O P I N I O N
THE SOAPBOX
Stand up. Speak up. It’s your turn.
New Hampshire has always stood for something simple and powerful: local control, fiscal responsibility, and the freedom to make our own choices.
That’s exactly why a proposed constitutional amendment to permanently ban a state income tax is the wrong move—especially for cities like Manchester.
Because this isn’t about stopping an income tax today.
It’s about tying the hands of every future legislature—and every local community—no matter what challenges we face.
And here in Manchester, those challenges are real.
Right now, Manchester homeowners are paying a tax rate of roughly $20.24 per $1,000 of assessed value, with more than a third of that tied directly to local education costs. That means a typical homeowner is already paying thousands of dollars a year just to support schools and basic services.
And that burden isn’t theoretical.
Across New Hampshire, education spending makes up the largest share of property taxes—often 60 to 75 percent of the total bill. When the state limits its own revenue options, it doesn’t eliminate those costs—it simply pushes them down onto local taxpayers.
That’s exactly what’s happening.
Manchester, like many communities, is already feeling the strain. Property taxes remain one of the highest and most regressive forms of taxation we have. In Hillsborough County, the typical homeowner is paying over $7,000 annually in property taxes, a burden that continues to rise as local budgets try to keep up with growing needs.
And those needs are not optional.
We’re talking about public education, public safety, infrastructure, and basic services—the things residents expect and rely on every day.
So what happens when the state locks itself into a constitutional ban on one of the few remaining broad-based revenue options?
It doesn’t reduce the pressure.
It concentrates it.
It tells cities like Manchester: you’re on your own.
Supporters of this amendment argue that it protects taxpayers. But in practice, it protects one group of taxpayers by shifting the burden onto another—primarily property owners and renters.
Because let’s be honest: when property taxes rise, rents rise right along with them.
That means this amendment doesn’t just hit homeowners. It hits working families, seniors on fixed incomes, and young people trying to stay in Manchester.
And it does so permanently.
A constitution is supposed to provide a framework for governance—not a straitjacket. By embedding a blanket prohibition on income taxes into our Constitution, we would be saying that no matter how the economy changes, no matter what fiscal pressures arise, and no matter what the voters of the future may want, one option is forever off the table.
That’s not fiscal responsibility.
That’s fiscal inflexibility.
And it runs directly against New Hampshire’s tradition of local control.
We don’t preemptively take tools away from ourselves. We don’t assume that future voters are incapable of making responsible decisions. And we don’t write policy into the Constitution out of fear.
If an income tax is ever proposed in New Hampshire, it will face intense scrutiny—as it should. It will require legislative approval, public debate, and ultimately accountability at the ballot box.
That’s how this system is supposed to work.
But this amendment short-circuits that process. It replaces debate with prohibition. It replaces flexibility with rigidity. And it replaces trust in the people with distrust of the future.
For Manchester, the stakes are even higher.
We are a city that depends on smart, balanced solutions to complex challenges. Locking the state into a single, inflexible approach to taxation doesn’t help us—it limits us.
It guarantees that the pressure on property taxes will continue.
And it guarantees that local taxpayers will keep paying the price.
New Hampshire’s strength has never been in saying “never.” It has been in trusting voters to decide.
This amendment takes that choice away—and sends the bill straight to cities like Manchester.
Because when the state locks the door on its own options, it doesn’t eliminate the cost—it just dumps it on your property tax bill and calls it protection.
H Rep. David Preece represents Manchester in the New Hampshire House of Representatives and is a longtime urban and regional planner who previously served as executive director of the Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission.
Beg to differ? Agree to disagree? Comment below using our DISQUS app. Got issues of your own? Submit to The Soapbox using our DIY feature here.