Portsmouth rulers: taxpayers have no property

Besides property taxes in perpetuity, eminent domain is another example showing the hapless taxpayer really owns no property. Note the comments by the city's attorney (i.e., the person who acts to justify government actions). He says that the city "worked in good faith." What does this mean other than the dealership owner denied the city's tax funded offer? If a private individual made an offer and were denied, he would simply be out of luck and have to make other plans. The Portsmouth Rulers, instead, simply attempt to commandeer the Toyota property by force. Eminent domain belies any claim of "good faith," which really means the first warning: we're taking your property whether you like it or not.

At the other end, a man in a teepee is selling his land to the Portsmouth rulers, potentially at 60% more than the appraised land value. Who pays for this? The hapless taxpayer, of course! 

These wheelings and dealings benefit the politically connected at the expense of the vast majority. Not only are taxes mulcted from productive members of society, but the subsequent spending diverts resources to bureaucratic consumption (to promote their political power and buy votes).

GBKC wants a tax break? Good for them!

They should get it. So should anyone who asks for it. The Exeter government should simply spend less. Aren't you tired of paying your rents to the Exeter bureaucrats, who claim to own all our property?

Joe Lessard, of the "assessing department," (which works hand in glove with the tax collectors), claims that they didn't have enough information. More importantly, he states

The reason we're thorough is that an exemption doesn't make taxes go away. It just shifts the taxes to someone else to pay.

Completely wrong, Mr. Lessard. All you have to do is cut spending.  Lessard's comment shows that the government will get their dues, whether we peons like it or not. You think your property is yours? Guess again.

Big spending up in Concord

Why is a $65 million "surplus" applauded? What it means is that $65 million more in taxes was collected than "should" have ("should," according to the government budget). Will the hapless taxpayer see any of it returned to them? I wish I could keep my money to accumulate my own rainy day fund. Unfortunately, I have to spend it to keep the bureaucracy alive.

On who should pay taxes

A retiree is making the news by submitting a petition to make it easier to be exempt from property taxes. Good for him. He should get it. The best tax (and the only moral one) is no tax. 

Unfortunately, the article frames this no brainer as debate: if an elderly person is exempt, then a younger person must pay more in taxes. Some person, Peter Francese, thinks it’s “wrong.” (We don’t know what he means by that. Is it immoral? Is it mistaken? Who knows?) He is seen as an authority on this topic because he tracks population and demographics, and he claims that this forces young people to “subsidize” old people. 

He is completely wrong. In no way whatsoever does a tax cut for someone constitute a subsidy from another tax payer. If person A pays less in taxes, he is simply keeping his own money. To say that this is a subsidy is a blatant error of simple definitions. What Francese must mean is that if old people do not pay as high a tax, young people must pay more to make up the difference. Why, oh why does Mr. Francese not entertain the simple solution: cut government spending? If he is so concerned about subsidies, he should (must) support cutting government spending. It is the receivers of government money who are being subsidized: the public schools, the police (and their pensions), town bureaucrats, public works, etc.  Mr. Francese should support an end to the subsidies to these politically connected groups. 

At the end of the day, all the talk about the numbers is irrelevant. Whether the exemptions are $50k or $60k is completely arbitrary and politically determined. Taxes and government spending can and should be cut, drastically. If you want to reduce the former, you must lower the latter.

Surprise, surprise

The Exeter government needs to spend more money.

Dan Chartrand doesn't think it's enough a hike in how the government spends the money it expropriates from us. Perhaps he should go do some fundraising.

Dan Winham wants a parking lot. Maybe "we" can turn the town offices into one. That'll be a far better use of them to have a central location for paying our ransoms.

Live free or die--but only if you pay up first.