What a maroon – but hey, he works for Pravda on the Merrimack so you almost can swear right this instant on what his world view is on this issue. He’s got the normal Progressive “chip on his shoulder” about taxation and it’s always that somebody else has to pay for me.”
Related: NHBR Bemoans NH’s High Property Taxes but Ignores What That Means for Total Tax Burden
Now, the piece he just wrote (all of it below) has all kinds of numbers, factoids, and possible scenarios. All of which presents a “financial death” by those affected by the WuFlu on the economy.
I’m not saying that any of it is wrong from the factoid aspect. It is from the “scenario” side, though, and I’ll fisk the appropriate bits in a sec but his guy is all wet for the following reasons:
- No state relies more heavily on property taxes to fund government – including public schools – than New Hampshire. True. But what he doesn’t state (in fact, NO Progressive ever talks about this) – we are consistently among the LOWEST overall tax burden in the US.
- Not ONCE does he mention WHY taxes go up. He lists some scenarios but NEVER ONCE brings up that it is their elected representatives that are raising the cost of Government that raises taxes. Now, throw in all of the “social organizations” that want your tax monies for their purposes, and other Progressive / Socialist organizations (like Zandra Rice-Hawkins of Granite State Progress AND a Concord City Councilor) – I’m betting he’s not watching her carefully to see how often (and how much it will cost) she wants Government to do more things – more services, more programs, more EVERYTHING.
- The idea and philosophy of “doing” Limited Government? Not found in his words. Not even a glimmer.
Here’s the complete Op-Ed (reformatted, emphasis mine):
My Turn: Property-tax burden may get worse
By RALPH JIMENEZ,
Monitor staff
Published: 7/26/2020 6:40:14 AMProperty taxes are the flip side of the so-called New Hampshire advantage, the state’s lack of a sales or income tax. They increase steadily, often bear little relation to an owner’s ability to pay, and, in these pandemic times, are an obligation that many households are finding harder to meet. Yet, the burden for homeowners could soon get significantly heavier. Here’s why, though I hope I’m wrong.
And I would say, on average, he’s wrong about the “bear little relation to an owner’s ability to pay”. People generally don’t buy housing that is way out of their financial league as they know that the Piper would soon be calling and outdoor living would be in their immediate future. That’s just common sense (although perverse incentives, like those seen during the Great Recession, promulgated bad decisions). People generally look at the TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) and part of that are the property taxes (and so do the banks when looking at loans). Yes, there are times when times are tough and are beyond one’s control but that’s just part of life – it sucks at times.
That, however, isn’t a reason to radically change policy.
First, a few basics. No state relies more heavily on property taxes to fund government – including public schools – than New Hampshire. Local, state, and county property taxes combined cover two-thirds of the cost. In some communities taxes on commercial and industrial property, or expensive second homes, drastically lower the burden on residents. In Concord, not so much.
Tax bills are computed by multiplying the tax rate, currently $27.78 per $1,000 of valuation, by the property’s current market value as determined by assessors and after equalization by the state. The city of Concord sends out tax bills quarterly. The July bill was mailed earlier this month. The next bill comes in October.
Note he leaves out the MOST important parts of that computation – a town or city’s total expenditures by that entity. The tax rate is merely a computation to determinate how much the valuation is going to be taxed. Remember “low taxes are the result of low spending”??? The more your selectmen / School Board members decide to spend. Spend less and the amount raised by taxes is lessened. While the valuation, expenditures, and tax rates are part of the “tripod”, the REAL determinant of the numbers in that tax bill is how profligate are the spenders.
He tries to deflect from that eternal truth by only talking about valuation and tax rate. Lowering spending to have a lower tax bill? Nothing on his financial horizon on this, eh?
The real estate website Zillow pegs the median value of a home in Concord at $256,283 and describes the local market as “very hot.” Zillow estimates that the median house gained 5.7% in value in the past year. Affordable homes, those under roughly $300,000, appreciated the most.
The 2018 tax bill on a $250,000 Concord home was $7,047.50, according to the city’s finance department. In 2019 that home’s value grew to $257,350 and though the city’s tax rate fell, the property’s tax bill grew to $7,149.18 for an increase of just under 1.5%. But that was then, before COVID-19, before the economic slump and massive job loss, before many employers learned that productivity didn’t suffer, and in some cases increased, when employees worked from home. Workers found that they regained hours of their life, and saved money by telecommuting.
Factoids, but not really relevant to the point he’s trying to make. Houses go both up and down depending on sale prices around them. I’m betting you’ve had time when your valuation went up and your neighbors’ went down. The opposite has probably happened as well. Ditto this:
Several local employers, I was told, recently notified their landlord that working from home has proved so successful that they are giving up their downtown digs. That sort of thing is happening all over America. Companies have discovered that they no longer need to occupy fancy chunks of prime real estate to turn a profit. Google and Facebook told most employees that they could work from home for the rest of the year. Twitter told its Manhattan employees that they could work from home forever.
The value of a commercial property is determined in good measure by the rents it can command and the occupancy rate. When those fall so does the value of the property. That is beginning to happen. That means, assuming municipal budgets hold steady, the difference will have to be made up by increasing residential property taxes. Ouch.
Oh wait – did you see the Progressive / Big Govt Statist sleight of hand he just pulled there? Yep – you are all smart people: “assuming municipal budgets hold steady“. “ASS out of U and ME”. Well, not the latter part. Perhaps in Concord, one of the State’s bastions where every dollar is sacred to Govt, Govt is ALWAYS fed first. Always. If it doesn’t actually go up (which Statists often yammer “oh, the needs have INCREASED, we need MORE” – and it seems that Jimenez is a Blue Star Member of that Collective.
NO – if the residents are in financial pickles, the LOGICAL, the RATIONAL, the FAIR thing to do is to lower their tax financial burden – and lower spending. REALLY lower it if need be. But that option doesn’t exist, so it seem, in Jimenez-land.
The same goes for retail property in the era of online sales. In 2003, Concord’s Steeplegate Mall was assessed at $55.6 million; in 2019 its value was set at $10.3 million. In 1997 the Hoyt’s Cinema property was valued at $3.2 million; its 2019 pre-COVID assessment was $700,000 less and the theaters have been dark for most of 2020.
Meanwhile, the value of residential real estate, thanks to a housing shortage, low mortgage rates, and other factors, has been rising. That increase in wealth on paper becomes a growing burden, though, if the household income used to pay property taxes is flat or falling.
Local property taxes also jump when the state finds a new way to downshift costs to cities and towns, as it did when it stopped kicking in a portion of municipal worker pension costs. Similar downshifts could conceivably occur again as the state struggles to balance its pandemic budget.
Note to Jimenez – life happens and yes, we all know that consequences are gong to happen. When Govt spends like drunken sailors, of course taxpayers are going to take a short to the shorts IF they are electing wild spending representatives. It makes bad things worse and yes, Property taxes will go up IF the decision is that Government should never suffer a loss – the hair shirt will always be worn by the public and never their “public servants”.
These threats to homeowners’ ability to pay property taxes, or even hang onto their homes, coincide with the socially distanced meetings of yet another school funding commission – this one funded with a half-million dollars of taxpayer money. Its task is to determine the cost of an adequate education – it’s not the $4,502 the state claims – and find a constitutional way for the state to pay for it. The commission isn’t forbidden from recommending the levy of a broad-based tax, but, come on, this is New Hampshire.
Right – what he doesn’t acknowledge that it was Govt (this time, the judicial branch) that raised property taxes because a number of municipalities wanted yet other ones to socialize the bad decisions they had been making for years and essentially had to forgo that retail and commercial property tax.
And then, to borrow a word from brain dying Biden – the last part of the malarky:
My guess is there will be yet another attempt to amend the state constitution to shed the state’s responsibility to pay for an adequate education for every student and permit the targeting of limited state aid to the neediest districts. The low-balled state estimate for the cost of an adequate education, with current per-pupil spending topping $16,000, won’t stand. More money will be required.
The politically easiest way to raise the extra money would be to raise the statewide property tax. That means, guess what, homeowners and renters would have to pay even more. This column is a look through the glass darkly but it would be foolhardy, especially these days, to avert one’s eyes and hope all will be well.
Ayup – they will, thanks to the efforts of Selfish Socialist Andru Volinsky who has now safely ensconced himself into the belly of the Beast (and now wants to be the brains) who is, yet again, wants to raise not only your property taxes again but add to them with either an income tax or sales tax or both.
So, Ralph, you REALLY believe that adding MORE sources of revenue to Govt is REALLY going to lower the property taxes? That’s rather a moronic outlook and analogous to wishing that the fabled money tree, pixie dust, and unicorn actually exist. It also won’t work.
How come you didn’t reference NJ that has already showed us it ain’t so?
Tell us, do you lean or are Democrat Socialist for your envy that the rich aren’t paying their “fair” share?
(Ralph Jimenez lives in Concord and is a member of the Monitor’s editorial board.)
