The Sullivan County NH Republican Committee

Tag: Education Funding

  • Insufficient and Unfair, or Just Misdiagnosed?

    The Democratic case in brief

    The argument starts with a moral contrast. New Hampshire is a wealthy state, yet its budgets allegedly underfund core needs such as housing, clean energy, public safety, and education. Four points drive the claim.

    1. Leaders say “no funds available,” which is presented as a choice rather than a constraint.
    2. High local property taxes are displacing homeowners and renters.
    3. The tax code is regressive, with lower-income households paying a higher share of income in state and local taxes than top earners.
    4. Public education funding is described as constitutionally inadequate, which forces property-poor towns to raise unsustainable local taxes.

    From there comes the prescription. Shift away from heavy reliance on local property taxes and raise more money from high earners and corporations. The goal is a bigger, more centralized revenue base that can stabilize services statewide.

    “A wealth-rich state with cash-poor towns needs a broader tax base so the wealthy and corporations pay a larger share.”

    The conservative/libertarian critique

    Start with first principles. New Hampshire’s tax structure reflects a deliberate choice for local control, transparent taxation, and restraint on broad income and sales taxes. That choice limits state growth, forces tradeoffs, and keeps government legible to voters. Centralized taxes create a ratchet. Rates rise, programs multiply, baselines harden, and the promised reversals never arrive.

    “No funds available” is responsible budgeting, not a moral failure. Budgets exist to force priorities. More dollars are not reform. Results are reform. If a housing or energy program underdelivers, the fix is design, governance, and permitting, not an open spigot.

    Property taxes are imperfect but accountable. They are visible and adjustable at the local level. The real pain points are predictable. Seniors on fixed incomes and working families in fast-appreciating markets. Use targeted relief. Circuit breaker credits tied to income. Larger veteran and elderly exemptions. Homestead adjustments for primary residences. Then fix the supply. Zoning and permitting reform will do more to ease property tax pressure than a statewide income tax that never sunsets.

    Regressivity claims need context. Incidence studies rarely net out the value of services received. A low-income family with children in public school receives an enormous in-kind benefit that does not show up as a tax offset. They also treat taxpayer behavior as static. New Hampshire attracts people and investment precisely because it does not tax wages. Import an income tax and you import slower growth.

    Education funding is a structural problem, not a slogan problem. Courts can define a floor, but they cannot produce learning by decree. Spending is a weak proxy for quality. Reform the structure. Expand charter seats where waitlists exist. Keep Education Freedom Accounts available to lower and middle-income families. Tie aid to students and transparent outcomes. Negotiate benefit costs with real discipline. Empower principals on staffing and procurement. These are levers that move achievement without promising miracles from new taxes.

    “Make the wealthy and corporations pay more” often shrinks the base you need. High earners are mobile. Capital is more mobile still. New Hampshire’s regional edge is the absence of a wage tax. Protect the edge. Grow the base. Do not chase a headline rate that erodes the future you intend to fund.

    “You can raise the rate and watch the base leave, or you can keep the edge and watch the base grow.”

    A forward plan that respects tradeoffs

    This is not do nothing. It is do the hard things first.

    • Radical transparency on costs and outcomes. Publish unit costs and results for every state grant stream and local line item in plain language. Per pupil spending next to proficiency. Special education outlays next to compliance and progress. Housing dollars next to units delivered and time to permit. Use multiple measures so no single metric becomes a gameable target.
    • Targeted property tax relief, not a new income tax. Strengthen circuit breakers for homeowners and renters with low to moderate incomes. Expand elderly and veteran exemptions. Make the application fit on a phone. Fund it by reprioritizing existing spending, not by creating a permanent statewide tax.
    • Grow supply and the tax base. Time limits on permits. By proper approval for conforming projects. Predictable stormwater and driveway standards. The carrying costs of delay are a hidden tax. Cut that tax.
    • Tackle school cost drivers. Health and retirement benefits, staffing rules, and procurement inflate local levies. Bargain in the open. Cap employer premium shares at sustainable levels. Standardize plan designs. Share services across districts to save real money and preserve quality.
    • Fund students, not systems. Expand family-directed funding where it works. EFAs and charters increase bargaining power for parents and pressure all schools to improve. Align state dollars with students, not just with static district formulas.
    • Safeguard the competitive tax climate. Keep the no-income-tax advantage. If a narrow, high-value priority truly needs new revenue, tie it to an automatic sunset and an off-ramp. Do not let “temporary” become baseline.

    What this means for justice and prosperity

    The Democratic case is correct that tradeoffs are real and that many towns feel squeezed. It goes wrong when it treats the revenue mix as the master variable. New Hampshire’s strength is a culture of local control, visible taxation, and pro-growth discipline. Fix the structures that waste dollars. Aim relief where it is genuinely needed. Grow the base by making it easier to build, work, invest, and educate. Do those things and you will deliver more justice and more prosperity without importing a tax ratchet that erodes the very edge New Hampshire uses to win.

  • Biblical Blunders and Marxist Echoes in NH Tax Debate

    By Tom Luther

    I continue to think out loud while the litigation of the Volinsky retirement plan and legislative changes to education are being finalized. I gave a second reading to The Last Bake Sale to fully explore my opposition to the arguments presented.

    Having previously rejected his attempts to link racism, segregation, and civil rights legislation to education funding, I come to a more troubling part of his argument.

    He explains the NH tax history in terms that cast property tax as substantially identical to income tax. He makes no secret of his desire to impose an income tax on NH. What is surprising is that he paints income taxes as a tool to redress the racism he finds in education. I have heard many arguments for the greater good, but never once have I seen someone try to defend imposing income taxes for their ability to redress racism. It’s a stretch, to put it mildly.

    In addition, he attempts to convince the reader of the acceptability of income taxes with a glaring biblical falsehood. The full quote is in brackets below:

    [Perhaps the tax philosophy was influenced by the New Testament, Matthew 25:15 (“from each according to his ability and to each according to his need”). Of course, this is also Marxist theory, but don’t tell anyone.]

    A cursory glance at numerous translations of Matthew 25:15 reveals a market-capitalism translation: variable compensation based on contributions. The Parable of the Talents has many variations, but not one of them informs Marxism. Substantially all of them are opposed to Marxism.

    I find this troubling because it leaves me with two possible explanations for such blatant butchery of the truth. Does he admire Trump and consciously emulate his “bigly” contentious and confrontational style? Why would he conflate Christianity and Marxism while bastardizing a biblical reference? Is this just offense for the sake of publicity?

    The second possibility is even worse. He wants an income tax so badly he is willing to invoke religious conflict to get it. War is politics by more violent means, to reverse the paraphrase. He plainly is willing to risk civil war to impose an income tax. Odd approach for a lawyer pretending to champion civil rights.

    I suspect that his politics are so centralizing and communitarian that this may be a Freudian slip of the typewriter; he may be such a communist that he can’t resist quoting Marxist theory, even when communism is nowhere in sight.

    In contrast, I will close with two quotes from F.A. Hayek’s Individualism:

    There is all the difference in the world between treating people equally and attempting to make them equal. While the first is the condition of a free society, the second means, as De Tocqueville described it, “a new form of servitude.”

    With this in mind, I no longer see Volinsky as an education funding reformer. Misguided, confused, a constitutional wrecking ball—yes, all of the above. But up until this point, I was willing to yield to reasonable doubt. No longer.

    I now see him as fundamentally agnostic with regard to education. This is someone with a crowbar breaking into the constitutional house. He did not choose education because he cares, any more than the thief chooses the window out of love. He chose weakness. This is a single-minded attack on the NH Constitution. All politics, all the time. The kids are casualties in his war for power to redistribute other people’s money as he sees fit.

    Just as Trump said he was going to build the wall if elected, so does Volinsky commit to imposing an income tax—by any means necessary. This is not a misguided sheep. This is not a wolf in sheep’s clothing. This is a wolf. Take him at his word. He wants an income tax in NH. He will let nothing stand in his way.

    A final quote from Hayek to show just how fine the line is between good and evil:

    “The true democratic principle,” he wrote, “that none shall have power over the people, is taken to mean that none shall be able to restrain or to elude its power. The true democratic principle, that the people shall not be made to do what it does not like, is taken to mean that it shall never be required to tolerate what it does not like. The true democratic principle, that every man’s will shall be as unfettered as possible, is taken to mean that the free will of the collective people shall be fettered in nothing.”

    Blog post contributed by Tom Luther