Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Missedanother1 t1_jeen3fx wrote

Ban it. The government’s issue is not that it doesn’t have enough revenue. The issue is spending. If you give the govt a dollar of your hard earned money, they will spend 4 dollars. Enough. Get them out of our pockets

−13

BelichicksBurner OP t1_jeeolym wrote

This tax doesn't even impact the vast majority of NH citizens in any way. This is one of those examples where if you want lower taxes...this is something that should remain in place. They should be finding ways to lower property taxes, not helping out wealthy families lower their tax rate. I want lower taxes and my wife and I make a decent amount of money. We're not saving a dollar if this goes away, just means that money will wind up coming from somewhere else.

19

WhoWhatWhereWhenHowY t1_jeeq466 wrote

They say more than half came from households with more than $200,000 in interest and dividend income. I would then assume that the other half came from those with less than $200,000 in interest/dividend income. That's where my problem would be with it.

I don't think full repeal is the best option here but I do think someone retiring expecting 40k a year from investments shouldn't need to pay additional tax.

4

FaustusC t1_jeeso16 wrote

Punishing people for investing in their retirement when the government won't cover their retirement is exactly why our government fucking sucks.

2

warren_stupidity t1_jeewf4h wrote

Iras and 401ks are exempt.

12

DeerFlyHater t1_jefl5ai wrote

Not everyone has access to 401Ks.

2

warren_stupidity t1_jefyh1h wrote

>Punishing people for investing in their retirement

I was responding to that comment. Everyone can put money in a tax deferred savings account, IRA, 401K SEP etc. They are all exempt.

0

WhoWhatWhereWhenHowY t1_jefaysf wrote

For many people those still aren't enough to retire on without something like social security. Nevermind if someone becomes disabled before they reach retirement age.

1

warren_stupidity t1_jefzt9k wrote

Yeah? So each individual gets a 2,400 exemption, so for people such as you are so concerned about, they will not have 2400 in interest or dividends to tax, so I am not understanding your concern.

4

CrowmanVT t1_jeggwds wrote

They also noted that this has no effect on 87% of NH residents. I'd be surprised if the majority of that group "under $200,000" weren't pretty close to that 200k threshold, not that it really matters.

As noted in the table in the article, in order to pay $500 to this tax a one would need between a $250,000 to $825,000 in investments to generate $10,000 in interest and or dividends. If you've got enough money invested to earn that kind of dough then you can afford the $500. If you have that kind of money and you can't afford the $500, take a long look in the mirror and try to figure out why you suck so bad at money management because it's not taxes that are screwing you, it's your own ineptitude.

  • I'm using "you" in the collective sense, not specifically #WhoWhatWhenWhenHowY
2

Missedanother1 t1_jeewea4 wrote

I understand why you think it is the wealthy that benefit. And to some extent that may be true. Interest and dividends are a vital way for many senior citizens to fund retirement. As inflation continues to eat away at buying power, the income that is generated by interest and/or dividends is crucial for many. Not just “rich people.” Keep in mind that as people approach retirement age, the amount required to maintain your standard log living will easily require a net worth over 1 million dollars? Is that rich? I guess the real debate is, what is rich and does that vary according to geography as well?

1

warren_stupidity t1_jefyv70 wrote

NH like just about every other state, cannot do deficits. They cannot spend 4 dollars for every dollar of taxes, they can spend approximately one dollar for every dollar of taxes.
Meanwhile, I know this will come as a shock, but it actually costs money to run a government and provide the infrastructure and services that a government provides.

5

Missedanother1 t1_jeg1wxe wrote

The $4 comment was somewhat tongue in cheek. It is a shock it costs money to run the govt. I appreciate the lesson. The one of the goals of govt should be to operate as efficiently as possible to not waste the taxpayers money. If it was capable of doing that quite possibly people might feel like they are getting a value for their hard earned money.

−1

smartest_kobold t1_jef1stt wrote

The government's going to get that rich asshole money one way or another and I'd rather it come through the IRS than a lobbyist.

1

Missedanother1 t1_jeewnox wrote

Other question is, why are we always looking to increase taxes and never really looking at operational efficiencies with the huge budget that states have? Same thing with the fed. They always want more. And we always get less.

−4

WapsuSisilija t1_jefjh6g wrote

There nothing left to squeeze from the fruit. That's the reality. Government is already lean and underfunded.

6

Missedanother1 t1_jefrty8 wrote

Hahah. Too funny. Govt lean and underfunded? It should be. After all most citizens are feeling that way too

−5

WapsuSisilija t1_jefux2o wrote

Other than the Police State which is way too large and over funded, please provide examples where you believe there are too many state or local government employees.

2

Missedanother1 t1_jeg2y1t wrote

Education Administration, police, and general govt admin. Cut 10% headcount and the same work could and would be done. Business does it every couple of years. Why can govt?
NH govt does a lot of things that I like fiscally. But anytime there is an opportunity to keep money that I have earned and use it, I will take it.

1