at every opportunity act to deprive government of more avenues for revenue, and your representatives should promise to make this a priority.  Limiting government’s primary revenue streams to local property taxes reigns in wasteful government because it is that much harder to hide the cost of that government.   They are not a burden, they are a godsend.

 

My previous efforts have emphasized the need to limit the tax base of a state to it’s physical dimensions on the idea that a state should never need to "govern" outside its foot print; that other factors tied to property values could limit the ability of government to outgrow itself.  The goal is always to limit what government can do by restricting revenue, and keeping it as local as possible where control is easier to achieve. 

And let’s face facts: sales and income taxes are too unpredictable.  In a down economy when revenue needs never decrease (and usually increase), the floor drops out on your revenue streams which causes politicians to raise these taxes, raise property taxes, and raise other fees at the worst possible time economically; and they never go back down.  Sin taxes are equally unreliable but easily the third leg of a tax stool resting on sand.  When you need to sit down the most, there is nothing there t
o support you.

Property taxes are far more fixed and predictable.  A government limited by actively engaged taxpayers is always smaller and more efficient.  And nothing beats making a taxpayer look at a tax bill to keep government more honest.  You don’t get that from any other form of revenue.

It is also worth reminding people that everything good the left wants to attribute to themselves, John Lynch in particular, is the result of our tax system.  Overall we pay less taxes overall than most states, have a higher quality of life, an are safer.  These are not new developments.  These are things that New Hampshire managed to have before John Lynch arrived.  And we can continue to have them after he is gone.  But keeping him might just be all he needs to break another promise. A promise to veto a broad based tax as an excuse for more government spending.

>