By Rep. David Preece, D-Manchester

New Hampshire’s tax system has always reflected a core Granite State value: independence. We make our own choices, we adapt when needed, and we don’t lock ourselves into rigid rules that limit our future.

That’s exactly what makes the proposed constitutional amendment banning a state income tax so troubling.

At first glance, it sounds appealing—after all, New Hampshire has long prided itself on not taxing earned income. But this amendment isn’t about preserving tradition. It’s about permanently removing a tool from the toolbox of future lawmakers and voters, no matter what challenges lie ahead.

And that’s not conservative. That’s reckless.

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.

Consider where New Hampshire stands today. We rely heavily on property taxes to fund essential services, including education. That system places a disproportionate burden on homeowners and communities—especially cities like Manchester, where property values and local needs create constant pressure on taxpayers.

At the same time, the state faces long-term obligations: infrastructure, public health, education funding, and economic development. Whether you agree with current spending levels or not, one thing is undeniable—those obligations don’t disappear simply because we wish them away.

So what happens if revenues fall short in the future?

If we pass this amendment, we limit our options to a narrower and narrower set of tools—raising property taxes, increasing business taxes, or cutting services. That’s it. No flexibility. No ability to rebalance the system. No ability to respond creatively to changing conditions.

That’s not protecting taxpayers. That’s cornering them.

Supporters argue this amendment provides certainty. But certainty for whom? It provides certainty that the burden will remain uneven. It provides certainty that local property taxpayers will continue to carry the load. And it provides certainty that future lawmakers will have fewer choices—no matter how responsible or necessary those choices might be.

There is also a deeper issue of democratic control.

This amendment would take a major policy decision and remove it from future debate. It would say to the next generation of Granite Staters: you don’t get to decide this for yourselves. We’ve decided for you.

That runs counter to everything New Hampshire stands for.

We trust voters to make decisions at the ballot box. We trust our legislature to debate, adapt, and respond. We don’t preemptively shut down entire categories of policy because they make us uncomfortable.

If an income tax is ever proposed in New Hampshire, it will face intense scrutiny—as it should. Voters will have their say—as they should. And policymakers will be held accountable—as they should.

That’s how democracy works.

But writing a permanent ban into the Constitution short-circuits that process. It replaces debate with prohibition. It replaces flexibility with rigidity. And it replaces trust in the people with fear of the future.

New Hampshire’s strength has never been in saying “never.” It has been in saying “we’ll decide.”

This amendment would take that choice away.

And once it’s gone, we won’t get it back.

David Preece