Fantastic series, written with exquisite attention to detail and great clarity. Is there a way to distill the essence to a much shorter form without losing too much of the strength of argument? I fear there will be many who, even if exposed to the article(s), will not persevere beyond the first section or two. The modern mind favors brevity for the most part, as with The Pledge for instance.
Thank you for this — it's a fair and welcome question, and one I've wrestled with throughout this entire series.
During my years writing narrative appraisal reports — documents that routinely ran well past a hundred pages — I learned early that an executive summary wasn't a concession to the reader's patience. It was a courtesy to their time, and an acknowledgment that the supporting data existed to back the conclusions, not to be endured cover to cover. I don't blame anyone for not reading every word of a hundred page appraisal. I wrote them and I wouldn't either.
The same principle applies here. These backgrounders are detailed by necessity — the pattern only becomes visible when the pieces are assembled carefully and completely. But not everyone has the hour it takes to read the full piece, and a reader who walks away with the central argument clearly understood is better served than one who never got past the first section.
So here is an honest attempt at what you're asking for. Let me know whether it captures enough of what matters — and if there are points you feel are missing or deserve more weight, I'd genuinely like to know.
Plain Language Summary — For Busy Readers
This backgrounder makes one central argument, supported by documented facts:
New Hampshire does not have a low-tax system. It has a hidden tax system — and it has been deliberately designed to look like something it isn't.
Here is what the evidence shows:
New Hampshire has the fourth highest effective property tax rate in the nation.
The bottom fifth of earners pay nearly nine percent of their income in state and local taxes. The wealthiest one percent pay roughly two and a half percent.
A significant portion of what appears on your local property tax bill represents state obligations — retirement system contributions, education mandates, county costs — transferred downward onto local taxpayers without their vote.
The assessed value your property tax bill is calculated from is not a verified fact. It is a professional estimate, acknowledged as such by the state itself, which applies a correction ratio on top of local assessments to compensate for the imprecision.
An income tax — if constitutionally dedicated exclusively to property tax relief, with independent annual auditing and an automatic repeal trigger if property taxes don't decrease — would not be a new burden. It would be a fairer way of collecting what is already being taken, from everyone, in proportion to what they can actually afford.
Here is what that would mean in practice:
A retired neighbor on $22,000 a year and a remote worker earning $185,000 currently pay identical property tax bills. As a share of income, the retiree pays nine times more.
Under a constitutionally dedicated income tax replacing the downshifted portion of the bill, both pay less in property tax. The retiree pays no income tax. The professional contributes proportionally — and pays less in total than he does today.
The total public obligation doesn't change. Who carries it, and how fairly, does.
Here is what this backgrounder is not saying:
It is not saying trust the legislature to do the right thing. It is saying build a constitutional amendment that removes that requirement entirely.
It is not saying Live Free or Die means nothing. It is saying the motto has never meant one specific tax policy — the Supreme Court confirmed that in 1977 — and that genuine freedom requires honest accounting.
It is not saying the current system is anyone's fault for supporting it. It is saying considerable money was spent over fifty years specifically to make sure most people never examined it closely enough to see what it was costing them.
The full piece is below. It is long. It earns every word.
But if this summary is as far as you get today — now you know.
Linda, thank you — that means a great deal. The clarity you're responding to is only possible because the underlying situation, once assembled honestly, speaks for itself. We're simply putting the pieces in the same room.
And yes — the readiness you're expressing is exactly what this series has been building toward. You are far from alone in feeling it. The responses to these backgrounders — from readers like you, from people across the state who recognize what they're seeing once it's laid out plainly — suggest that something is genuinely shifting.
Earlier this evening, I posted a photo of my late mother along w/my heartfelt message—Mother's Day—thinking of the now four generations of us as part of New Hampshire. New Hampshire is worth fighting for. The people who built it, who live and work and retire here, deserve a system that actually reflects the values the state claims to hold. The conversation is happening. The full picture is becoming harder to keep unassembled.
Thank you for reading, for sharing, and for being ready. That readiness matters more than you might know. Please stay in touch.
A really great series, Steven. But I will note that in the 3-3 plan that we unveiled in early March, both Margaret and David would also benefit from a $250,000 homestead exemption, which would mean that only $50,000 of their homes would be subject to a $3 statewide property tax. There is certainly no guarantee, but I suspect that that homestead exemption could be expanded to include all local property taxes, meaning a substantial reduction in the property tax bill.
Thomas, thank you — both for the kind words about the series and for this important clarification. You are absolutely right, and I want you to know that the 3-3 Tax Savings Plan and the specific protections it offers the majority of New Hampshire property taxpayers — including that $250,000 homestead exemption — were very much on my mind with nearly every word of this piece.
I made a deliberate choice to keep the argument generic precisely because I wanted the case for fairness to stand on its own terms first — to bring readers to the point where they recognized the problem clearly and were genuinely open to solutions before any specific plan was named. As you certainly know, too often in New Hampshire, a specific proposal becomes the target before the underlying argument has had a chance to land.
But the work you, Andru, and your colleagues have done in developing the 3-3 plan represents exactly the kind of serious, specific, and genuinely fair thinking that this conversation has needed for a long time. The homestead exemption you describe would be transformative for households like Margaret's — and the possibility of expanding it to local property taxes as well is precisely the kind of structural relief that makes this more than a theoretical exercise. I had a smile on my face as I commenced running my numbers through your online program—I expected similar results.
Thank you for doing the hard work of turning a principle into a plan. New Hampshire is better for it. I look forward to featuring the 3-3 plan more prominently as this series continues.
Completely understand the choices you made. Your series tried to explicate the generic issues - as you say, and as I hope some of my scribblings have attempted as well - without creating the target of a specific proposal. All of these conversations are important and - as you and I have each pointed out - have been muzzled not only by those who truly benefit from the so-called NH Advantage, but from Democratic leaders who have been cowardly in failing to oppose the class warfare that i believe the GOP/Free State majority has declared on 95% of NH's population in their protection of the wealthy and well-connected.
Fantastic series, written with exquisite attention to detail and great clarity. Is there a way to distill the essence to a much shorter form without losing too much of the strength of argument? I fear there will be many who, even if exposed to the article(s), will not persevere beyond the first section or two. The modern mind favors brevity for the most part, as with The Pledge for instance.
Thank you for this — it's a fair and welcome question, and one I've wrestled with throughout this entire series.
During my years writing narrative appraisal reports — documents that routinely ran well past a hundred pages — I learned early that an executive summary wasn't a concession to the reader's patience. It was a courtesy to their time, and an acknowledgment that the supporting data existed to back the conclusions, not to be endured cover to cover. I don't blame anyone for not reading every word of a hundred page appraisal. I wrote them and I wouldn't either.
The same principle applies here. These backgrounders are detailed by necessity — the pattern only becomes visible when the pieces are assembled carefully and completely. But not everyone has the hour it takes to read the full piece, and a reader who walks away with the central argument clearly understood is better served than one who never got past the first section.
So here is an honest attempt at what you're asking for. Let me know whether it captures enough of what matters — and if there are points you feel are missing or deserve more weight, I'd genuinely like to know.
Plain Language Summary — For Busy Readers
This backgrounder makes one central argument, supported by documented facts:
New Hampshire does not have a low-tax system. It has a hidden tax system — and it has been deliberately designed to look like something it isn't.
Here is what the evidence shows:
New Hampshire has the fourth highest effective property tax rate in the nation.
The bottom fifth of earners pay nearly nine percent of their income in state and local taxes. The wealthiest one percent pay roughly two and a half percent.
A significant portion of what appears on your local property tax bill represents state obligations — retirement system contributions, education mandates, county costs — transferred downward onto local taxpayers without their vote.
The assessed value your property tax bill is calculated from is not a verified fact. It is a professional estimate, acknowledged as such by the state itself, which applies a correction ratio on top of local assessments to compensate for the imprecision.
An income tax — if constitutionally dedicated exclusively to property tax relief, with independent annual auditing and an automatic repeal trigger if property taxes don't decrease — would not be a new burden. It would be a fairer way of collecting what is already being taken, from everyone, in proportion to what they can actually afford.
Here is what that would mean in practice:
A retired neighbor on $22,000 a year and a remote worker earning $185,000 currently pay identical property tax bills. As a share of income, the retiree pays nine times more.
Under a constitutionally dedicated income tax replacing the downshifted portion of the bill, both pay less in property tax. The retiree pays no income tax. The professional contributes proportionally — and pays less in total than he does today.
The total public obligation doesn't change. Who carries it, and how fairly, does.
Here is what this backgrounder is not saying:
It is not saying trust the legislature to do the right thing. It is saying build a constitutional amendment that removes that requirement entirely.
It is not saying Live Free or Die means nothing. It is saying the motto has never meant one specific tax policy — the Supreme Court confirmed that in 1977 — and that genuine freedom requires honest accounting.
It is not saying the current system is anyone's fault for supporting it. It is saying considerable money was spent over fifty years specifically to make sure most people never examined it closely enough to see what it was costing them.
The full piece is below. It is long. It earns every word.
But if this summary is as far as you get today — now you know.
I am loving your work and appreciate the clarity of your writing. I hope we can move NH forward. I am more than ready.
Linda, thank you — that means a great deal. The clarity you're responding to is only possible because the underlying situation, once assembled honestly, speaks for itself. We're simply putting the pieces in the same room.
And yes — the readiness you're expressing is exactly what this series has been building toward. You are far from alone in feeling it. The responses to these backgrounders — from readers like you, from people across the state who recognize what they're seeing once it's laid out plainly — suggest that something is genuinely shifting.
Earlier this evening, I posted a photo of my late mother along w/my heartfelt message—Mother's Day—thinking of the now four generations of us as part of New Hampshire. New Hampshire is worth fighting for. The people who built it, who live and work and retire here, deserve a system that actually reflects the values the state claims to hold. The conversation is happening. The full picture is becoming harder to keep unassembled.
Thank you for reading, for sharing, and for being ready. That readiness matters more than you might know. Please stay in touch.
A really great series, Steven. But I will note that in the 3-3 plan that we unveiled in early March, both Margaret and David would also benefit from a $250,000 homestead exemption, which would mean that only $50,000 of their homes would be subject to a $3 statewide property tax. There is certainly no guarantee, but I suspect that that homestead exemption could be expanded to include all local property taxes, meaning a substantial reduction in the property tax bill.
Thomas, thank you — both for the kind words about the series and for this important clarification. You are absolutely right, and I want you to know that the 3-3 Tax Savings Plan and the specific protections it offers the majority of New Hampshire property taxpayers — including that $250,000 homestead exemption — were very much on my mind with nearly every word of this piece.
I made a deliberate choice to keep the argument generic precisely because I wanted the case for fairness to stand on its own terms first — to bring readers to the point where they recognized the problem clearly and were genuinely open to solutions before any specific plan was named. As you certainly know, too often in New Hampshire, a specific proposal becomes the target before the underlying argument has had a chance to land.
But the work you, Andru, and your colleagues have done in developing the 3-3 plan represents exactly the kind of serious, specific, and genuinely fair thinking that this conversation has needed for a long time. The homestead exemption you describe would be transformative for households like Margaret's — and the possibility of expanding it to local property taxes as well is precisely the kind of structural relief that makes this more than a theoretical exercise. I had a smile on my face as I commenced running my numbers through your online program—I expected similar results.
Thank you for doing the hard work of turning a principle into a plan. New Hampshire is better for it. I look forward to featuring the 3-3 plan more prominently as this series continues.
Completely understand the choices you made. Your series tried to explicate the generic issues - as you say, and as I hope some of my scribblings have attempted as well - without creating the target of a specific proposal. All of these conversations are important and - as you and I have each pointed out - have been muzzled not only by those who truly benefit from the so-called NH Advantage, but from Democratic leaders who have been cowardly in failing to oppose the class warfare that i believe the GOP/Free State majority has declared on 95% of NH's population in their protection of the wealthy and well-connected.
Would love to grab coffee/drinks/meal sometime. Sorry i missed you when Clif Below and i visited with Charlestown Dems earlier this week.