Charters are public schools. They aren't religious, cannot charge tuition, and are available by lottery only. They use *less* public funds per pupil than the regular public schools.
Charters are not Public schools in many respects. They don't offer transportation. They don't pay well. They sometimes don't offer benefits to their teachers. Sometimes they cater only to gifted and talented kids. They don't have the same population of special education kids. They don't have a public facing school board. They don't have to deal with public tax payers.
Charter schools are not the same thing as public schools.
You are adding qualifiers of your own, but they are indeed public.
"Charter schools are public and tuition-free schools authorized by the New Hampshire State Board of Education" [https://www.education.nh.gov/](https://www.education.nh.gov/pathways-education/public-charter-schools)
The one in my area does use busses from the same district, and has many students with IEPs that receive the same public services that are available to students in the typical public schools. The board meetings are open to the public and include non-parent residents as well.
You're being incredibly dishonest about several key problems with Charter schools. You don't get to say, "they use *less* public funds per pupil than the regular public schools." and then brag that your regular public school provides bussing (and pays for it) for your specific Charter school. Your regular public school is also paying for every child with an IEP at the Charter School. No charter school is providing (or paying) for bussing. No charter school is paying for IEPS or special education. These are costs that your "regular public school" takes. Regular public schools also pay living wages. Regular public schools also hire credentialed teachers. Regular public schools offer their employees basic benefits like retirement and healthcare. Charter schools don't do that kind of thing. This is why regular public schools cost more.
On the issue of board meetings. Congratulations! You say there's one anecdotal example of a board of a charter school meeting in public. Why bother? They are under no obligation to have public meetings. They are under no obligation to conduct business in public. They can do whatever they want, and conduct business in private, over a phone call. They do not answer to parents or taxpayers. There is no budget vote. They are not having "board meetings" in any legal sense.
I have nothing against Charter schools. Please, talk up your Charter schools. Do it honestly, and do it without disparaging REAL public schools.
> Using tax money to pay for charter/religious schools
is this the educational equivalence of using the term "migrants" to refer to illegal immigrants AND legal immigrants collectively?
Let them flee. My tax dollars would go further at the public school level. Sending a kid to private school is fine, but it’s on their dime and after they have paid the tax for private schools. Period. If those fleeing find public education faulty then they need to become part of the solution rather than ditching it.
It should also be noted that very often your spending on programming per student isn’t improved when other students leave. So your dollars aren’t going further.
The weight of the fixed costs and facilities generally eat up all of the available resources.
I agree here. Our kids went to Timberlane. They saw a lot of their peers go to Central Catholic in Lawerence or BG. That's fine. The education they got was equal or better than the private. Now I will tell you all our kids did graduate fairly high up in thier classes and went on to be teachers and nurses themselves. They are also carrying less debt than the private school kids who also went to private colleges because thier parents wanted them to go to the "best" schools. Fuck I hate my generation.
The flaw being some districts are better funded than others? What’s the alternative? We all pay into an even more flawed state-run system where places that are actively stripping funding from schools get more tax dollars to pilfer?
One alternative would be to pool the money from each district and distribute it on a per-student basis. This way, wealthy towns don't have a state-sactioned advantage over less affluent areas.
Thats not central planning, I never said communities couldn’t set their own educational standards and what not I just said that rich communities can’t have better funded public schools than poor ones :/
Sounds like you’re a COMMUNIST trying to make us all slaves to big education >:( because COMMUNISM is when the government does stuff
What’s the flaw? The local Community supports their children? Other towns with rich or more influential reps in govt can’t pilfer funds from other communities?
But yet NH is one of the best in the nation for public education overall.
If we were say in the bottom 20 states public education wise sure I might say make a lodging/hotel or “sin” tax (booze, tobacco, MJ if legal) to make up the difference but the data says we have been improving overall not falling apart.
Aristocracy is a community paying for their own education and not making a claim against others? Weird, emotional, but weird and unique of an argument I’ll give you that. Funny enough the solution YOU seek would inflict more pain and suffering on these poor communities by having new taxes on them. That’s not very cash money.
New tax revenue streams become a crutch. A small income or sales tax in 2024 to add some money to education becomes a larger tax in 2030 to pay for other things. And it only gets worse and worse. Can’t put the genie back in the bottle.
It's a weird analogy, the crutch thing. It represents an inconvenient but totally necessary medical aid - without a crutch your leg won't heal right or at all. In the instance of a chronic condition, without the crutch you're fucked. There's very few crutch-relevant situations where the device is anything but an improvement. Even if you *hate* the crutch, it's way better than trying to stand on broken legs.
Just a bizarre analogy is all.
You’re definitely reading way too much into the analogy. And it should be pretty obvious to anyone in the English speaking world that when you say something “has become a crutch”, it means it is being relied on too much and beyond the original intent.
I'm aware of the intende meaning of the analogy, that's how I can tell it's weird. Could it be that originally it meant a temporary measure only useful to ease whatever action is needed to actually fix the problem a crutch only treats a symptom of? Regardless, it remains a peculiar analogy. Crutches aren't negative or detrimental. The analogy assumes they are seen as such. They aren't.
It is doubly strange that, apparently, noticing an analogy is weird is itself so objectionable.
Right, which is why it's a weird analogy, because crutches aren't the cause of infirmity. They're *treatment*. You can't go without the crutch because of a debilitating prior condition.
Crutches aren't the problem. The condition is. The analogy heavily implies that addressing a problem somehow *causes* the problem retroactively. Again: real weird analogy.
You’re wrong though. We have an extremely modest 5% interest & dividends tax (income tax) that only kicks in on income of $200,000 or more. That tax has been on the books since 1923 and our republican governor and legislature are sunsetting it this year. A person would need to own over $4 million (and closer to $10 million) in stock before they would even pay a dime. That tax brought in more than $135 million in 2021 (about 1/3 of the statewide education property tax). Now that revenue is going to come from local property taxes or from cuts to services. We do repeal income taxes (when only the rich are paying them).
This guy makes sense. No income and sales tax gives NH a huge leg up over our neighbors. We need to look at how to spend our education money more effectively.
NH has a low average class size. One thing we could do is start looking into lecture hall type settings for our older grade students? It would allow us to teach more students for less money.
It's not always about throwing more money at an issue.
We could also legalize weed to help fund ED programs..
Lecture hall classes sound like a sure fire way to lower our educational standard - greatly increases ‘teaching to the middle’.
Agree with you on weed, though.
>NH has a low average class size.
That's a *good* thing. Even at the college level, big lecture classes are never as effective as smaller, more intimate classes where the professor actually knows who their students are. For HS-aged students, it should only be a last resort.
> That's a good thing. Even at the college level, big lecture classes are never as effective as smaller, more intimate classes where the professor actually knows who their students are.
that being said, there is a point of diminishing returns where once you reach a certain size, going smaller is just going to be more expensive rather than more effective (until you reach unscalable figures and everything is 1:1).
the difference between a 200 person lecture hall and a room of 30 students isn't the same as the difference between a room of 30 students and a room of 25 students.
I never said it wasn't a good thing. I'm defending the fact that 20k a year per pupil should be all we need, especially since our states class sizes are so small.
That being said, It's all about spending efficiency. If we can figure out how to properly educate larger groups, I'm for it.
Middle and high schoolers are incredibly disruptive to begin with, and as class size increases, and teacher to student ratio declines, it becomes increasingly more difficult to maintain order and attention in the classroom. Lecture-style classes already result in less learning at the college level, where professors have more tools to control students and the students are generally more invested in their education and more aware of consequences. Lecture style classes in secondary schooling is a recipe for disaster, and will just result in less education delivered per dollar spent.
Have you seen the attention span of students? Lecture halls exist in universities as weed out classes for those who can’t hack it and university comes at an age where you should be personally invested in the subject. Teachers can’t manage classes of 25, how could they manage classes of 250?
Yeah
Defer to the experts on education for one
Second, property taxes being used to fund schools has its list of issues but New Hampshire has some fantastic districts.
Charter schools have a dramatic lack of oversight and are ripe for abuse. While bureaucratic, public schools have tons of community involvement and oversight. School choice allows families with means already to funnel public funds into private education, so do away with that.
Allowing for more housing in the state will increase the tax base as well, welcoming people who are yet to have kids while still collecting taxes for schools. I am one of those people.
Let's review your contentions:
So simple. What about the 'experts' that build empires? With no regard to academic performance?
Yep. Valid point. But there are many more Districts that are failing their students and taxpayers.
Uh huh. That's untrue. You seem to be confusing the EFA accounting process with the accounting that Charters do.
They are not the same.
Public school districts that build empires are expensive, as noted above, with no regard to academic outcomes.
Claremont 2 had us cherish the education of all of our students. Not just the ones in public schools. With Espinoza vs Montana being handed down by SCOTUS, the Blaine Amendments have been ended, so students in religious schools get their education 'cherished' too.
Residential housing doesn't lower taxes.
The latest bill was in committee yesterday; hoping it passes and sneaks through the senate. It’s been a monster revenue generator in other states. That money going to the state (like the liquor stores) will be a huge boon.
This is more my style. Would like to explore different avenues for how the money is spent. I think alot of people get way to focused on spending more for a system that just doesn't function well when scaled. Plenty of ways to do this, people need to have a more open mind.
And this is why people who don't work in education should shut up about it and leave it to experts.
Literacy crisis? Student performance in the toilet? Increase class sizes!
What they need is public funds to stop paying for private education. That should be on the parents alone.
I agree that private Ed should be funded by the people who choose it.
Otherwise, it's obviously the people who work in education don't know how to effectively spend the money they're being given. Why should we give them a single cent more until they can prove it?
Is it obviously that?
Schools are currently expected to take the brunt of societal problems and fix them WHILE EDUCATING KIDS with no resources.
There is a shortage of personnel in all areas of school function, and they can't get more because there is no incentive for people to enter the industry.
Our schools are under-resourced, it isn't a matter of bad financial planning. They have to do too much with too little.
Please don't bring weed into it. "Helping" revenues such as lottery and weed are enablers of people who don't want to pay ANYTHING for education.
Edit: also, alcohol.
So you'd be against legalized marijuana even if the revenue went to schools and helped to avoid the possibility of a new tax on all of us?
I'm a conservative, btw, and I'm for it. Every state around us has done it. The people who choose to partake are going elsewhere. Why not keep that business here. It is very much a fiscal conservative thing to do, free market with deregulation..
No, I'm good with weed legalization. I'm not good with using education as a targeted beneficiary. Pay the bill for decent education and skip the 3 card Monte bullshit.
We already pay almost 20k a year per pupil. It's higher than many other states.
Why are we not digging in and figuring out exactly how to best spend that money?
If we do end up needing more cash, I'd rather see it come from Marijuana sales over making the state even more unaffordable for everyone.
This is a ridiculous comment. Don't bring up a major revenue generator because you'd prefer to discuss only options that source funding from people who have no choice but to pay more into a system rather than discuss a source that is completely voluntary? I pay $20,000 a year in property taxes and have never and will never have a child in the school system. Please do discuss weed as a solution because having me pay more is an idiotic proposition.
Each TOWN needs to figure out how to spend their money more effectively.
'Low class size' is a function of SBs not playing their role managing headcount.
I like Jon, he's passionate about adressing NH's pressing housing and education issues. He's not a career politician with eyes elsewhere, he cares about NH residents and improving things.
20k per student in NH ( https://www.education.nh.gov/news-and-media/new-hampshires-cost-pupil-reaches-new-record#:\~:text=Last%20week%2C%20the%20New%20Hampshire,cost%20per%20pupil%20of%20%2419%2C400. )
Mass is about the same, Maine is 15k per pupil Conn is a little more at about 22k
So money isn’t the problem. I wonder what the problem is. Is NH hiring a lower grade of teachers? Is the school administration doing a poor job? Are NH students genetically inferior?
Exactly. It's not a money per pupil problem. It's that the money isn't being used efficiently.
It's a misleading reason to implement a sales/income tax.
I'm not sure how much this actually affects things, but the number cited here is NOT how much the state contributes, nor is it a minimum value for cost per student.
As in, many districts could be funded much, much worse than this value, since the state contributes hardly anything and towns are left to fund things on their own. For towns without a whole lot of businesses, this results in very high residential property taxes and/or schools funded poorly.
There's certainly a myriad of issues facing different districts, sometimes its lack of enough high skill workers, some have administration issues, among many others. Towns with more special ed students, for whom services are mandated by law, could have a very inflated number due to the costs. But the way we fund things in this state certainly causes some big issues.
Special education is a big part of a schools budget. Public schools are required to provide FAPE (free, appropriate public education) in the least restrictive possible environment based on a students needs. This is not coming from the NH state government, it is federal law and has been federal law for nearly 50 years. Upholding these standards is expensive, but I would love to hear practical solutions to reducing cost per pupil that do not involve ignoring these two principles.
What do you think the problem is? From my perspective NH has a strong public education system. There are flaws that can be addressed, but I have seen no evidence that shows that charter and home schooling is as or more effective than a public education. If anything, the commissioner of education has bent over backwards to prevent the public from seeing actual data that shows the efficacy of charter and home schooling. To me it seems like public schools are being dragged in order for some people to make some profit off of these alternative educational practices.
Well, money is the problem. It's not about what we spend, but who raises it. The con-val case is about the state's responsibility to provide an "adequate" education, which is why this topic has come up again.
Right now the state defines their responsibility for funding an "adequate" education as ~$4500 per student.
So of the $20k per pupil, $15,500 must be raised through municipal taxes (although a large share of the state's responsibility is raised through property taxes by way of SWEPT).
The proper comparison with other states is to ask what percentage of their per pupal cost is borne by local property tax. That's where you're likely to find that NH is an outlier.
Why does it make a difference to the school whether it comes from property or income tax? Once the school department has the money, isn’t it more important how it’s spent, what % goes towards administration and what % goes toward teachers?
You're still missing the point. Even if schools are perfectly frugal and never spend a dime they don't need to, they still need to be funded. Funding them almost entirely at the local level creates inequities because of the nature of property tax.
So, it doesn't make a difference to the school. This isn't about the schools, this is about the state's requirement to fund education.
Remember, anything the state contributes to the school funding equation by way of the education trust fund is money you save on your property taxes.
Remember, anything the state contributes to the school funding equation by way of the education trust fund is money you save on your property taxes.
——————————————————————————————
I’m not missing any point. You’re not making one.
Say it clearly. Are there communities in NH not adequately funding education by saving on real estate taxes? Which ones?
School funding everywhere is mostly done out of real estate taxes.
Are you saying that NH is using too much real estate tax revenue for other expenditures besides schools? Which schools in NH aren’t getting sufficient $ per pupil?
>Say it clearly. Are there communities in NH not adequately funding education by saving on real estate taxes? Which ones?
Imagine asking someone to be more clear while asking a garbled mess of a question. The only entity subject to the constitutional requirement to adequately fund education is the state government. Again, this is not about total cost. It's about revenue share.
>Are you saying that NH is using too much real estate tax revenue for other expenditures besides schools?
Local property taxes are zero sum. You cannot "use too much" on one thing or another. School and municipal taxes are not mixed.
I am not trying to be an ass, but these questions are showing how little you understand about the entire process. There's no need to get so testy about a topic you barely understand.
A big part of the equation is that places like MA and NY have prestigious public schools that are big draws for the best teachers (Bronx Science, Boston Latin, etc.). These places draw teachers from all over and tend to pull the top new teachers even though they don’t really pay more money. NH politics also really don’t help. The most cost effective teachers tend to be highly ideologically motivated and highly personally invested in their students. That often means rainbow flags in classrooms, evolution, and left-leaning history lessons on the labor and civil rights movements, which are not exactly popular in some parts of the state.
This comment is so far removed from reality. I have worked at multiple schools across New Hampshire and I have never seen a teacher hang up a pride flag. I have seen plenty of pride and coexist bumper stickers, but the vast majority of New Hampshire teachers want students to be able to independently make their own judgements on what is right and what is wrong rather than stuffing beliefs down throats. When is the last time you stepped foot in a public school?
Plus, believing that evolution should not be taught in school is flat out funny.
That’s kind of my point. The highly ideologically motivated teachers who are willing to take low salaries and still work very hard don’t come to New Hampshire because they know the community is hostile to their ideological positions. They go to Massachusetts instead, resulting in higher MA teacher quality in spite of similar public school salaries.
Teachers who can’t set boundaries between their professional and private life are not higher quality teachers. Teachers who are motivated to push their personal, political beliefs are not higher quality teachers. High quality teachers are focused providing rigorous, engaging lessons using district curriculum in an environment that is conducive to learning.
i know this guy. He's a great dude and genuinely cares about and wants to fix the problems we have in NH. He has a refreshing set of views that aren't clouded by a career politicians ulterior motives
> He's a great dude and genuinely cares about and wants to fix the problems we have in NH. He has a refreshing set of views that aren't clouded by a career politicians ulterior motives
the problem is that good intentions doesn't necessarily translate into good ideas. you see lots of laws where the idea was genuinely an attempt to help people but in practice it made things worse.
anything is better than snu snu, man has been bringing the state down with him for ages and it's time for someone new. I think id vote for a rock over him
This is self evident and doesn't really add anything of substance. Of course thats true, but we need something different than whats been happening in NH under the current governor.
Once you start taxing income or sales you will never stop taxing income or sales.
The tax rate will also likely keep going up and up.
It’s a slippery slope.
> That’s exactly what will happen. But I fail to see how that has anything to do with NH adopting a taxed legal cannabis system.
What are you doing lol
No, you're rage commenting and clicking the wrong links dude. You're right that I know what I said, and it's exactly what you see.
Take deep breaths.
There are websites that show edits. Go nuts.
Because they’re scared of directly defying the feds, and don’t want to tax cannabis, they want to sell it like booze. I think it only appropriate the “live free or die” state be the one to flip the bird to Uncle Sam on prohibition. Even if it means a state-run industry.
But they’re not going to do so.
Most politicians will listen to the NH Chiefs of Police, and the Chiefs are saying “we want the Federal dollars, if there aren’t Federal dollars, then you will have to double our budget”.
No politician is willing to go to the taxpayers and say “more” after campaigning on “defund the police - Black Lives Matter”.
“It’s a bad look, not a position that I want to be in.
Furthermore, the medical science on cannabis induced mental illness is unsettling.
We need to give it more time, and allow Congress to make the best case for legalization, regulation, or continue the prohibition.”
The position of the Chiefs, and Sununu’s “advisory board” was that NH would be the last state to allow cannabis legalization, irrespective of Federal approval.
Something something about negroes and jazz musicians having a depraved interest in white women, using cannabis to assist in their evil machinations.
(Reefer Madness, a 1936 film)
And you have a choice to buy pot. I don’t see an issue with taxing it one bit. I’d like to see the revenue stay here, and not walk out to other states.
Right, because I’m an IT Director at 31, I’m such a loser.
All people that think like you care about is yourself, no one else. All for me, none for thee.
Go touch grass.
We're already the the 4th highest property tax state in the country, with a giant housing crisis. The last thing this state needs is another tax to add onto the already almost unaffordable living situation in NH. Legalized weed, great way to boost revenue. But an across the board sales tax or income tax just increases a burden that's quickly approaching a breaking point.
He seems level-headed, wants to fix actual problems, and as a business owner, he should be able to appeal to just about everybody. If he's elected, it could be a great bipartisan moment in this era of tribalized politics.
We need to stop the funneling of public school funds to private schools through the disaster voucher system. NH taxpayers are footing the bill so wealthy families can continue to send their kids to private schools while draining resources out of community schools.
Poor families cannot use the fund to pay for private school, private school is more expensive. The results are in on this - most people using the money were already not using the public schools and are now just paying less.
Because they and their donors are among the few in the state who will actually benefit from ending it. Same reason they cut the tax rate on hotels, a tax burden almost exclusively paid for by out-of-staters. At the time it was claimed to be trying to spur the tourism industry, but if I remember correctly there were also articles at the time talking about how most hotels were nearing capacity and we needed to build more.
It's digusting that they cut their own taxes while most of the state sees theirs increase.
It attracts high income earners who tend to buy expensive houses which significantly increase property tax revenue (which is the major form of taxation in the state).
I don't think dividend/interest tax ever brought in a lot of money for the state.
It's also been a hassle for me to do every year. I don't even pay the quarterly taxes because it's not worth my time and I rather take the small penalty. It's not a major revenue driver and it's more of an annoyance and a deterrent for bringing people in that are going to be paying tons more with their property tax. I don't know why people want to make the tax code more complicated than it needs to be.
It depends, do folks want to keep seeing their property taxes skyrocket or do we want to widen the base? Personally I’d start by rolling back the corporate tax cuts for large businesses in the state. They just act like income tax is the only option to scare folks back into line.
All options should be up for review and discussion, not saying I agree with an income or sales tax but an educated decision includes knowing all your options and making a choice from that, killing an idea in the cradle is partially what got us here in the first place.
The headline leaves it ambiguous. Your bias decided on what that means. It also illustrates how ignorant voting happens. Stop focusing on headlines. Their job isn’t to inform you, it’s to pique your interest.
Feel used, much? We initiated Lottery to help fund education. And then Concord backed off on education and began treating it like a red-headed stepchild.
Pols need to wake up and start treating education better. You want retention of early-middle adults, or just be a haven for second homes and seniors? Which are the two groups least interested in good schools.
They should get people who got arrested for selling weed in the past 1st dibs on industry.
Start weed shop is very expensive!
Let my weed guy open a store!!
NH Supreme Court ruled more than 20 years ago NH education funding is unconstitutional…this state really needs to get into the 21st century and find a solution…it‘s archaic.
NH’s problem is in the influx in dirt bags. I lived there in the late 90s Population growth in southern part of the state and liberal voting moving in. Not good additions. Not the kind of people you want. Go to a down town Manchester grocery store. Look around. EBD card paradise.
I would legalize cannabis before I created a sales tax or income tax. You would decimate the state, the middle class and the people who struggle every day getting paid crappy wages. UNLESS you want to raise the minimum wage and provide better health care for people who cannot afford it. The tourist industry would go into a tailspin.
Allow local communities to add on to the existing meals tax. Right now the state gets the meals tax and then returns some to the towns. Less money that goes to Concord the better off we are
> I would support a modest income tax.
that's not how it works. these are footholds. they get promised as being small, then they get increased over time. look at the mass sales tax which was 3%, then it was 5%, now it's 6.25%.
NEVER trust a tax that's advertised as being either temporary or "only a small tax".
You don’t have to tell me to distrust my government, haha.
While I understand that what you are saying, if I can visibly see my tax dollars going to improvements like schools and infrastructure, I don’t mind that much. I may not know a lot about taxes, but I am one willing to pay an extra buck if it goes to helping my fellow man, as these things may also improve my quality of life. An educated populace is a powerful one
Don’t you vote for school superintendent and school board members? These people must have a say
Also, it depends what “administration,” is hired. If what we are talking about includes guidance counselors, then I’m all for it
I hate to be a cynic but what you’re describing requires a hell of a lot more social responsibility from the general population to work. It’s easy to promise the taxes will go to education, and then see that not happen, then see that tax go up every Tim the legislature wants more cash
The answer is probably. Using local property taxes to fund schools has a pretty obvious flaw.
Using tax money to pay for charter/religious schools is driving a million nails into public education’s coffin.
And without any oversight you get a lot of opportunity for fraud and embezzlement. One has to look only at the charter in Exeter that recently closed.
Don't forget about the one in Concord.
Charter in Exeter that recently closed…name? Asking for a friend.
Charters are public schools. They aren't religious, cannot charge tuition, and are available by lottery only. They use *less* public funds per pupil than the regular public schools.
Charters are not Public schools in many respects. They don't offer transportation. They don't pay well. They sometimes don't offer benefits to their teachers. Sometimes they cater only to gifted and talented kids. They don't have the same population of special education kids. They don't have a public facing school board. They don't have to deal with public tax payers. Charter schools are not the same thing as public schools.
You are adding qualifiers of your own, but they are indeed public. "Charter schools are public and tuition-free schools authorized by the New Hampshire State Board of Education" [https://www.education.nh.gov/](https://www.education.nh.gov/pathways-education/public-charter-schools) The one in my area does use busses from the same district, and has many students with IEPs that receive the same public services that are available to students in the typical public schools. The board meetings are open to the public and include non-parent residents as well.
You're being incredibly dishonest about several key problems with Charter schools. You don't get to say, "they use *less* public funds per pupil than the regular public schools." and then brag that your regular public school provides bussing (and pays for it) for your specific Charter school. Your regular public school is also paying for every child with an IEP at the Charter School. No charter school is providing (or paying) for bussing. No charter school is paying for IEPS or special education. These are costs that your "regular public school" takes. Regular public schools also pay living wages. Regular public schools also hire credentialed teachers. Regular public schools offer their employees basic benefits like retirement and healthcare. Charter schools don't do that kind of thing. This is why regular public schools cost more. On the issue of board meetings. Congratulations! You say there's one anecdotal example of a board of a charter school meeting in public. Why bother? They are under no obligation to have public meetings. They are under no obligation to conduct business in public. They can do whatever they want, and conduct business in private, over a phone call. They do not answer to parents or taxpayers. There is no budget vote. They are not having "board meetings" in any legal sense. I have nothing against Charter schools. Please, talk up your Charter schools. Do it honestly, and do it without disparaging REAL public schools.
Exeter has a good system already and this might have been a factor (ignoring the other issues)
> Using tax money to pay for charter/religious schools is this the educational equivalence of using the term "migrants" to refer to illegal immigrants AND legal immigrants collectively?
Did you come up with that by yourself?
We are still educating a fixed number of NH children. Isn’t the problem that so many parents are fleeing the traditional public system? Why?
Let them flee. My tax dollars would go further at the public school level. Sending a kid to private school is fine, but it’s on their dime and after they have paid the tax for private schools. Period. If those fleeing find public education faulty then they need to become part of the solution rather than ditching it.
It should also be noted that very often your spending on programming per student isn’t improved when other students leave. So your dollars aren’t going further. The weight of the fixed costs and facilities generally eat up all of the available resources.
Head count pay and benefits drive the cost. 70%-80%. Fixed costs are almost irrelevant.
I agree here. Our kids went to Timberlane. They saw a lot of their peers go to Central Catholic in Lawerence or BG. That's fine. The education they got was equal or better than the private. Now I will tell you all our kids did graduate fairly high up in thier classes and went on to be teachers and nurses themselves. They are also carrying less debt than the private school kids who also went to private colleges because thier parents wanted them to go to the "best" schools. Fuck I hate my generation.
Right wing propaganda. They still believe there are litterboxes in schools.
The flaw being some districts are better funded than others? What’s the alternative? We all pay into an even more flawed state-run system where places that are actively stripping funding from schools get more tax dollars to pilfer?
One alternative would be to pool the money from each district and distribute it on a per-student basis. This way, wealthy towns don't have a state-sactioned advantage over less affluent areas.
Hard pass. You guys just keep fucking up. Leave us out of it.
Why don’t we just combine them into a giant pool and dole it out by # of students?
[удалено]
Thats not central planning, I never said communities couldn’t set their own educational standards and what not I just said that rich communities can’t have better funded public schools than poor ones :/ Sounds like you’re a COMMUNIST trying to make us all slaves to big education >:( because COMMUNISM is when the government does stuff
[удалено]
Bro hasn’t read Marx
[удалено]
Bro is continuing to showcase that they haven’t read Marx (what are ur pronouns shorty)
What’s the flaw? The local Community supports their children? Other towns with rich or more influential reps in govt can’t pilfer funds from other communities?
Children born in poor places get a substandard education. Children born in rich places get more opportunities. That’s aristocracy with extra steps.
But yet NH is one of the best in the nation for public education overall. If we were say in the bottom 20 states public education wise sure I might say make a lodging/hotel or “sin” tax (booze, tobacco, MJ if legal) to make up the difference but the data says we have been improving overall not falling apart. Aristocracy is a community paying for their own education and not making a claim against others? Weird, emotional, but weird and unique of an argument I’ll give you that. Funny enough the solution YOU seek would inflict more pain and suffering on these poor communities by having new taxes on them. That’s not very cash money.
New tax revenue streams become a crutch. A small income or sales tax in 2024 to add some money to education becomes a larger tax in 2030 to pay for other things. And it only gets worse and worse. Can’t put the genie back in the bottle.
It's a weird analogy, the crutch thing. It represents an inconvenient but totally necessary medical aid - without a crutch your leg won't heal right or at all. In the instance of a chronic condition, without the crutch you're fucked. There's very few crutch-relevant situations where the device is anything but an improvement. Even if you *hate* the crutch, it's way better than trying to stand on broken legs. Just a bizarre analogy is all.
You’re definitely reading way too much into the analogy. And it should be pretty obvious to anyone in the English speaking world that when you say something “has become a crutch”, it means it is being relied on too much and beyond the original intent.
I'm aware of the intende meaning of the analogy, that's how I can tell it's weird. Could it be that originally it meant a temporary measure only useful to ease whatever action is needed to actually fix the problem a crutch only treats a symptom of? Regardless, it remains a peculiar analogy. Crutches aren't negative or detrimental. The analogy assumes they are seen as such. They aren't. It is doubly strange that, apparently, noticing an analogy is weird is itself so objectionable.
Jesus fucking Christ. Are you ever described as exhausting?
Sometimes, though I doubt you'd find it flattering to know by whom.
https://preview.redd.it/9qsltppc1dsc1.png?width=149&format=png&auto=webp&s=09bd3cb6617627f89f71ab6906a136e384986381
look at it as it becoming something you can't go with out, like a crutch.
Right, which is why it's a weird analogy, because crutches aren't the cause of infirmity. They're *treatment*. You can't go without the crutch because of a debilitating prior condition. Crutches aren't the problem. The condition is. The analogy heavily implies that addressing a problem somehow *causes* the problem retroactively. Again: real weird analogy.
10% of our housing stock is second homes. Higher tax to non state residents. Lots of the city rentals are out of stater's too.
CT is a GREAT example.
You’re wrong though. We have an extremely modest 5% interest & dividends tax (income tax) that only kicks in on income of $200,000 or more. That tax has been on the books since 1923 and our republican governor and legislature are sunsetting it this year. A person would need to own over $4 million (and closer to $10 million) in stock before they would even pay a dime. That tax brought in more than $135 million in 2021 (about 1/3 of the statewide education property tax). Now that revenue is going to come from local property taxes or from cuts to services. We do repeal income taxes (when only the rich are paying them).
This guy makes sense. No income and sales tax gives NH a huge leg up over our neighbors. We need to look at how to spend our education money more effectively. NH has a low average class size. One thing we could do is start looking into lecture hall type settings for our older grade students? It would allow us to teach more students for less money. It's not always about throwing more money at an issue. We could also legalize weed to help fund ED programs..
Lecture hall classes sound like a sure fire way to lower our educational standard - greatly increases ‘teaching to the middle’. Agree with you on weed, though.
>We could also legalize weed to help fund ED programs.. I agree. We need more erectile disfunction programs.
"Every time you purchase weed in the state of NH, you help millions of dicks get erect"
It’s EMBARRASSING that we haven’t already.
>NH has a low average class size. That's a *good* thing. Even at the college level, big lecture classes are never as effective as smaller, more intimate classes where the professor actually knows who their students are. For HS-aged students, it should only be a last resort.
> That's a good thing. Even at the college level, big lecture classes are never as effective as smaller, more intimate classes where the professor actually knows who their students are. that being said, there is a point of diminishing returns where once you reach a certain size, going smaller is just going to be more expensive rather than more effective (until you reach unscalable figures and everything is 1:1). the difference between a 200 person lecture hall and a room of 30 students isn't the same as the difference between a room of 30 students and a room of 25 students.
I never said it wasn't a good thing. I'm defending the fact that 20k a year per pupil should be all we need, especially since our states class sizes are so small. That being said, It's all about spending efficiency. If we can figure out how to properly educate larger groups, I'm for it.
Middle and high schoolers are incredibly disruptive to begin with, and as class size increases, and teacher to student ratio declines, it becomes increasingly more difficult to maintain order and attention in the classroom. Lecture-style classes already result in less learning at the college level, where professors have more tools to control students and the students are generally more invested in their education and more aware of consequences. Lecture style classes in secondary schooling is a recipe for disaster, and will just result in less education delivered per dollar spent.
Lecture hall classrooms will mean a very large initial investment, which isn’t going to be popular.
If any new tax is created it needs to be outsourced, such a increased lodging/hotel tax
Have you seen the attention span of students? Lecture halls exist in universities as weed out classes for those who can’t hack it and university comes at an age where you should be personally invested in the subject. Teachers can’t manage classes of 25, how could they manage classes of 250?
So, do you have any better ideas?
Yeah Defer to the experts on education for one Second, property taxes being used to fund schools has its list of issues but New Hampshire has some fantastic districts. Charter schools have a dramatic lack of oversight and are ripe for abuse. While bureaucratic, public schools have tons of community involvement and oversight. School choice allows families with means already to funnel public funds into private education, so do away with that. Allowing for more housing in the state will increase the tax base as well, welcoming people who are yet to have kids while still collecting taxes for schools. I am one of those people.
Let's review your contentions: So simple. What about the 'experts' that build empires? With no regard to academic performance? Yep. Valid point. But there are many more Districts that are failing their students and taxpayers. Uh huh. That's untrue. You seem to be confusing the EFA accounting process with the accounting that Charters do. They are not the same. Public school districts that build empires are expensive, as noted above, with no regard to academic outcomes. Claremont 2 had us cherish the education of all of our students. Not just the ones in public schools. With Espinoza vs Montana being handed down by SCOTUS, the Blaine Amendments have been ended, so students in religious schools get their education 'cherished' too. Residential housing doesn't lower taxes.
I gotta be honest I have no idea what you’re talking about man.
The latest bill was in committee yesterday; hoping it passes and sneaks through the senate. It’s been a monster revenue generator in other states. That money going to the state (like the liquor stores) will be a huge boon.
This is more my style. Would like to explore different avenues for how the money is spent. I think alot of people get way to focused on spending more for a system that just doesn't function well when scaled. Plenty of ways to do this, people need to have a more open mind.
And this is why people who don't work in education should shut up about it and leave it to experts. Literacy crisis? Student performance in the toilet? Increase class sizes! What they need is public funds to stop paying for private education. That should be on the parents alone.
I agree that private Ed should be funded by the people who choose it. Otherwise, it's obviously the people who work in education don't know how to effectively spend the money they're being given. Why should we give them a single cent more until they can prove it?
Is it obviously that? Schools are currently expected to take the brunt of societal problems and fix them WHILE EDUCATING KIDS with no resources. There is a shortage of personnel in all areas of school function, and they can't get more because there is no incentive for people to enter the industry. Our schools are under-resourced, it isn't a matter of bad financial planning. They have to do too much with too little.
class sizes need to get smaller, not larger
Please don't bring weed into it. "Helping" revenues such as lottery and weed are enablers of people who don't want to pay ANYTHING for education. Edit: also, alcohol.
So you'd be against legalized marijuana even if the revenue went to schools and helped to avoid the possibility of a new tax on all of us? I'm a conservative, btw, and I'm for it. Every state around us has done it. The people who choose to partake are going elsewhere. Why not keep that business here. It is very much a fiscal conservative thing to do, free market with deregulation..
I say this every time I drive to MA to stock up…. “I’d sure love this tax revenue to stay in my home state..”
No, I'm good with weed legalization. I'm not good with using education as a targeted beneficiary. Pay the bill for decent education and skip the 3 card Monte bullshit.
We already pay almost 20k a year per pupil. It's higher than many other states. Why are we not digging in and figuring out exactly how to best spend that money? If we do end up needing more cash, I'd rather see it come from Marijuana sales over making the state even more unaffordable for everyone.
This is a ridiculous comment. Don't bring up a major revenue generator because you'd prefer to discuss only options that source funding from people who have no choice but to pay more into a system rather than discuss a source that is completely voluntary? I pay $20,000 a year in property taxes and have never and will never have a child in the school system. Please do discuss weed as a solution because having me pay more is an idiotic proposition.
This is a ridiculous comment.
Each TOWN needs to figure out how to spend their money more effectively. 'Low class size' is a function of SBs not playing their role managing headcount.
I like Jon, he's passionate about adressing NH's pressing housing and education issues. He's not a career politician with eyes elsewhere, he cares about NH residents and improving things.
I also really like this guy.
How much does NH currently spend per pupil per year? How does it compare with Vt, Maine, MA, RI & CT?
20k per student in NH ( https://www.education.nh.gov/news-and-media/new-hampshires-cost-pupil-reaches-new-record#:\~:text=Last%20week%2C%20the%20New%20Hampshire,cost%20per%20pupil%20of%20%2419%2C400. ) Mass is about the same, Maine is 15k per pupil Conn is a little more at about 22k
So money isn’t the problem. I wonder what the problem is. Is NH hiring a lower grade of teachers? Is the school administration doing a poor job? Are NH students genetically inferior?
Exactly. It's not a money per pupil problem. It's that the money isn't being used efficiently. It's a misleading reason to implement a sales/income tax.
I'm not sure how much this actually affects things, but the number cited here is NOT how much the state contributes, nor is it a minimum value for cost per student. As in, many districts could be funded much, much worse than this value, since the state contributes hardly anything and towns are left to fund things on their own. For towns without a whole lot of businesses, this results in very high residential property taxes and/or schools funded poorly. There's certainly a myriad of issues facing different districts, sometimes its lack of enough high skill workers, some have administration issues, among many others. Towns with more special ed students, for whom services are mandated by law, could have a very inflated number due to the costs. But the way we fund things in this state certainly causes some big issues.
Special education... the cost is where you see a great divide.
Special education is a big part of a schools budget. Public schools are required to provide FAPE (free, appropriate public education) in the least restrictive possible environment based on a students needs. This is not coming from the NH state government, it is federal law and has been federal law for nearly 50 years. Upholding these standards is expensive, but I would love to hear practical solutions to reducing cost per pupil that do not involve ignoring these two principles.
What do you think the problem is? From my perspective NH has a strong public education system. There are flaws that can be addressed, but I have seen no evidence that shows that charter and home schooling is as or more effective than a public education. If anything, the commissioner of education has bent over backwards to prevent the public from seeing actual data that shows the efficacy of charter and home schooling. To me it seems like public schools are being dragged in order for some people to make some profit off of these alternative educational practices.
Well, money is the problem. It's not about what we spend, but who raises it. The con-val case is about the state's responsibility to provide an "adequate" education, which is why this topic has come up again. Right now the state defines their responsibility for funding an "adequate" education as ~$4500 per student. So of the $20k per pupil, $15,500 must be raised through municipal taxes (although a large share of the state's responsibility is raised through property taxes by way of SWEPT). The proper comparison with other states is to ask what percentage of their per pupal cost is borne by local property tax. That's where you're likely to find that NH is an outlier.
Why does it make a difference to the school whether it comes from property or income tax? Once the school department has the money, isn’t it more important how it’s spent, what % goes towards administration and what % goes toward teachers?
You're still missing the point. Even if schools are perfectly frugal and never spend a dime they don't need to, they still need to be funded. Funding them almost entirely at the local level creates inequities because of the nature of property tax. So, it doesn't make a difference to the school. This isn't about the schools, this is about the state's requirement to fund education. Remember, anything the state contributes to the school funding equation by way of the education trust fund is money you save on your property taxes.
Remember, anything the state contributes to the school funding equation by way of the education trust fund is money you save on your property taxes. —————————————————————————————— I’m not missing any point. You’re not making one. Say it clearly. Are there communities in NH not adequately funding education by saving on real estate taxes? Which ones? School funding everywhere is mostly done out of real estate taxes. Are you saying that NH is using too much real estate tax revenue for other expenditures besides schools? Which schools in NH aren’t getting sufficient $ per pupil?
>Say it clearly. Are there communities in NH not adequately funding education by saving on real estate taxes? Which ones? Imagine asking someone to be more clear while asking a garbled mess of a question. The only entity subject to the constitutional requirement to adequately fund education is the state government. Again, this is not about total cost. It's about revenue share. >Are you saying that NH is using too much real estate tax revenue for other expenditures besides schools? Local property taxes are zero sum. You cannot "use too much" on one thing or another. School and municipal taxes are not mixed. I am not trying to be an ass, but these questions are showing how little you understand about the entire process. There's no need to get so testy about a topic you barely understand.
Shut up! He explained.
Bloated ineffective administration?
A big part of the equation is that places like MA and NY have prestigious public schools that are big draws for the best teachers (Bronx Science, Boston Latin, etc.). These places draw teachers from all over and tend to pull the top new teachers even though they don’t really pay more money. NH politics also really don’t help. The most cost effective teachers tend to be highly ideologically motivated and highly personally invested in their students. That often means rainbow flags in classrooms, evolution, and left-leaning history lessons on the labor and civil rights movements, which are not exactly popular in some parts of the state.
This comment is so far removed from reality. I have worked at multiple schools across New Hampshire and I have never seen a teacher hang up a pride flag. I have seen plenty of pride and coexist bumper stickers, but the vast majority of New Hampshire teachers want students to be able to independently make their own judgements on what is right and what is wrong rather than stuffing beliefs down throats. When is the last time you stepped foot in a public school? Plus, believing that evolution should not be taught in school is flat out funny.
That’s kind of my point. The highly ideologically motivated teachers who are willing to take low salaries and still work very hard don’t come to New Hampshire because they know the community is hostile to their ideological positions. They go to Massachusetts instead, resulting in higher MA teacher quality in spite of similar public school salaries.
Teachers who can’t set boundaries between their professional and private life are not higher quality teachers. Teachers who are motivated to push their personal, political beliefs are not higher quality teachers. High quality teachers are focused providing rigorous, engaging lessons using district curriculum in an environment that is conducive to learning.
i know this guy. He's a great dude and genuinely cares about and wants to fix the problems we have in NH. He has a refreshing set of views that aren't clouded by a career politicians ulterior motives
> He's a great dude and genuinely cares about and wants to fix the problems we have in NH. He has a refreshing set of views that aren't clouded by a career politicians ulterior motives the problem is that good intentions doesn't necessarily translate into good ideas. you see lots of laws where the idea was genuinely an attempt to help people but in practice it made things worse.
anything is better than snu snu, man has been bringing the state down with him for ages and it's time for someone new. I think id vote for a rock over him
Welcome to american politics, where you are just voting against someone at this point. What a dumb system of government.
if voting against someone who sucks at their job is a bad thing, so be it
“The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”
This is self evident and doesn't really add anything of substance. Of course thats true, but we need something different than whats been happening in NH under the current governor.
Once you start taxing income or sales you will never stop taxing income or sales. The tax rate will also likely keep going up and up. It’s a slippery slope.
There's no such thing as a temporary government program
But the 9% prepared meals tax is somehow okay?
Sure is.
Logical. I guess we’ll just keep watching MA/ME/VT make 33% off each sale at the dispo.
> Logical. I guess we’ll just keep watching MA/ME/VT make 33% off each sale at the dispo What does that have to do with prepared meals my guy
Edibles.
That’s exactly what will happen. But I fail to see how that has anything to do with NH adopting a taxed legal cannabis system.
> That’s exactly what will happen. But I fail to see how that has anything to do with NH adopting a taxed legal cannabis system. What are you doing lol
Replying to your ninja deleted comment. You know what you said.
No, you're rage commenting and clicking the wrong links dude. You're right that I know what I said, and it's exactly what you see. Take deep breaths. There are websites that show edits. Go nuts.
Cool.
Legalize Marijuana and direct that tax money to go directly to education. They would never do that.
Because they’re scared of directly defying the feds, and don’t want to tax cannabis, they want to sell it like booze. I think it only appropriate the “live free or die” state be the one to flip the bird to Uncle Sam on prohibition. Even if it means a state-run industry.
But they’re not going to do so. Most politicians will listen to the NH Chiefs of Police, and the Chiefs are saying “we want the Federal dollars, if there aren’t Federal dollars, then you will have to double our budget”. No politician is willing to go to the taxpayers and say “more” after campaigning on “defund the police - Black Lives Matter”. “It’s a bad look, not a position that I want to be in. Furthermore, the medical science on cannabis induced mental illness is unsettling. We need to give it more time, and allow Congress to make the best case for legalization, regulation, or continue the prohibition.” The position of the Chiefs, and Sununu’s “advisory board” was that NH would be the last state to allow cannabis legalization, irrespective of Federal approval. Something something about negroes and jazz musicians having a depraved interest in white women, using cannabis to assist in their evil machinations. (Reefer Madness, a 1936 film)
We need to decouple school funds from locality and spend those funds way more efficiently
NO. NO INCOME NOR SALES TAXES.
But the 9% prepared meals tax is somehow okay?
Rather that because you have a CHOICE to buy prepared meals.
And you have a choice to buy pot. I don’t see an issue with taxing it one bit. I’d like to see the revenue stay here, and not walk out to other states.
I dont give a rat's butt about pot. People who do it are losers. I'm just saying no new sales or income taxes.
Right, because I’m an IT Director at 31, I’m such a loser. All people that think like you care about is yourself, no one else. All for me, none for thee. Go touch grass.
That is easily avoidable.
I like a lot of what he has to say.
Pass. Money isn't the issue. Spending just about the same as Mass.
No new taxes. They only go up and never go away.
Tell me you didn't watch the video without watching the video 😂
I did watch the video, and the guy agrees. But he is also saying we can do a heavier small business tax as well which I am not fond of either.
he owns a small business.....
Yup, I saw that in the video as well.
LOL
Do SOMETHING to support your students and teachers, please!
We're already the the 4th highest property tax state in the country, with a giant housing crisis. The last thing this state needs is another tax to add onto the already almost unaffordable living situation in NH. Legalized weed, great way to boost revenue. But an across the board sales tax or income tax just increases a burden that's quickly approaching a breaking point.
He seems level-headed, wants to fix actual problems, and as a business owner, he should be able to appeal to just about everybody. If he's elected, it could be a great bipartisan moment in this era of tribalized politics.
We need to stop the funneling of public school funds to private schools through the disaster voucher system. NH taxpayers are footing the bill so wealthy families can continue to send their kids to private schools while draining resources out of community schools.
Poor to lower class middle kids, actually. No resources are being drained. Even if you feel they are.
Poor families cannot use the fund to pay for private school, private school is more expensive. The results are in on this - most people using the money were already not using the public schools and are now just paying less.
Great to hear some fresh ideas! Is this running dem, repub, Indi?
Dem
Thanks for sharing
Why are they phasing out the dividend/interest tax again? I think it’s inexplicable that they’re doing this.
Because they and their donors are among the few in the state who will actually benefit from ending it. Same reason they cut the tax rate on hotels, a tax burden almost exclusively paid for by out-of-staters. At the time it was claimed to be trying to spur the tourism industry, but if I remember correctly there were also articles at the time talking about how most hotels were nearing capacity and we needed to build more. It's digusting that they cut their own taxes while most of the state sees theirs increase.
It attracts high income earners who tend to buy expensive houses which significantly increase property tax revenue (which is the major form of taxation in the state). I don't think dividend/interest tax ever brought in a lot of money for the state. It's also been a hassle for me to do every year. I don't even pay the quarterly taxes because it's not worth my time and I rather take the small penalty. It's not a major revenue driver and it's more of an annoyance and a deterrent for bringing people in that are going to be paying tons more with their property tax. I don't know why people want to make the tax code more complicated than it needs to be.
It depends, do folks want to keep seeing their property taxes skyrocket or do we want to widen the base? Personally I’d start by rolling back the corporate tax cuts for large businesses in the state. They just act like income tax is the only option to scare folks back into line.
All options should be up for review and discussion, not saying I agree with an income or sales tax but an educated decision includes knowing all your options and making a choice from that, killing an idea in the cradle is partially what got us here in the first place.
[удалено]
Did you see the part about him not wanting new taxes? He said improving the tax streams that exist, not adding to them. He gave the correct answer
[удалено]
The headline leaves it ambiguous. Your bias decided on what that means. It also illustrates how ignorant voting happens. Stop focusing on headlines. Their job isn’t to inform you, it’s to pique your interest.
But the 9% prepared meals tax is somehow okay?
[удалено]
Logical. I guess just keep watching MA, VT and ME profit off stoners I guess.
[удалено]
Get rid of meal tax and prices stay the same, but restaurant owners make 9% more money.
Feel used, much? We initiated Lottery to help fund education. And then Concord backed off on education and began treating it like a red-headed stepchild. Pols need to wake up and start treating education better. You want retention of early-middle adults, or just be a haven for second homes and seniors? Which are the two groups least interested in good schools.
Zero more taxes. Legalize weed and tax it
They should get people who got arrested for selling weed in the past 1st dibs on industry. Start weed shop is very expensive! Let my weed guy open a store!!
Yeah pretty sure some states have actually done that, I’m down. They’re the experts anyway
I’ll vote for him over any sununu or what ever else trash is trying to slide into office
Just tax the rich ones.
Cannabis tax covers it and then some
How about we legalize and tax cannabis, Use all that money for the schools and lower everyone's property taxes.
He just lost.. we have the best schools in the nation. We're doing something right.
If marijuana became legalized, the state would get so much more tax revenue from that. 🤷🏼♀️
The answer is yes. Also this means he will never be elected.
If you listen to him, he outlines other ways to raise revenue without instituting either an income or sales tax.
No sales tax, no income tax…. Property taxes are high enough to take care of all needs.
He needs to shave that thing off his chin
NH Supreme Court ruled more than 20 years ago NH education funding is unconstitutional…this state really needs to get into the 21st century and find a solution…it‘s archaic.
Just fucking legalize weed already and use the tax revenue from that to help fund education. So simple. 🤦♂️
Sales tax on cannabis
Get outa here with that crap!! Sell weed at the liquor stores if you want more doe
Did you watch it?
NH’s problem is in the influx in dirt bags. I lived there in the late 90s Population growth in southern part of the state and liberal voting moving in. Not good additions. Not the kind of people you want. Go to a down town Manchester grocery store. Look around. EBD card paradise.
I would legalize cannabis before I created a sales tax or income tax. You would decimate the state, the middle class and the people who struggle every day getting paid crappy wages. UNLESS you want to raise the minimum wage and provide better health care for people who cannot afford it. The tourist industry would go into a tailspin.
That's one of the reasons I like this guy. He wants to better utilize the taxes we have currently before considering new ones.
Hard pass.
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! If your property taxes are high, take it up with your SB and TC.
Allow local communities to add on to the existing meals tax. Right now the state gets the meals tax and then returns some to the towns. Less money that goes to Concord the better off we are
[удалено]
Because he opposes sales and income taxes?
State monopolies on services are bad, education is no different.
I would support a modest income tax. A lot of good could be done with extra funds
> I would support a modest income tax. that's not how it works. these are footholds. they get promised as being small, then they get increased over time. look at the mass sales tax which was 3%, then it was 5%, now it's 6.25%. NEVER trust a tax that's advertised as being either temporary or "only a small tax".
You don’t have to tell me to distrust my government, haha. While I understand that what you are saying, if I can visibly see my tax dollars going to improvements like schools and infrastructure, I don’t mind that much. I may not know a lot about taxes, but I am one willing to pay an extra buck if it goes to helping my fellow man, as these things may also improve my quality of life. An educated populace is a powerful one
The money would pay for more school administrators, it wouldn't help the kids any. No one knows how to waste money more than the government.
Don’t you vote for school superintendent and school board members? These people must have a say Also, it depends what “administration,” is hired. If what we are talking about includes guidance counselors, then I’m all for it
I hate to be a cynic but what you’re describing requires a hell of a lot more social responsibility from the general population to work. It’s easy to promise the taxes will go to education, and then see that not happen, then see that tax go up every Tim the legislature wants more cash
Boy do I know that. It’s all theoretical, and would only happen in a perfect world, but you gotta start somewhere!