A Sullivan County Republican Committee View: Why the Property Tax Narrative Misses the Point

In New Hampshire, property taxes are not a theoretical issue. They show up in escrow payments, rent increases, and “maybe we should move” conversations at kitchen tables across Sullivan County. So when we hear speeches and posts claiming that property taxes are high because Republicans “shifted burdens,” “broke promises,” or “underfunded” education, we think the public deserves a more serious explanation than a blame story.

Here is our view, grounded in a conservative approach to public policy: focus on incentives, tradeoffs, and results. If a claim cannot survive that treatment, it is not a solution. It is a slogan.

1) Blame is not analysis

A lot of funding rhetoric leans heavily on motives and villains. It implies that if you can identify the “bad people” who caused the problem, then the policy work is basically done.

We reject that approach. It turns budget debates into morality plays and it distracts from the real questions: What drives costs? What drives outcomes? What reforms change behavior instead of just rerouting money?

2) “The state only pays X percent” is not the whole story

We often hear arguments like, “New Hampshire is dead last because the state pays only a small share of education spending.” Even if the share number is accurate, a share statistic by itself does not prove the system is underfunded or unfair.

A low state share can simply mean New Hampshire funds education differently than other states. The relevant questions are:

• How much is spent in total, per student, and how has that changed?
• What are the outcomes for students?
• What parts of the budget are growing fastest and why?

If you want to persuade taxpayers, show the full picture. Do not ask them to accept a verdict based on a single slice of a complicated system.

3) The cost side is treated like fate

We think the most revealing feature of many “the state should pay more” arguments is what they leave out: the drivers of spending growth.

If special education costs are rising, if healthcare and benefits are rising, if administrative layers grow faster than enrollment, if maintenance is deferred until buildings become emergency projects, those are not minor details. They are core reasons property tax pressure persists year after year.

A plan that focuses mostly on increasing state dollars without confronting spending incentives is not a plan. It is a request for a larger blank check.

4) More state funding can create the wrong incentives

We are not opposed to the state contributing to education. But we are clear-eyed about how subsidies change behavior.

When a higher level of government pays more of the bill, the local political cost of spending goes down. That makes spending easier and restraint harder. It also creates a permanent lobbying cycle for expanded aid, because once something is subsidized it quickly becomes “normal,” and any attempt to reduce it is treated as a crisis.

If someone proposes raising the state share, they should also propose structures that prevent predictable cost inflation. Otherwise the outcome is simple: spending rises and taxpayers still lose.

5) “Business tax cuts caused the problem” is usually weakly supported

We also hear claims that Republicans cut business taxes because “trickle-down economics,” and therefore revenue shortages forced higher property taxes.

This argument typically lacks the serious evidence it would need to justify major tax policy changes. If you are going to claim business tax policy caused slower growth or reduced revenue in a way that meaningfully drove property tax burdens, you need more than a talking point. You need time windows, comparisons, and controls for other drivers like migration, housing costs, and economic cycles.

In short: show your work.

6) School choice is not “lost revenue,” it is accountability pressure

We view education dollars as belonging to families and taxpayers, not to systems. When families seek alternatives, it is often because they believe the current system is not delivering the outcomes they were promised at the price they are paying.

School choice is not primarily about “defunding.” It is about competition and accountability. Monopoly systems tend to become expensive, insulated, and slow to reform. Choice introduces feedback. That is why it is controversial, and that is also why it matters.

7) Property taxes can be unfair, but we should measure it honestly

Property taxes can hit lower-income households hard, and renters feel property taxes too because they are baked into rent. Retirees can be especially vulnerable when income is fixed and assessments rise.

But if we are going to talk about regressivity, we should do it carefully. That means accounting for renters, exemptions, credits, and the difference between income and assets. We should look at total tax burden, not just one tax, and we should not use selective statistics to manufacture certainty.

What we support: reform that changes incentives

We believe the best path forward is not a bigger blame campaign or a bigger funding pipeline. It is structural reform that forces tradeoffs and rewards results.

That includes:

• Transparent, comparable budget reporting that taxpayers can actually understand
• Clear tracking of cost drivers, including special education, benefits, and administration
• Procurement and construction discipline so “temporary” spending does not become permanent debt
• Serious academic accountability tied to spending growth
• More educational options so families are not trapped in one system regardless of performance

Conclusion

We take property tax pressure seriously. We also take policy seriously. We are not interested in narratives that treat spending as destiny and higher revenue as the only adult response.

Sullivan County taxpayers deserve solutions that confront incentives, measure outcomes, and tell the truth about tradeoffs. Anything less is politics pretending to be economics.