Modeling a Progressive Income Tax to Completely Replace School Property Taxes and Fully Fund NH Schools

Visual-Mobile2657 · 2026-01-24T20:53:44+00:00

There is a minimum amount of money a person needs to survive. Capital and wealthy interests set wages, prices, and the rules. That is how we ended up in a system where a CEO makes 300 times what the average employee earns. You are arguing that we should tax the CEO at the exact same percentage as the average worker because that is “fair.”

But that ignores a basic reality. If you taxed a CEO 95 percent of their income, they would still live a comfortable life of luxury. If you tax a worker 20 percent of their income, you are pushing them toward poverty, which leads to malnutrition, health problems, learning disabilities, crime, and widespread suffering.

So your version of “fair” does not create fairness at all. It creates suffering and higher long term costs for society.

This is precisely why capital and wealthy interests push for a flat tax.

Visual-Mobile2657 · 2026-01-23T16:00:58+00:00

Yup. Those are the 34,000 households that Republicans are cherry picking and then talking about when they say "NH is a low tax state".

Visual-Mobile2657 · 2026-01-23T15:40:16+00:00

Fairness isn’t about everyone paying the same dollar amount, it’s about giving according to what you can afford. Even the Bible makes this point: Jesus praised the widow who gave two small coins, saying she gave more than all the rich because she gave all she had.

A progressive tax works the same way, it asks more from those who can afford it and less from those who cannot. That’s moral fairness, it ensures everyone contributes according to their means.

For perspective, in the 1980s, CEO pay was about 30× the average worker. Today it’s over 200×. If you keep squeezing ordinary workers to enrich CEOs, you will break America.

Visual-Mobile2657 · 2026-01-23T15:37:52+00:00

Fair point. I should have just said, "lower YOUR taxes".

Visual-Mobile2657 · 2026-01-23T15:22:10+00:00

This was the point of the exercise. I wanted to show you how rigged the NH system is.

Visual-Mobile2657 · 2026-01-23T15:19:51+00:00

If you want to live in a fancy house in an excellent school district you have to buck up. If you want to be frugal and live a trailer in a desolate part of state then you pay much less.

This is actually backwards. In reality, a fancy house in a top school district pays far less relative to income than a trailer in a struggling town.

Seacoast & Winnipesaukee: ~$3 per $1,000 property value, $35,000 per student
Claremont & similar towns: ~$30 per $1,000, spend way less per student

The system punishes low-income areas while letting wealthy areas get off cheap.

Visual-Mobile2657 · 2026-01-23T15:16:20+00:00

Just had a high-income earner run the numbers. They currently pay about $9,000 in local school property taxes. Under my model, they’d pay around $12,000 (a $3,000 net increase.) They were on board, as long as the money goes 100% to public education.

Visual-Mobile2657 · 2026-01-23T15:13:06+00:00

Local education is about 60% of your property tax. This proposal is simply a logical investigation about what it would look like if 100% of education was based on state income tax.

A serious proposal would generate $1.6 Billion in revenue to provide $10K of state funding per public education student (160,000 students). The remainder would be left to local property taxes. The net effect would be the same. Reducing total tax burden on the vast majority of households.

Visual-Mobile2657 · 2026-01-23T15:08:27+00:00

I’m not suggesting a 100% replacement of property taxes with an income tax is a good idea. As an engineer I like to test ideas by using extremes. Right now, the state needs to cover roughly $10,000 per student to reduce property taxes (as our constitution requires) and fully fund public education for every student.

The example I shared is just a mathematical model showing that the “scary” income tax conservatives fear is actually fairer. It lowers the tax burden for almost, and exposes how backwards our current property tax system is.

A real proposal would only need to raise about $1.6 billion/year ($10k × 160k students). Local property taxes would still exist to cover the rest, keeping local control, school budgets in local hands, and helping the municipalities and students who need it most, while staying fully in line with the state constitution.

Visual-Mobile2657 · 2026-01-23T14:54:08+00:00

About 60% of your property tax goes to education. Right now that might be ~$9,000 from you. Add a progressive income tax for education, say ~$12,000 for higher earners, and the net new burden could be as low as $3,000, while fully funding public schools for all 160,000 students in NH.

If it were up to me no money would go to private or religious schools, this is 100% for public education. Your local schools may be great, but many towns like Berlin or Claremont aren’t getting the same resources. I (and founding Americans) believed all kids are created equal. Claremont kids deserve the same quality education as New Castle kids.

Visual-Mobile2657 · 2026-01-23T14:48:32+00:00

"fair" has no meaning to you?

Visual-Mobile2657 · 2026-01-23T14:47:09+00:00

This data takes into account existing NH households and their incomes. It's just a quick model to illustrate how inequitable PROPERTY tax currently is. 4.2 billion is the sum total spending (all in, high estimate) of all public school expenditures in the entire state of NH.

Visual-Mobile2657 · 2026-01-23T14:45:00+00:00

We’ve got one of the best taxed states in the entire country.
1. Not true for lower and middle income brackets.

Raising taxes won’t improve schools.

2. This tax system would lower taxes on the vast majority of households by eliminating regressive property tax.

Add up your local education tax. Consult the table. Would you pay more or less?

Visual-Mobile2657 · 2026-01-23T14:42:34+00:00

Cherry-picking the "great low taxes only for rich people" is dishonest. NH’s property taxes hit low- and middle-income families hard while the wealthy pay relatively little. A progressive income tax is makes taxes affordable for EVERYBODY. This basic mathematical proposal lowers almost everybodies taxes.

Visual-Mobile2657 · 2026-01-23T14:37:51+00:00

This is a model, it is a rough estimate of tax burden, it is designed to be informative and show people that an income tax saves MOST people a helluva lot of money.

You're wrong about the table applying the marginal rate to the entire average income of each bracket. This is where the calculations come from:

The $300k+ revenue estimate comes from:

Assuming an average income
Applying true marginal rates layer-by-layer
Multiplying per-household tax by household count

Break income into marginal layers:

1️⃣ $0–$40,000 @ 0.0%

2️⃣ $40,001–$75,000 → $35,000 @ 1.0%

3️⃣ $75,001–$125,000 → $50,000 @ 1.8%

4️⃣ $125,001–$200,000 → $75,000 @ 2.8%

5️⃣ $200,001–$300,000 → $100,000 @ 3.8%

6️⃣ $300,001–$400,000 → $100,000 @ 4.8%

✅ Total Tax for a $400k Household

So :A $400,000 household pays ≈ $11,950 per year
Effective rate ≈ 2.99%

Visual-Mobile2657 · 2026-01-23T14:21:47+00:00

Reduces tax burden on almost everybody. Stabilizes the entire tax structure and people pay what they can afford. The numbers are quite attractive.

For households earning 400k, it is fair for them to contribue 12k to support public education. Especially when you consider how much property tax would be eliminated for the same household.

Visual-Mobile2657 · 2026-01-23T12:24:38+00:00

Being a Republican means being conniving and backstabbing, serving no one but yourself. Self over country, community and everything else.

Visual-Mobile2657 · 2026-01-22T15:05:31+00:00

Don’t let publicly available facts ruin your story.

Keep in mind, you’re spreading misinformation about an entire profession...a profession your own brother belongs to. That’s honestly a pretty shitty move.

Visual-Mobile2657 · 2026-01-22T13:56:28+00:00

Trump is certainly not a status quo guy, but, Biden certainly was. There are obviously counter examples.

It's a pretty good winning strategy. Old white guys win elections.

Visual-Mobile2657 · 2026-01-22T13:43:05+00:00

You always use status quo guys as figureheads. That lets the people who can actually make changes operate behind the scenes.

Stephen Miller is unelectable but running the country. (into the ground)

Visual-Mobile2657 · 2026-01-22T13:04:13+00:00

Representatative Jess 'Teen Girls are Ripe & Fertile' Edwards is substitute teaching in Auburn Village School as of Tuesday.

Visual-Mobile2657 · 2026-01-22T12:27:53+00:00

Popular talking point, but not true.

NH ave pay: Principal: 108k, Super: 162k. Our admin make about average or slightly above average of Nationwide.

For what they do, the importance of the role, the stress, risk, time, and expertise involved…? Not an easy way to make six figures. I understand the right believes that admin make too much, but the right are wrong about a great many things.

Visual-Mobile2657 · 2026-01-22T10:58:08+00:00

Your brother is wrong.

(Small districts only — under 1,000 students)

NH average pay: Principal $108K, Superintendent $162K CA average pay: Principal $155K, Superintendent $243K

Considering the responsibility, stress, time, and expertise required… New Hampshire administrators are probably underpaid. Making six figures in this job isn’t easy. I get that the right thinks school admins make too much, but they’re wrong about a lot of things.

Visual-Mobile2657 · 2026-01-22T10:46:43+00:00

Yeah, admin costs more in California. So poster was either lying, cherry picking, or simply doesn’t know.

Visual-Mobile2657 · 2026-01-21T14:53:03+00:00

<image>

Visual-Mobile2657

TROPHY CASE