Regina, that link is a bit disingenous. Note that the percentage of income separation between New Hampshire as 7th lowest (8%) and the highest, New Jersey (12.2%), is slightly more than 4%. That's hardly a massive swing of taxes between states.
Then, there is this: "Not all taxes in New Hampshire are low, however. The state has the third highest property tax rate in the country." Most people who own property are a heck of a lot more affluent than those who rent.
So, in keeping with the theme of some of your posts, you should be very happy here, since rich property owners are levied with the third highest property tax rate in the country.
Most of us, I think, are pretty happy living here as compared to other states. That's why we're here. :-) Although few of us are getting rich.

I guess one has to decide where they want to live. If you want to live where there are broad-based taxes and lower in-state tuition rates, you can always move. However, you're here for a reason.
I don't speak for anyone but myself and I chose to live here (or move back here, in my case, since I'm a native whose family moved to Concord more than a century ago) because there are not broad-based taxes. We're certainly not here for the nightlife.

Here's my exact quote: "Most people who own property are a heck of a lot more affluent than those who rent." I said nothing about the value of property.
If you know renters, and I know a lot of them, you know that they don't have anywhere near the wealth or income that people who own property have. If they did, they would be owners too.
You have espoused on this website the desire to have "the rich" pay more than others. Well, if that is one of your goals, you should be happy with the current system here in New Hampshire. The larger and more expensive the house, the more tax you pay. A rich person will undoubtedly own a larger house than a poor person and, therefore, will pay more. If you're a renter, you a little pay too, since the tax is built into your rent. That's a pretty fair distribution of current taxes.
The broad-based tax schemes forwarded at the Statehouse in recent years will harm renters - often the poorest people in our state - by taxing at the paycheck or the cash register but offering no tax relief in rental costs.

I would add, as well, that if you are rich, you probably live in a rich town that is a donor community. Those people pay more into the system. If you have a spectacular view, you pay the view tax. If you are rich and own more than one home, you get nailed twice, based on your wealth and the value of what you own. You can't get more progressive than that.

The larger and more expensive the house? Well, which is it? The size of the house has less to do with it than where you bought the house. That's part of the problem, the size and extravagance of your house has nothing to do with it. A rich person can purchase a large house in the country and pay less taxes than a lower middle-class elsewhere. You are drawing relationships between renting and affluence; I know folks that rent who are most certainly not poor. For example, some people move to Concord for the school system, rent an apartment, and then move out after the kids graduate. That's quite common, and it has nothing to do with income. Instead of coming up with testaments, please address the Claremont lawsuit, which found inequities in the property tax system.

I'm not making this up, Tony, and I have as much history in this state as you do (if not more), although I think that's a bogus argument to begin with. We all have our own reasons to be here, and in my case, I want fairness for all of us. In the Republican case, they only want fairness for themselves.

I reject the argument that somehow imposing a sales tax would not provide relief for rent. With a proper implementation, rent would go down (after all, supply and demand, right?). If a renter could charge more now, they would. And they do, irrespective of the tax. And if it created a market for housing, that's a good thing. It would obviously have to be phased in.

"If you don't like it, leave"
"I've been here longer than you"

… and so on, that is playground negotiation. That's not how you run a democracy or a discussion. That's why we talk about these things, so we can point out what's working and what's not working. Otherwise, we would still be colonies.

Why do you keep avoiding the Claremont issue? The courts clearly ruled that property taxes were inequitable between towns. You continue to ignore the fact that the size of your house doesn't equal your property tax. You continue to ignore the fact that the difference in property taxes is the town that you live in. You can easily game the system by parking in an apartment, living in a depressed county, so on and so forth. It doesn't reflect income at all. It doesn't reflect the size of your house. Are you saying that if we had a progressive income tax instead of a property tax, that it would be the same? If you aren't saying that, then you really are baiting with your comments because that's what I'm trying to discuss here (inequitable tax burden).

I'm well aware of the statewide reaction to broad-based taxes, but the attitude about it has changed tremendously within the last few years, especially as the middle class gets smaller. You are going to find across history and across the nation that attitudes are changing, and you are going to find that's coming to New Hampshire. We already see it with the Occupy protests. By the way, we still have broad-based taxes in New Hampshire, they just aren't the big two.

As said before, your roots aren't any deeper than mine nor my extended family, and that argument is bogus, anyways. It's meaningless in a democracy.

We are going to disagree about the fairness of property taxes. Like it or lump it, I'm not the only one saying it.