New Hampshire's Virtual Town Hall

Why are those who treasure the Constitution so quick to amend it?

Earlier this week, New Hampshire's House of Representatives voted (257-101) in favor of a constitutional amendment prohibiting a state income tax.

I question the need for such a measure. For starters, the anti-tax culture remains prevalent in New Hampshire:

New Hampshire has a long history of opposing an income tax. The House narrowly passed an income tax in 1999 during a debate over how to satisfy a state Supreme Court ruling on paying for public education, but the bill later died.

Taking an anti-income-tax pledge has been a ritual in gubernatorial elections in New Hampshire for years. Candidates who refused to vow to veto income and general sales taxes have, with one exception, been defeated.

The ritual of taking the pledge began with Gov. Wesley Powell, a Republican first elected in 1958. Republican Gov. Meldrim Thomson elevated it to a political sacrament in the 1970s with his slogan, "Ax the Tax." For years it was political suicide for any gubernatorial candidate to even entertain the possibility of a personal income or general sales tax.

Interpretation: It would take an act of God to get an income tax passed in this state.

Most legislators hold sacred the state and U.S. Constitution. It's used as a prop referenced in many political speeches. Yet, those who treasure the constitution are so quick to amend it.

State legislators have debated the merits of multiple amendments the past few years; gay marriage, education funding, and the state income tax.

Are they so arrogant to believe that current policy and climate will be applicable to future generations? There may come a time where my great grandchildren support a state income tax. Why force them to further desecrate the sanctity of Constitution?

My message to the Legislature: leave the Constitution alone. Pass laws, not amendments.

Tags: nh house, nh senate, property tax, taxes

Comment

You need to be a member of Live Free or Die Alliance to add comments!

Join Live Free or Die Alliance

Comment by Jeff Butler on January 30, 2012 at 12:15am: Regarding CACR 13: PROVIDING THAT: no new tax on personal income shall be levied by the state of New Hampshire.

To the best of my knowledge there are currently no proposals before the legislature introducing an income tax. Any bill or resolution to amend the constitution which proposes to ban something that is not a problem, but which may be a problem in the future is foolish.

Should we now ban any tax on space travel?

If a group of legislators want to prohibit a tax before it is proposed, then they are ruling out an option without knowing the circumstances or context which may exist at the time when such a tax may be proposed. Such actions are unwise and "destructive of the good and happiness of mankind."

Our General Court today ought to be informed by the historical wisdom of citizen lawmakers of the past, who considered the circumstances of their times and decided for (as they did from 1770 - 1833) or against an income tax for their times. They researched, debated, considered and voted. Who would preclude that process and the trust in the decisions of the General Court of the future? Is the current regime so afraid of losing their influence in the results of future elections?

The men and women who currently serve in our legislature have a duty to all of our state's citizens to propose, debate and consider matters for problems as they exist now with an eye towards the future. The appropriate course for opposition to an income tax is when one is proposed, rather than prohibiting one before it is proposed.

Will New Hampshire's current legislators expose themselves to the same kind of ridicule as the the clowns from Kansas who lobbied to overturn the second law of thermodynamics? Haven't we had enough ridicule of late with such asinine bills as the one to require all new legislation to footnote legal precedence in the Middle Ages?

We don't know the state of the economy of the future. We can't foresee the make up of wealth, incomes, expenditures, debt or the challenges and blessings of tomorrow. With all due regard and respect for our forefathers, they could not know the world as we face it today. Yet, they had the foresight to create a constitution and bill of rights that were flexible and could be amended for conditions in the future. Who are we to rule out anything for our children or our children's children?

Reading through the history of New Hampshire taxes, it is clear that the foundation has been based on ability to pay. In the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, incomes were primarily derived through crafts, merchant and agricultural productivity. Wealth, income and ability to pay was proportional to ownership of tools, warehouses, and land. As industry and the financial sector expanded, particularly banking and insurance, the state came to rely on taxing corporations and deposits. From the latter part of the nineteenth century, technology like railroads and utilities provided additional sources of revenue. Throughout the twentieth century the state's economic base was transformed from its early beginnings of producing and marketing sheep and nails, to an industrial base and growth of the financial sector, to a service, technology, and intellectual base of today.

For a period, property taxation was a neat trick we played to avoid taxing residents who depended on government infrastructure and services, by having out-of-staters pay property taxes without much in return, except enjoying our scenery. That strategy worked so well we instituted rooms and meals taxes to further reduce the tax burden on residents. Let's not forget the marketing genius of state-owned ski areas, low-taxed state liquor stores and low-tax