HB1596

Where in our Constitution is it allowed to take public funds for these things? Cherish ? mandated funding.

Testimony in Opposition to HB 1596 Honorable Members of the House Ways and Means Committee, I am here to express my opposition to House Bill 1596, which proposes to raise taxes on tobacco products, appropriates funds to the University System of New Hampshire, and repeals premiums for certain health care programs. While these components may appear beneficial at first glance, they have adverse implications for the most vulnerable populations in our communities. 1. Impact on Vulnerable Populations The repeal of premiums for the children’s health insurance program and the Granite Advantage Health Care program presents a serious concern. Although the intention may be to alleviate healthcare costs for families, the reality is that many low-income families depend on these programs to manage their healthcare needs. Adverse Underpinnings: By eliminating premiums, the bill compensates for increased state expenditures but does so by targeting those already facing precarious circumstances. As costs rise post-repeal, families may find themselves forced into difficult choices regarding their healthcare that they cannot afford, thus exacerbating existing inequalities. 2. Taxation and Economic Burden The bill’s proposal to raise the tobacco tax has implications that disproportionately affect lower-income individuals. While a tax on tobacco can serve public health objectives by reducing consumption, it can also place an economic strain on families that are already facing financial hardships. Who Benefits: The increase in tobacco tax may lead to a boost in state revenue, benefiting government organizations and perhaps contributing to broader health initiatives. However, the gain comes at the expense of lower-income families who may find themselves devoting more significant portions of their already limited budgets to tobacco products. Who Does Not Benefit: Low-income smokers, who may turn to cheaper or illicit alternatives to cope with higher costs, are likely to be adversely affected by the tax increases. Moreover, this demographic may also suffer from worsening health conditions, limiting their employment opportunities and perpetuating a cycle of disadvantage. 3. Higher Education Funding Concerns While the bill appropriates $18 million annually to the University System of New Hampshire, we must examine how these funds will be utilized. Without clear, equitable distribution plans, there is a risk that only those already positioned to benefit from the university system will gain, while minoritized groups struggle for access. Systemic Barriers: Students from marginalized backgrounds, including first-generation college students and low-income families, may continue to face barriers to higher education despite this funding. Without targeted scholarships or support services, this monetary allocation risks favoring those who already have access to educational resources. 4. Long-term Public Health Implications The bill's components do not adequately take into account public health research indicating that increasing taxes on tobacco can lead to decreased usage. While this intent is commendable, without accompanying support for smoking cessation programs or resources to address addiction, the bill may lead to an increase in health crises among those unable to cope with cessation efforts. Conclusion In conclusion, House Bill 1596 presents significant concerns regarding its potential to adversely impact vulnerable populations. While aiming to increase funding for higher education and public health, it risks further marginalization of low-income families who depend on health care programs and may be disproportionately affected by a tax increase. We must consider not just the immediate implications but also the long-term effects on equity and access for all New Hampshire residents. Thank you for your time and consideration.

As a smoker, I feel targeted by this bill, and you can say it’s my choice to smoke cigarettes, cigarettes are just as addictive as drugs and alcohol. If you drink too much you’re an alcoholic if you do drugs, you’re a drug addict but if you smoke, you’re just a smoker.. you say the cigarette tax helps towards healthcare, but how come you haven’t raised the alcohol tax when there’s been numerous liver transplants and people with cirrhosis because of drinking or you give heroin addict free needles and when they OD you give them Narcan if you’re going to tax cigarettes then there should be free cancer treatments. Also the excise tax for alcohol in New Hampshire hasn’t been raised since 1990s. Why don’t you try doing that to discourage drinking or do the alcohol lobbyists put too much money in your pockets?

The last statutory change to the official tax rate of alcohol in NH was in 1991. We give free Narcan and clean need exchange to heroine addicts, yet when the state needs money the gold standard solution for legislators is to go after smokers. It’s ridiculous and would be less insulting if changes were made across other areas as well at an even pace. But instead it’s tax the smokers. This tax is regressive and generally ends up hurting low income residents of our state.

I respectfully oppose HB1580, HB1707, HB1068, and SB634. Together, these bills increase taxes, expand regulation, and undermine New Hampshire’s long-standing treatment of short-term rentals as residential property. New surcharges, duplicative taxation, and the reclassification of homes as “hotels” would raise costs for local homeowners and create unnecessary regulatory and enforcement challenges. Many short-term rental owners are residents—not corporations—who rely on this income to maintain their homes and contribute to their communities. I urge the committee to reject these proposals and preserve a fair, balanced approach to short-term rentals. Thank you for your consideration.