This column by New Hampshire House Majority Leader Jason Osborne originally appeared in the New Hampshire Union Leader on March 23, 2026. Read it at unionleader.com.
Two weeks ago, several House Democrats stood on the steps of the State House and unveiled a plan to impose a broad-based income tax on New Hampshire.
They called it the “3-3 Plan” — three percent of your paycheck, combined with a new statewide property tax. A billion-dollar income tax layered on top of a billion-dollar property tax increase.
When Democratic leadership was asked about it, they said they did not support an income tax. Days later, House Republicans gave them the opportunity to prove it.
We brought forward a constitutional amendment that would allow voters to permanently ban an income tax in New Hampshire. Not a statute that could be reversed in a future session, but a constitutional protection that no legislature could undo.
It required a three-fifths vote to advance. That meant only a fraction of Democrats needed to join Republicans to let voters decide the issue. They refused.
Nearly every House Democrat, including their leadership, voted against allowing voters to permanently ban an income tax.
That vote tells you everything you need to know. If you oppose an income tax, there is no reason to vote against banning one. The only reason to oppose a permanent ban is to keep the option open.
Democrats want that option. And they are already telling you what they would do with it.
The “3-3 Plan” is not a minor adjustment to the current system. It would take a direct percentage of wages from working families every year, while also increasing statewide property taxes. It is a permanent expansion of government built on a permanent expansion of taxation.
New Hampshire has seen this playbook before.
Connecticut adopted an income tax decades ago with the promise that it would stabilize finances and reduce pressure on property taxes. Today, Connecticut has both an income tax and higher property taxes than New Hampshire.
Once a state adopts an income tax, it does not replace existing taxes. It adds to them. That is the future Democrats are keeping on the table.
New Hampshire has taken a different path. For generations, the state has rejected broad-based income and sales taxes and instead focused on controlling spending and maintaining local decision-making.
That model is worth protecting.
But protecting it requires confronting the cost pressures that are driving this debate — especially in education, which represents the largest share of local spending.
Over the past two decades, New Hampshire has experienced a significant decline in public school enrollment alongside a steady increase in overall spending. Administrative staffing has grown substantially even as the number of students in the system has fallen.
Those trends point to a structural problem that taxpayers can see every year when local budgets are set.
When enrollment declines but administrative systems remain fragmented across dozens of jurisdictions, costs do not adjust automatically. Communities are left funding overlapping operational structures while serving fewer students. That pressure shows up directly in property tax bills.
This is a question of whether the system itself is organized in a way that reflects today’s realities.
New Hampshire continues to operate a large number of separate administrative units, many performing the same core functions — payroll, compliance, procurement, and reporting — across the state. Maintaining those systems independently increases cost and complexity without improving classroom outcomes.
That is where reform must begin.
Curriculum decisions, school leadership, and classroom instruction should remain local. Communities should continue to shape their schools. But the operational side of the system should be examined with a focus on efficiency, accountability, and cost control.
If New Hampshire is serious about protecting taxpayers, it cannot ignore the structure of the system that is driving costs upward.
The choice facing the state is not theoretical. It is immediate and unavoidable. Either New Hampshire brings its cost structure in line with reality, or it adopts new taxes to sustain a system that has not adapted.
We can reform how education administration operates, reduce unnecessary duplication, and keep our tax structure intact, protecting the New Hampshire Advantage. Or we can follow the path Democrats are laying out — a path that leads to an income tax, higher property taxes, and a permanent shift away from the principles that have defined this state for generations.
House Republicans have made our position clear. New Hampshire does not need an income tax.
Originally published in the New Hampshire Union Leader.
