Donald McFarlaneSupportOrange, NHfor Grafton 18Apr 15, 2026
Taxation is theft. A state income tax is unconstitutional.
CACR12
Senate · 2026 sessionRepublicanAdoptedConstitutional ban on income tax
AIProhibits the New Hampshire house of representatives from adopting a tax on wages, earned income, or other personal income, while still permitting taxation of businesses and other non-individual entities, pending voter approval in November 2026.
(New Title) the adoption of tax laws.
State GovernmentTaxes - State
Status
Adopted · February 19, 2026- ✓Introduced
- ✓House
- ✓Senate
- ✓On the ballot
Division of testimony
2,168 submissionsSupport 897(687 form letter)Oppose 1,271(34 form letter)Neutral 0
Hatched = form letter · 721 of 2,168 written submissions (33%) came from organized campaigns
Argument digest · AI-generated
from 307 of 1,296 written submissionsCACR12 is a proposed New Hampshire constitutional amendment on tax policy that testimony addresses in two related forms: one permanently banning any tax on personal income, and another requiring a two-thirds legislative supermajority to enact any broad-based tax. Supporters argue this permanently protects the "New Hampshire Advantage" of having no income or sales tax and guards against sudden tax increases, while opponents argue it would permanently tie the hands of future legislatures, entrench the state's heavy reliance on property taxes, undermine majority rule, and do nothing to fix underlying school-funding and affordability problems while shielding corporations and the wealthy from paying more.
- Permanent ban protects the "New Hampshire Advantage"Support28 of 307 reviewed · 433 via form letter
Supporters argue New Hampshire's lack of an income tax defines its economic identity and competitiveness relative to neighboring states, and that permanently enshrining the ban in the constitution protects this advantage from future legislatures.
“New Hampshire's lack of an income tax is the foundation of the New Hampshire Advantage. It drives our economic growth, attracts businesses and families from across New England, and ensures that working Granite Staters keep more of what they earn.”
— form letter, submitted 433 times · #653507 — read full submission →
“we trust our citizens to keep what they earn, and we expect government to live within its means. That principle has shaped not just our economy, but our identity.”
— William Foster, New Boston · #664977 — read full submission →
“Income tax is unconstitutional and should never be implemented. New Hampshire should continue to lead the way in economic freedom.”
— Daniel Schandel, Wolfeboro · #653652 — read full submission →
- Supermajority guards against sudden tax increasesSupport5 of 307 reviewed · 254 via form letter
Supporters of the supermajority-requirement version argue it protects families and businesses from abrupt broad-based tax increases and preserves New Hampshire's tradition of fiscal restraint by requiring broad legislative consensus.
“Protects families from sudden tax increases that could devastate household budgets”
— form letter, submitted 254 times · #652587 — read full submission →
“We taxpayers need all the help we can get to keep our government small and raise what is required from us carefully considered and more difficult to achieve.”
— Linda Kaiser, Amherst · #664086 — read full submission →
“A simple majority should never be allowed to impose taxes. The super majority 2/3rds requirement would insure the true will of the people is represented on any tax reform”
— Jeffrey Roy, Raymond · #665441 — read full submission →
- Government should be limited; taxation is illegitimateSupport9 of 307 reviewed
Some supporters frame taxation itself, or an income tax specifically, as an illegitimate taking by government, arguing for permanently limiting the state's power to tax income.
- Any future tax should go directly to votersSupport7 of 307 reviewed
Supporters argue that if an income tax is ever seriously considered, the decision should be put directly to voters via ballot rather than left solely to the legislature.
“I urge the committee to recommend the New Hampshire Advantage Amendment and send it to the full House for approval. Let the people of New Hampshire vote to protect their wallets and their future.”
— Brian Meyette, Cornish · #653596 — read full submission →
“I support CACR 12 to permanently BAN a state income tax and putting it on the ballot for the taxpayers decide.”
— Carol Carbonneau, Rochester · #665876 — read full submission →
- New taxes historically don't replace old onesSupport3 of 307 reviewed
Supporters argue that in other states a new broad-based tax was promised to lower existing taxes but instead became an additional burden as spending grew, a pattern they want to prevent in New Hampshire.
“there is no such thing as an income tax that "replaces" another tax. In every state where an income tax was introduced with the promise of lowering property or sales taxes, the result was a bait-and-switch.”
— Jeremy Slottje, Hudson · #666367 — read full submission →
“In 1966 the Mass. sales tax started out at 3% but is now 6.25%, and Massachusetts property taxes are still among the highest the nation. So much for the false claim that broad based taxes will reduce local property taxes.”
— Anthony Conte, Salem · #653621 — read full submission →
- An income tax would drive residents and businesses awaySupport3 of 307 reviewed
A few supporters argue that adopting an income tax would push residents and businesses to relocate to states without one.
“An income tax will simply force those who can do so to change their legal state of residence to one of the other income tax free states. Florida and Delaware both come to mind on the east coast.”
— Alan Rice, Bedford · #666006 — read full submission →
“Keep NH free, free from Income taxes. If not, you risk people fleeing to Florida and other states that do not have an income tax (soon S.C. will not have an income tax). We cannot afford to loose people that will flee to another state.”
— Leanne Russamano, Hampstead · #665728 — read full submission →
- Removes flexibility for future legislatures to respondOppose46 of 307 reviewed
Opponents argue the amendment permanently locks New Hampshire into its current tax structure, removing the ability of future legislatures to respond to changing economic conditions, court rulings, or emergencies regardless of the will of future voters.
“Many of you campaigned on addressing New Hampshire’s unsustainable property tax burden. Yet CACR 12 does nothing to solve that problem. Instead, it locks in the status quo and removes future options that could provide meaningful relief to taxpayers”
— Kathy Hubert, Newport · #664028 — read full submission →
“It seems that proponents of this bill are engaging in magical thinking with regards to funding roads, bridges, safety, care for disabled, children and seniors, energy, forest and waterbody management, court systems, trade and commerce, libraries, public education”
— Angela Strong, New London · #666066 — read full submission →
“We should not be tying the hands of our future generations with such frivolous, ridiculous limits on their ability to raise funds for the good of the people.”
— Tim Josephson, CANAAN · #666423 — read full submission →
- Amendment is a political stunt shielding corporate tax cutsOppose36 of 307 reviewed · 34 via form letter
Many opponents, echoing a widely circulated message, argue the amendment is a political distraction that does nothing to ease families' rising costs while the legislature continues cutting taxes for corporations and wealthy residents.
“Families in New Hampshire are already getting squeezed by rising costs—housing, gas, child care, health care, and higher property taxes. Instead of helping, this amendment is a political stunt that won't do anything to help people like me.”
— form letter, submitted 34 times · #665315 — read full submission →
“My taxes are pulled into an escrow account through my mortgage company. Payments rose by $150/month this year to cover the increase in taxes. Tax cuts never seem to alleviate the burden on the middle class.”
— Sara Tirrell, Plymouth · #665787 — read full submission →
“As a single parent living on a teacher's salary, my ability to afford the basics - food, gas, heating, electricity - has continued to become more difficult. I work 2-3 additional jobs”
— Mary Donovan, Plaistow · #665575 — read full submission →
- Supermajority gives a minority veto over tax policyOppose25 of 307 reviewed
Opponents of the supermajority-requirement version argue it hands a small minority of legislators the power to block tax policy that a majority of elected officials and voters support, undermining majority rule.
“It gives a small minority of lawmakers the power to block action, even when a clear majority of elected officials—and by extension, the voters—support a policy. This undermines the principle of majority rule that is central to a functioning democracy.”
— Kim Lawrence, Bedford · #666505 — read full submission →
“It shifts power away from simple-majority lawmaking and gives a minority of legislators the ability to block tax policy even when a majority supports it.”
— Claire HOlston, Milford · #666116 — read full submission →
- Doesn't fix education funding or the Claremont obligationOppose28 of 307 reviewed
Opponents argue the amendment does nothing to address New Hampshire's chronic underfunding of public education and its constitutional obligation to provide an adequate education, and instead locks in existing funding shortfalls.
“By requiring a two thirds vote to approve any broad based tax, the amendment hands veto power to a small minority and locks underfunding into the state constitution, even as costs rise and classrooms struggle with overcrowding, staff shortages, and aging buildings.”
— Debrah Howes, Bow · #666184 — read full submission →
“The current system is unfair and just doesn't work, hence the state supreme court's Claremont Decision.”
— William Stahl, Walpole · #666276 — read full submission →
- Wealthy and corporations should pay their fair shareOppose23 of 307 reviewed
Opponents argue that instead of foreclosing new revenue options, the state should require corporations and high-income residents to contribute more, rather than continuing to shift the tax burden onto property owners.
“Corporations generally require considerable municipal services and should pay their share -- not private citizens. Lower taxes for individuals, raise taxes for corporations.”
— Andrea Hodson, Harrisville · #666587 — read full submission →
“We have given corporations and businesses way too many tax brakes over the last couple of years.”
— tom keegan, Bristol · #666009 — read full submission →
- Property-tax reliance is regressive and burdens seniorsOppose9 of 307 reviewed
Opponents argue New Hampshire's heavy reliance on property taxes already falls hardest on those with the least ability to pay, including seniors on fixed incomes, and that closing off alternatives locks in this inequity.
“Our current tax system in NH places the most burden on those with the least. People with the lowest incomes pay the highest percentage of their income in taxes. Those with the highest incomes pay the lowest percentage.”
— Siena Kaplan-Thompson, Tamworth · #666353 — read full submission →
“In New Hampshire, the less you have, the more you must contribute to the state, while the more you have, the less you must contribute to the state.”
— Willem deVries, Durham · #666057 — read full submission →
- Rushed process for a major constitutional changeOppose8 of 307 reviewed
Some opponents object to the process itself, arguing the amendment was advanced hastily or attached in a non-germane manner without the deliberation a constitutional change warrants.
“The haste with which this bill has been proposed and scheduled to slip through normal discussion is greatly disturbing and downright wrong. The process the proposers have chosen underlines that they understand they are trying to slip something by the citizens”
— Jane Fedorowicz, RINDGE · #663994 — read full submission →
“Sneeking in this constitutional amendment at the last minute and with little public discussion is reprehensible.”
— Sarah Thorne, Holderness · #665794 — read full submission →
Generated by claude-sonnet-5 (claude code agent) on Jul 20, 2026. Quotes are verbatim excerpts, verified against the cited submission before publication. Summaries are AI interpretation of the record, not part of it.
Form-letter campaigns
721 of 1,296 written submissions (56%)721 submissions match 3 shared templates; 575 are individually written.
- Support for Permanent Income Tax BanSupport433 submissions on this bill
The template argues that permanently banning an income tax through constitutional amendment is vital for maintaining the state's economic advantage and protecting residents' earnings.
The letter · submitted 433 times Dear Chairman Janigian and Members of the Ways and Means Committee, I am writing in strong support of the New Hampshire Advantage Amendment to CACR 12, which would amend the New Hampshire Constitution to permanently ban any tax on personal income. New Hampshire's lack of an income tax is the foundation of the New Hampshire Advantage. It drives our economic growth, attracts businesses and families from across New England, and ensures that working Granite Staters keep more of what they earn. I support this amendment for the following reasons: - PERMANENT CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION: This amendment would enshrine the income tax ban in our constitution, ensuring no future legislature can impose an income tax without the people's consent through another constitutional amendment. - LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE: If passed by the House and Senate, this question goes directly to the voters on the ballot. The people of New Hampshire deserve the right to permanently protect themselves from an income tax. - ECONOMIC STRENGTH: New Hampshire's no-income-tax status is our greatest competitive advantage. Neighboring states with income taxes continue to lose residents and businesses to New Hampshire. - PROTECTING FAMILIES: Working families in New Hampshire keep more of what they earn than in any neighboring state. This amendment ensures that will always be the case. - CLEAR AND STRONG LANGUAGE: The amendment explicitly prohibits any tax on wages, earned income, personal income, or other income of individuals, regardless of its designation. There are no loopholes. I urge the committee to recommend the New Hampshire Advantage Amendment and send it to the full House for approval. Let the people of New Hampshire vote to protect their wallets and their future. Thank you for your consideration.
- Support for Supermajority Tax VoteSupport254 submissions on this bill
The template argues that constitutional amendment requiring a supermajority vote for broad-based taxes is necessary to protect the state's fiscal stability and business environment.
The letter · submitted 254 times I write in strong support of CACR 12, which would require a supermajority vote to enact broad-based taxes. This constitutional amendment is essential to protect New Hampshire's competitive advantage and fiscal responsibility. Key reasons to support CACR 12: • Protects families from sudden tax increases that could devastate household budgets • Preserves New Hampshire's business-friendly environment that attracts jobs and investment • Ensures any broad-based tax requires overwhelming legislative consensus, not just a simple majority • Provides constitutional protection that future legislatures cannot easily overturn • Maintains New Hampshire's tradition of fiscal restraint and limited government New Hampshire's lack of income and sales taxes has been fundamental to our state's economic success. CACR 12 would help ensure future generations enjoy the same fiscal freedom we have today. I urge you to vote ought to pass on CACR 12 and protect taxpayers with this important constitutional safeguard. Respectfully, Chris Maidment Peterborough, NH
- Oppose Corporate Tax CutsOppose34 submissions on this bill
The argument is that tax cuts for corporations should be rejected in favor of addressing rising costs for families in essential services.
The letter · submitted 34 times Families in New Hampshire are already getting squeezed by rising costs—housing, gas, child care, health care, and higher property taxes. Instead of helping, this amendment is a political stunt that won't do anything to help people like me. What we need from leaders is to stop giving more tax cut giveaways to corporations and actually focus on lowering costs and investing in the services we depend on. Please reject this amendment and stop cutting taxes for the rich and corporations."
Detected by text-similarity clustering; campaign names are AI-generated.
Eddie QiSupportForm letterBethlehem, NHfor MyselfApr 15, 2026
Dear Chairman Janigian and Members of the Ways and Means Committee, I am writing in strong support of the New Hampshire Advantage Amendment to CACR 12, which would amend the New Hampshire Constitution to permanently ban any tax on personal income. New Hampshire's lack of an income tax is the foundation of the New Hampshire Advantage. It drives our economic growth, attracts businesses and families from across New England, and ensures that working Granite Staters keep more of what they earn. I support this amendment for the following reasons: - PERMANENT CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION: This amendment would enshrine the income tax ban in our constitution, ensuring no future legislature can impose an income tax without the people's consent through another constitutional amendment. - LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE: If passed by the House and Senate, this question goes directly to the voters on the ballot. The people of New Hampshire deserve the right to permanently protect themselves from an income tax. - ECONOMIC STRENGTH: New Hampshire's no-income-tax status is our greatest competitive advantage. Neighboring states with income taxes continue to lose residents and businesses to New Hampshire. - PROTECTING FAMILIES: Working families in New Hampshire keep more of what they earn than in any neighboring state. This amendment ensures that will always be the case. - CLEAR AND STRONG LANGUAGE: The amendment explicitly prohibits any tax on wages, earned income, personal income, or other income of individuals, regardless of its designation. There are no loopholes. I urge the committee to recommend the New Hampshire Advantage Amendment and send it to the full House for approval. Let the people of New Hampshire vote to protect their wallets and their future. Thank you for your consideration.
James CampbellOpposeForm letterMilford, NHfor MyselfApr 15, 2026
Families in New Hampshire are already getting squeezed by rising costs—housing, gas, child care, health care, and higher property taxes. Instead of helping, this amendment is a political stunt that won't do anything to help people like me. What we need from leaders is to stop giving more tax cut giveaways to corporations and actually focus on lowering costs and investing in the services we depend on. Please reject this amendment and stop cutting taxes for the rich and corporations
Cathy QiSupportForm letterBethlehem, NHfor MyselfApr 15, 2026
Dear Chairman Janigian and Members of the Ways and Means Committee, I am writing in strong support of the New Hampshire Advantage Amendment to CACR 12, which would amend the New Hampshire Constitution to permanently ban any tax on personal income. New Hampshire's lack of an income tax is the foundation of the New Hampshire Advantage. It drives our economic growth, attracts businesses and families from across New England, and ensures that working Granite Staters keep more of what they earn. I support this amendment for the following reasons: - PERMANENT CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION: This amendment would enshrine the income tax ban in our constitution, ensuring no future legislature can impose an income tax without the people's consent through another constitutional amendment. - LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE: If passed by the House and Senate, this question goes directly to the voters on the ballot. The people of New Hampshire deserve the right to permanently protect themselves from an income tax. - ECONOMIC STRENGTH: New Hampshire's no-income-tax status is our greatest competitive advantage. Neighboring states with income taxes continue to lose residents and businesses to New Hampshire. - PROTECTING FAMILIES: Working families in New Hampshire keep more of what they earn than in any neighboring state. This amendment ensures that will always be the case. - CLEAR AND STRONG LANGUAGE: The amendment explicitly prohibits any tax on wages, earned income, personal income, or other income of individuals, regardless of its designation. There are no loopholes. I urge the committee to recommend the New Hampshire Advantage Amendment and send it to the full House for approval. Let the people of New Hampshire vote to protect their wallets and their future. Thank you for your consideration.
Joanna CarrOpposeCanaan, NHfor MyselfApr 15, 2026
I am in favor of a fair income tax in NH
Andrea HodsonOpposeHarrisville, NHfor MyselfApr 15, 2026
Corporations generally require considerable municipal services and should pay their share -- not private citizens. Lower taxes for individuals, raise taxes for corporations. Similarly, there is no good rhyme nor reason why high-income individuals should pay so much less in taxes to fund the national budget than do lower and middle-income individuals. We oppose this bill because we think that wealthy individuals should pay the fair share of taxes to fund state services. We do not think that cutting state programs and services is an acceptable response to the lost revenues that occurs when tax cuts are handed out to high-income individuals. Rather, high-income individuals (and corporations) should step up and pay their share.
Susan FitzellOpposeManchester, NHfor MyselfApr 15, 2026
New Hampshire families are already stretched thin by the rising cost of housing, gas, child care, health care, and property taxes. This amendment does nothing to ease that burden. It feels more like a political stunt than a serious effort to help people like me. What we need from our leaders is simple: Stop handing out more tax breaks to corporations! Start focusing on lowering costs for working families and investing in the services people depend on every day. Please reject this amendment and stop prioritizing tax cuts for the wealthy and for corporations over the real needs of New Hampshire families. Thank you!
Norman KinslerOpposeConcord, NHfor MyselfApr 15, 2026
I will never vote for anyone who supports this bill.
William ThomasOpposeManchester, NHfor MyselfApr 15, 2026
This bill, if passed, would tie the hands of future governors and NH state legislators. The NH state government by supporting this says to ,many in NH that working class families and senior citizens will have to probably pay more in property taxes. I strongly oppose it as va senior citizen.
Richard GirardSupportForm letterManchester, NHfor MyselfApr 15, 2026
Dear Chairman Janigian and Members of the Ways and Means Committee, I am writing in strong support of the New Hampshire Advantage Amendment to CACR 12, which would amend the New Hampshire Constitution to permanently ban any tax on personal income. New Hampshire's lack of an income tax is the foundation of the New Hampshire Advantage. It drives our economic growth, attracts businesses and families from across New England, and ensures that working Granite Staters keep more of what they earn. I support this amendment for the following reasons: - PERMANENT CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION: This amendment would enshrine the income tax ban in our constitution, ensuring no future legislature can impose an income tax without the people's consent through another constitutional amendment. - LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE: If passed by the House and Senate, this question goes directly to the voters on the ballot. The people of New Hampshire deserve the right to permanently protect themselves from an income tax. - ECONOMIC STRENGTH: New Hampshire's no-income-tax status is our greatest competitive advantage. Neighboring states with income taxes continue to lose residents and businesses to New Hampshire. - PROTECTING FAMILIES: Working families in New Hampshire keep more of what they earn than in any neighboring state. This amendment ensures that will always be the case. - CLEAR AND STRONG LANGUAGE: The amendment explicitly prohibits any tax on wages, earned income, personal income, or other income of individuals, regardless of its designation. There are no loopholes. I urge the committee to recommend the New Hampshire Advantage Amendment and send it to the full House for approval. Let the people of New Hampshire vote to protect their wallets and their future. Thank you for your consideration.
David LuneauOpposeHOPKINTON, NHfor Myselfflagged non-germaneApr 15, 2026
Dave Luneau, representing the people of Hopkinton and Bow, ranking on Education I’m here in opposition to the proposed amendment. The problem is not about whether we need a new tax or need to ban a tax. For the past decade, elected Republicans have blamed school boards, select boards and city councils for sky high property taxes. But instead of helping cities and towns --- and fair funding public schools --- you gave nearly $2 Billion dollars – and that’s billion with a capital B – to companies like Apple Amazon and Walmart. --- Guess what --- property taxes went up by that same amount! Across the state we’ve got crumbling roads, red-listed bridges, and school buildings that haven’t been touched in a century. Stunts like this and kneecapping public schools won’t fix these problems. It’s time for people to know who their elected officials truly represent -- and make sure to vote in November!
Paula SlatterySupportForm letterPortsmouth, NHfor MyselfApr 15, 2026
Dear Chairman Janigian and Members of the Ways and Means Committee, I am writing in strong support of the New Hampshire Advantage Amendment to CACR 12, which would amend the New Hampshire Constitution to permanently ban any tax on personal income. New Hampshire's lack of an income tax is the foundation of the New Hampshire Advantage. It drives our economic growth, attracts businesses and families from across New England, and ensures that working Granite Staters keep more of what they earn. I support this amendment for the following reasons: - PERMANENT CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION: This amendment would enshrine the income tax ban in our constitution, ensuring no future legislature can impose an income tax without the people's consent through another constitutional amendment. - LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE: If passed by the House and Senate, this question goes directly to the voters on the ballot. The people of New Hampshire deserve the right to permanently protect themselves from an income tax. - ECONOMIC STRENGTH: New Hampshire's no-income-tax status is our greatest competitive advantage. Neighboring states with income taxes continue to lose residents and businesses to New Hampshire. - PROTECTING FAMILIES: Working families in New Hampshire keep more of what they earn than in any neighboring state. This amendment ensures that will always be the case. - CLEAR AND STRONG LANGUAGE: The amendment explicitly prohibits any tax on wages, earned income, personal income, or other income of individuals, regardless of its designation. There are no loopholes. I urge the committee to recommend the New Hampshire Advantage Amendment and send it to the full House for approval. Let the people of New Hampshire vote to protect their wallets and their future. Thank you for your consideration.
Patricia BatchelderOpposeGilsum, NHfor MyselfApr 15, 2026
I am vociferously opposed to adding this amendment to the the bill to prohibit taxation on NH personal incomes. NH is hurting badly from the reduction of business tax revenues. This is a severe detriment to the growth and prosperity of our state. I understand the need to be attractive to incoming businesses but this is going to far. An undue burden is placed on the homeowners of this state in the wildly disparate property taxes that keep rising. Like myself, many property owners have no children in the school system. I have no issue with contributing to the education of NH school children but there is a better way and it is called a state income tax, and/or a sales tax. Please consider one or both of these options. It is far more fair than the current property tax debacle. Thank you, Pat Batchelder
Cody HusseyOpposeCanaan, NHfor MyselfApr 15, 2026
Adding this to the constitution would be a grave mistake. We need to constantly review our options and an income tax is one of those options. I can't watch my property tax continue to rise, I oppose this bill.
Rebecca MacKenzieOpposeCLAREMONT, NHfor MyselfApr 15, 2026
Dear Ways and Means Representatives, Please oppose CACR12, which would change the way revenues are raised in NH. We need everyone who is eligible to pay taxes pay their fair share, which should be judged by ability to pay, and not exclude anyone, especially those who are most able to pay. My husband and I are in our 70s and, between healthcare, rising transportation and food costs, we are loosing ground financially. What we thought would be a comfortable retirement is becoming an anxiety-provoking situation. Please oppose this inequitable bill. Sincerely, Rebecca MacKenzie Claremont, NH
Nancy IngallsSupportForm letterN Woodstock, NHfor MyselfApr 15, 2026
Dear Chairman Janigian and Members of the Ways and Means Committee, I am writing in strong support of the New Hampshire Advantage Amendment to CACR 12, which would amend the New Hampshire Constitution to permanently ban any tax on personal income. New Hampshire's lack of an income tax is the foundation of the New Hampshire Advantage. It drives our economic growth, attracts businesses and families from across New England, and ensures that working Granite Staters keep more of what they earn. I support this amendment for the following reasons: - PERMANENT CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION: This amendment would enshrine the income tax ban in our constitution, ensuring no future legislature can impose an income tax without the people's consent through another constitutional amendment. - LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE: If passed by the House and Senate, this question goes directly to the voters on the ballot. The people of New Hampshire deserve the right to permanently protect themselves from an income tax. - ECONOMIC STRENGTH: New Hampshire's no-income-tax status is our greatest competitive advantage. Neighboring states with income taxes continue to lose residents and businesses to New Hampshire. - PROTECTING FAMILIES: Working families in New Hampshire keep more of what they earn than in any neighboring state. This amendment ensures that will always be the case. - CLEAR AND STRONG LANGUAGE: The amendment explicitly prohibits any tax on wages, earned income, personal income, or other income of individuals, regardless of its designation. There are no loopholes. I urge the committee to recommend the New Hampshire Advantage Amendment and send it to the full House for approval. Let the people of New Hampshire vote to protect their wallets and their future. Thank you for your consideration.
Kathleen SweeneyOpposeChesterfield, NHfor Myselfflagged non-germaneApr 15, 2026
I am opposed to shutting down options and possibilities for the future.
Richard HendersonOpposeAlstead, NHfor Myselfflagged non-germaneApr 15, 2026
I oppose the non-germane amendment to this bill. We should not preclude the possibility of restoring taxes on dividends, for example.
Katharine ThompsonOpposeSouth Tamworth, NHfor MyselfApr 15, 2026
Bad idea. It's the lack of a FAIR statewide income tax that is the main reason why our property taxes are so high and why New Hampshire's public schools are so unequally funded. For example, the "Cut Our Property Taxes" group's 3-3 Tax Savings Plan would REDUCE the state and local taxes of about 80% of New Hampshire residents. Don't axe the opportunity for sensible reform.
Kim LawrenceOpposeBedford, NHfor MyselfApr 15, 2026
To the Honorable Members of the Committee: I am writing in opposition to CACR 12, which proposes a constitutional amendment requiring a two-thirds supermajority vote of the legislature to enact any broad-based tax. At its core, this amendment would fundamentally alter how New Hampshire governs itself—not by improving accountability, but by making it significantly harder for elected representatives to respond to the needs of the people. Requiring a supermajority for broad-based taxes may sound like a safeguard, but in practice it creates legislative gridlock. It gives a small minority of lawmakers the power to block action, even when a clear majority of elected officials—and by extension, the voters—support a policy. This undermines the principle of majority rule that is central to a functioning democracy. New Hampshire already has a long-standing political culture that is cautious around taxation. This amendment goes further by locking that caution into the Constitution, making future adjustments extremely difficult—even in times of economic crisis, infrastructure need, or shifts in federal funding. It removes flexibility from future legislatures and voters who may face challenges we cannot yet predict. Additionally, the amendment is overly broad in its definition of “broad-based taxes,” covering income, sales, capital gains, and more. This could severely limit the state’s ability to consider balanced, equitable approaches to funding essential services like education, healthcare, and public safety. Instead of thoughtful policy debates, this measure would shut down options before they can even be considered. Constitutional amendments should be used sparingly and only when absolutely necessary. Embedding this level of restriction into the Constitution ties the hands of future generations and limits their ability to govern themselves based on their own needs and priorities. For these reasons, I respectfully urge you to oppose CACR 12. Thank you for your time and consideration. Kim Lawrence Resident of New Hampshire
Katy PeternelSupportWolfeboro, NHfor MyselfApr 15, 2026
If NH wants to encourage younger people and families to move to and stay in NH then this is one huge step in the right direction. Letting them keep their hard earned money instead of creating broad based taxes that just keep increasing every time there is a pet project the state needs to fund.
Mark WatsonSupportForm letterAlton Bay, NHfor MyselfApr 15, 2026
Dear Chairman Janigian and Members of the Ways and Means Committee, I am writing in strong support of the New Hampshire Advantage Amendment to CACR 12, which would amend the New Hampshire Constitution to permanently ban any tax on personal income. New Hampshire's lack of an income tax is the foundation of the New Hampshire Advantage. It drives our economic growth, attracts businesses and families from across New England, and ensures that working Granite Staters keep more of what they earn. I support this amendment for the following reasons: - PERMANENT CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION: This amendment would enshrine the income tax ban in our constitution, ensuring no future legislature can impose an income tax without the people's consent through another constitutional amendment. - LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE: If passed by the House and Senate, this question goes directly to the voters on the ballot. The people of New Hampshire deserve the right to permanently protect themselves from an income tax. - ECONOMIC STRENGTH: New Hampshire's no-income-tax status is our greatest competitive advantage. Neighboring states with income taxes continue to lose residents and businesses to New Hampshire. - PROTECTING FAMILIES: Working families in New Hampshire keep more of what they earn than in any neighboring state. This amendment ensures that will always be the case. - CLEAR AND STRONG LANGUAGE: The amendment explicitly prohibits any tax on wages, earned income, personal income, or other income of individuals, regardless of its designation. There are no loopholes. I urge the committee to recommend the New Hampshire Advantage Amendment and send it to the full House for approval. Let the people of New Hampshire vote to protect their wallets and their future. Thank you for your consideration.
Janet StammelyOpposeSandown, NHfor MyselfApr 15, 2026
Please oppose CACR 12 This will have devastating impacts on local property owners. It increases burden on already struggling families and school systems.
Carolyn MurphySupportForm letterAlton, NHfor MyselfApr 15, 2026
Dear Chairman Janigian and Members of the Ways and Means Committee, I am writing in strong support of the New Hampshire Advantage Amendment to CACR 12, which would amend the New Hampshire Constitution to permanently ban any tax on personal income. New Hampshire's lack of an income tax is the foundation of the New Hampshire Advantage. It drives our economic growth, attracts businesses and families from across New England, and ensures that working Granite Staters keep more of what they earn. I support this amendment for the following reasons: - PERMANENT CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION: This amendment would enshrine the income tax ban in our constitution, ensuring no future legislature can impose an income tax without the people's consent through another constitutional amendment. - LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE: If passed by the House and Senate, this question goes directly to the voters on the ballot. The people of New Hampshire deserve the right to permanently protect themselves from an income tax. - ECONOMIC STRENGTH: New Hampshire's no-income-tax status is our greatest competitive advantage. Neighboring states with income taxes continue to lose residents and businesses to New Hampshire. - PROTECTING FAMILIES: Working families in New Hampshire keep more of what they earn than in any neighboring state. This amendment ensures that will always be the case. - CLEAR AND STRONG LANGUAGE: The amendment explicitly prohibits any tax on wages, earned income, personal income, or other income of individuals, regardless of its designation. There are no loopholes. I urge the committee to recommend the New Hampshire Advantage Amendment and send it to the full House for approval. Let the people of New Hampshire vote to protect their wallets and their future. Thank you for your consideration.
Deborah WengerOpposeWaterville Vslley, NHfor MyselfApr 15, 2026
Making a ban on an income tax part of our state constitution is both short sited and political theater. No one can predict what our state’s needs will be 5, 10, 20 years from now. I strongly oppose this legislation. There are so many more important issues to address vs trying to fix a problem that does not currently exist.