The State Budget Makes Its Way Through the Senate

I support obtaining tax revenue from gambling in NH. To address the concerns about gambling addiction leading to crimes, I believe - in the initial legislation - a fixed percentage of the tax revenue generated should be set aside for programs that prevent and treat gambling abuse and addiction, as well as other types of substance abuse. Having more dollars in NH to prevent & treat addictions will positively impact the quality of life in NH, and will ultimately decrease costs to the criminal justice system. I believe gambling will generate jobs and much needed tax revenue, and the legislation can be written in a way that can prevent addictions.

Bobbi, West Lebanon

Senator D'Allesandro supports gambling and claims that it would raise $184 million - but no one points out that it would take 3 to 4 times that amount out of the economy, a significant amount which would go to the gambling industry. Is that the way to raise taxes by rquiring citizens to contribut 3 to 4 dollars for every 1 dollar raised?

We have no one to blame but ourselves for any budget deficit. We need to stop spending so much money, and reduce our budget by 2/3. A caller pointed out that if you tax something it decreases, well what are the things we want to decrease? Alcohol, tobacco, and now, carbon. Get rid of the sales and income taxes in disguise - the room and meals tax and the business profits and estate taxes, and increase the taxes on alcohol and tobacco and add a carbon tax on oil, natural gas, coal, and gasoline.

The Senate Finance Committee has determined to de-fund the New Hampshire Commission on the Status of Women, a tiny state agency with a 40-year history of advocating for women on legislative, educational, economic and legal issues, an an effort to remedy gender disparities. In these dire economic times, the Commission has provided strategies and connections for increasing job recruiment, training, hiring and retention of women in non-traditional occupations. It has historically worked for equitable training for women in prisons, and addressed discrimination issues in housing and family law issues. I would like to know the rationale of this de-funding decision, apparently forwarded by Senator D'Allessandro.

As an independent financial planner that works with both wealthy and middle class clients I am always amazed at how politicians, and it seems much of the public, assume that the wealthy will just stand by and pay tax increases. The wealthy and upper middle class pay me and many other planners and CPAs across the state to minimize the taxes they pay to state and federal gov. Instead we will make adjustments in investments and income streams to ensure the tax hit from capital gains tax/inheritance tax are minimized, or totally eliminated, it is not hard to do. In addition, people that are wealthy tend to be mobile and the state tax environment is definitely a major factor in determining where they live. Many of my clients located here, built businesses here because of the tax environment; they can just as easily leave if that changes. Look no further than Maryland which recently implemented a tax surcharge on millionaires, see Wall Street Journal article this week, and low and behold the revenue from this segment of tax payers went down. People made adjustments in their income and moved; the result in NH will be the same.

The unintended consequence is the middle class and retired residents, many of whom depend on capital gains for income, will end up paying this tax as they either not aware of it or how to avoid it. The bottom line to the state is this is a very tenuous revenue stream on which to base any part of a budget and it will hit the segment of the population that were not the original target.