Rep. Tom Schamberg (D-Wilmot) told the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee he would need 15 minutes to present HB502 to the committee — an unusually long period of time for a body that must consider hundreds of bills.
But when Schamberg got behind the mic, he barely mentioned his legislation, instead launching into what acting Chairman Rep. Jordon Ulery (R-Hudson) called a “diatribe” against Gov. Kelly Ayotte and her fellow Republicans in the legislature. He denounced what he called “tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy” and claimed GOP tax cuts had “downshifted” costs onto local property taxpayers.
As Schamberg read his political speech to the committee, the chairman interrupted several times asking him to discuss the specifics of his bill. “What does the bill do? How does it do it? And why should the bill pass?” he asked.
Schamberg refused to answer but continued to read his speech attacking GOP tax policy. When he was done, the Wilmot Democrat refused to take any questions from the committee.
Why?
Republicans say it’s because he didn’t want to say, on the record and in public, what his legislation would do: Create an income tax for New Hampshire and raise taxes on Granite State businesses.
Specifically, Schamberg’s bill “increases the rates of the business profits tax, business enterprise tax, and meals and rooms tax, and reestablishes the interest and dividends tax,” according to the House legislative analysis.
In a social media post, House Republicans accused Democrats of reverting to their traditional tax-and-spend politics.
“New Hampshire Democrats are pushing for an income tax again,” the New Hampshire House Republican caucus said via social media. “HB 503 would reinstate the Interest and Dividends tax, which targets your savings and retirement income.
“The message is clear: Democrats are committed to higher taxes, despite the cost to hardworking Granite Staters.”
Republicans also hit Democrats on HB669, which was heard by the Ways and Means Committee on Thursday as well. The bill would raise taxes by more than $1 billion a year by imposing a state property tax of $5 per $1,000 of equalized property valuation to fund education. Unlike the current tax dollars collected by the SWEPT formula, towns would send all of the money collected to the state, rather than use it cover local expenses.
“In fiscal year 2026, it would raise about $1.62 billion — that’s ‘B,’ as in ‘boy’ — billion per year,” said lead sponsor Rep. Marjorie Smith (D-Durham). “That’s approximately $1.26 billion more than the current $363 million (required under state law.)
“All SWEPT revenue would be remitted to the Education Trust Fund, not retained locally, as is the current practice. This is a state tax. It is not a local tax, it is not a county tax, it is not a school tax. It is a state tax, and therefore, the state should collect the money and have a direct say and then how that money gets distributed,” Smith told the committee.
“Democratic bill HB 669 would impose a major hike on the statewide education property tax, hurting homeowners across New Hampshire,” Republicans responded via Twitter.
Democrats were quick to point out that Schamberg is the only sponsor of the income tax legislation, and nobody appeared before the committee to testify in favor of his proposal. However, the Democrats’ nominee for governor last year, former Manchester Mayor Joyce Craig, ran on a platform that included bringing back the income tax on interest and dividend income. And the argument that New Hampshire needs to increase revenues has been repeated by Democratic leaders in the House and Senate.
“They (Republicans) recklessly cut sources of revenue when we knew we could not make it up,” said Sen. Cindy Rosenwald (D-Nashua) said during a press conference with Democratic legislative leaders last month. “It’s a shame that the Republicans never were forthright with the public about what the end of the interest and dividend tax… means in terms of program cuts,” Rosenwald added.
But when asked if they planned to file legislation to restore the I&D tax, Rosenwald and her fellow Democrats responded with a resounding “no.”
