Taxachusetts wrongly named? - Tax burden per US state

[TCO]

sleep, kitty...

[Az]

Gunkulator:

Why are there no sales or income taxes, though? I really like your direct democracy approach, however the fact that the rural towns have no funding whatsoever from the cities kinda sucks.

[gunkulator]

Az:

No state sales or income tax in NH because none has ever been voted in. There hasn't even been a serious debate about enacting one either.

To our south is the Colossus that is Massachusetts which is Big Government personified. Almost every week a new story surfaces how state tax money is being wasted there. You've probably heard of the Big Dig which by now should be the poster child for Waste, Fraud and Abuse. NH citizens are distrustful of state government.

Direct democracy has its ups and downs. On the upside, everyone has a right to speak their mind at the Town Meeting and with enough signatures, petitions can be brought by anyone before the entire town for a vote. There's very little place to hide waste because somebody will find it. Even our town employees have their individual salaries and the cost of their benefits published in the town's annual report.

On the downside is the obvious inefficency of hundreds of adults debating, amending and clarifying every issue. In my town this year, we spent an hour discussing what option packages to include in the F-350 pickup truck that was being voted on. Same with the new police cruiser. Yeesh.

Also, Town Meetings are not responsive to emergencies. Occasionally, my town burns through the snow removal budget and an emergency meeting has to be called for more money. You can't just call a meeting the next day. A few weeks notice is required so that all citizens have a chance to attend.

The lack of funding for poor towns is an issue. The state does collect taxes from hotels, restaurants and from the lottery. Much of that is given back to the poorer towns. As always, poor towns tend to be smaller towns so their collective voting power is small.

[Az]

I think that's why you have an elected executive, and have the legislature be direct, IMO.

WRT boston, and the big dig, you'll see, it WILL pay off.

[mrmitchell]

Sure NH doesn't have but the 10th or 20th largest legislative assembly, but consider the size of the population it represents (1.3 million)--400 representatives per 1.3 million equals 3250 people per representator. India's 1.1 billion people have to fight over 545 representatives, which is about 2 million people (one and a half New Hampshires) per elected man or woman.

[Patroklos]

Never thought about it that way...

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

The sad thing is you actually believe this (if I was being catty, I guess I could have said I didn't know which party was which, though knowing your political persuasion, I could guess, though Ned could say exactly the same thing and mean something entirely different).

It's simply true Imran. Check which legislation in the last 20 years which is pro-consumer and the odds are great it was pushed by Democrats while looking at which legislation was anti-consumer and the odds are good it was pushed by Republicans. That's just the way it works. One party helps business and the other helps people.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And of course you are the final arbiter of what is 'pro-consumer' and 'anti-consumer' right?

Which party was more behind NAFTA? Clinton had just about all the Republicans, but had to beg and plead to get Democrat votes. That's one of the most pro-consumer bills (free trade = lower prices) to pass Congress in the last 20 years, and the Republicans were the ones pushing for it.

And I'm sure someone like Ned can point to anti-abortion and pro sex eduation and stuff like that and say the Dems are the party of the special interest while the Reps are the party that represents the values of the people.

Your partisanship is crappy

[Dinner]

We're talking about averages here. People who don't understand averages point to exceptions and claim that proves the averages are wrong, but, averages are just generalizations which are mostly true. No one claimed that one party ALWAYS did one thing or another what was said was that one party mostly helps business elites while the other party mostly helps the common man. That's just the truth.

[Imran Siddiqui]

what was said was that one party mostly helps business elites while the other party mostly helps the common man. That's just the truth.

No, that's just your opinion. Please don't confuse that with the facts.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
And of course you are the final arbiter of what is 'pro-consumer' and 'anti-consumer' right?

Which party was more behind NAFTA? Clinton had just about all the Republicans, but had to beg and plead to get Democrat votes. That's one of the most pro-consumer bills (free trade = lower prices)...

Imran, Imran.

It's not pro-consumer unless it's anti-business. Haven't you figured that one out yet?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Sorry, it's been a while since I read the Democrat playbook

[Dinner]

Then how would you generalize the differences between the parties? You can't say they're exactly the same. It's clear one is pro-business while the other leans towards the common man. That is the main philosophical difference in a nut shell. You know, I know, JohnT knows it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

One is aligned with the Christian Right and is for economic liberalization. The other is aligned with the Unions and is for greater governmental control.

Neither is for the people. Neither is for the common man.

(and if you think the Unions are 'for the people', you are seriously deluded).

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

The similiarities are striking. Why for unions its all about increasing their membership. Demonrats are all about increasing their membership.

The obvious answer make as many people 'common' as possible to increase membership.

Yay Demonrats the party that is best served when people are victims (or percieved victims) of teh man.