The “3-3 Tax Savings Plan” was supposed to start a conversation about crushing property taxes and broken school funding. Instead, it triggered a death threat from the state Libertarian Party, a rushed constitutional amendment that collapsed on the House floor, and exposed the political fault lines that could define the 2026 elections.
By Granite State Report
Concord, N.H. – For half a century, there has been one iron law in New Hampshire politics: you do not propose an income tax and survive. The Pledge — that sacred, unwritten vow against any broad-based sales or income tax — has buried more political careers than scandal ever has. Candidates who so much as whisper the words “income tax” find themselves politically radioactive.
This week, former Executive Councilor and gubernatorial candidate Andru Volinsky and a coalition of Democratic activists and current lawmakers decided to do more than whisper. They held a press conference on the State House steps and unveiled a detailed plan to create a 3 percent income tax and a $3 per $1,000 statewide property tax to fund public education. They called it the “3-3 Tax Savings Plan.” They brought a tax calculator. They brought spreadsheets.
What they got in return was something no spreadsheet could have predicted: a death threat broadcast to the world on social media, bipartisan condemnation of their plan from their own party and the opposition alike, a hastily drawn constitutional amendment to ban income taxes forever — which then failed spectacularly on the House floor — and, perhaps most unexpectedly of all, a conversation that refused to die.
The Plan: What the “3-3” Would Actually Do
The proposal put forward by the group calling itself “Cut Our Property Taxes” is not a piece of legislation. There is no bill number. There is no plan to introduce it as an amendment this session. It is, by its authors’ own admission, a blueprint — a provocation designed to force a conversation that New Hampshire’s political establishment has refused to have for decades.
The mechanics are straightforward. A flat 3 percent income tax would apply to all residents, but with a $35,000 exemption per taxpayer and a $15,000 exemption per dependent. Under those terms, a two-parent household with two children earning $100,000 — roughly the state’s median household income — would owe nothing. A single worker or retiree would pay nothing on their first $35,000.
The statewide property tax would be set at $3 per $1,000 of equalized assessed value, roughly triple the current Statewide Education Property Tax rate of just over $1 per $1,000. A $250,000 homestead exemption would protect primary residences. Renters would receive a $750 annual credit. The approximately 100,000 Granite Staters who commute to income-tax states could claim those payments as a credit.
The 3-3 Plan at a Glance
| Component | Current System | Under 3-3 Plan |
|---|---|---|
| State income tax rate | None | 3% (with exemptions) |
| Statewide education property tax | ~$1.03 per $1,000 | $3.00 per $1,000 |
| Base per-pupil adequacy aid | ~$4,266 | $10,000 |
| Special education per-pupil aid | ~$2,185 | $25,000 |
| Estimated annual revenue | — | $2 billion |
| Homestead exemption | None | $250,000 on primary residence |
| Renter credit | None | $750 annual |
The proponents’ central argument is not about growing government. It is about shifting who pays. New Hampshire relies more heavily on local property taxes to fund public schools than any other state in the country. The result is a system its critics call both crushingly expensive and deeply unequal: the equalized school tax rate in Allenstown runs $11.10 per $1,000, while in wealthy Alton on Lake Winnipesaukee it sits at just $3.32 — even though Alton spends $2,200 more per student.
“It’s not that schools cost too much. New Hampshire’s school costs are in line with costs in the other New England states. The problem is how we pay for them.”
— Cut Our Property Taxes coalition statement
Volinsky, who served as the lead attorney in the landmark Claremont school funding lawsuits of the 1990s, framed the plan as arithmetic, not ideology. Using a tax calculator built by Keene City Councilor Bobby Williams, the group demonstrated that a homeowner in East Concord with a $400,000 assessed property — after the homestead exemption — would see school property taxes drop from approximately $6,900 to $4,500.
“Perfectly Permissible to Kill Him”
The policy details barely had time to circulate before the response turned violent — at least rhetorically.
Within hours of the Tuesday press conference, the official account of the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire posted on X that Volinsky was “threatening the forced conscription of millions of hours of labor” and that “under libertarian ethical theory, it is perfectly permissible to kill him.” The post included a parenthetical noting a desire to comply with X’s terms of service. Additional posts followed on Wednesday, including a poll asking users under what circumstances political violence is “legitimate.”
It was not the first time the NH Libertarian Party had endorsed political violence. In the fall of 2024, the party posted messages endorsing the assassination of then-Vice Presidential candidate Kamala Harris, drawing the attention of state and federal law enforcement.
Volinsky said he contacted law enforcement and expressed a kind of grim astonishment at the reaction. He had expected debate. He had expected disagreement. He had not expected a death threat — or, as he put it, the 24 hours of silence from his own party before anyone responded to it.
“This reprehensible tweet by libertarians is what 30 years of political cowardice has spawned. The idea that a policy solution is worthy of a death threat from the libertarians and condemnation from Democratic and Republican leadership is evidence that we severely need a change.”
— Andru Volinsky
House Democratic Leader Alexis Simpson of Exeter eventually released a statement calling the rhetoric “dangerous and unacceptable” and said that calling for murder over political disagreement “crosses a clear line.” The state Attorney General’s office confirmed it was aware of the posts and takes threats of violence seriously, but declined to comment on any potential investigation.
The Constitutional Gambit That Backfired
If the Libertarian Party’s response was unhinged, the Republican response was calculated — and arguably just as revealing.
House Majority Leader Jason Osborne of Auburn saw an opportunity. On Wednesday afternoon — barely 24 hours after Volinsky’s press conference — Osborne proposed a floor amendment to CACR 10, an existing constitutional amendment resolution requiring a two-thirds legislative supermajority to pass any new tax. Osborne’s twist: he wanted to add language banning a personal income tax outright, permanently enshrining the prohibition in the state constitution.
“This amendment codifies an income tax ban into the Constitution, where it belongs. Not now. Not ever,” Osborne declared on the House floor Thursday. His message to Democrats was pointed: if you truly oppose an income tax, prove it. Vote with us.
But the gambit collapsed. Democrats, even those who had publicly opposed Volinsky’s plan, refused to take the bait. Simpson called the amendment a “political stunt” that had been given fewer than 15 hours of consideration, with no public hearing and no committee review. The measure failed to reach the 60 percent threshold required for a constitutional amendment, falling largely along party lines.
“This is not serious policymaking. This is a political stunt.”
— House Democratic Leader Alexis Simpson, on the rushed income tax ban vote
The vote exposed a paradox at the heart of New Hampshire’s tax politics. Both parties officially oppose an income tax. But Democrats would not vote to constitutionally prohibit one — and Republicans could not get enough of their own members to reach the supermajority threshold without them. The issue is not going away. The Senate has already passed CACR 12, a separate constitutional amendment requiring a two-thirds vote to create any income, sales, or capital gains tax. The House Ways and Means Committee is scheduled to hold a public hearing on that measure on Monday.
The Deeper Crisis No One Wants to Solve
Beneath the theatrics of this week lies a problem that has defied resolution for three decades: how New Hampshire pays for public schools.
The Claremont Supreme Court rulings of 1993 and 1997 established that the state has a constitutional obligation to fund an adequate education for every child. The state has never fully complied. The current per-pupil adequacy payment of approximately $4,266 is among the lowest state contributions in the nation. The result is that local property taxpayers shoulder an outsized burden — and in property-poor communities, that burden is devastating.
In Charlestown, which has the highest property tax rate in the state, the local school portion alone exceeds $23 per $1,000 of assessed value — more than most towns’ total tax rate. After this year’s town meeting votes, the combined rate is expected to exceed $40 per $1,000.
Meanwhile, the system designed to equalize funding — the Statewide Education Property Tax, or SWEPT — has been hollowed out over decades of legislative tinkering. Property-wealthy towns that raise more SWEPT revenue than their students require get to keep the surplus. Unincorporated places with few or no students have their rates set to effectively zero. The money never leaves the community where it is raised.
Last week, state prosecutors asked the New Hampshire Supreme Court to reverse the Claremont decisions entirely. The same week, the House voted along partisan lines to pass a bill asserting that the state’s current education funding is already adequate — directly contradicting the Supreme Court’s recommendation last summer that lawmakers increase aid by more than $500 million per year.
A separate bill, HB 1800, sponsored by Republican Rep. Walter Spilsbury of Charlestown, would raise the SWEPT rate to $5 per $1,000 and require the money to flow to the state for redistribution rather than remaining in local coffers. Spilsbury has acknowledged the bill likely won’t pass this session but, like Volinsky, says the conversation must begin somewhere.
The Political Fallout: 2026 and Beyond
The timing of Volinsky’s proposal is no accident — and it has sent shockwaves through the emerging 2026 campaign landscape.
Cinde Warmington, the former Executive Councilor widely regarded as the leading Democratic candidate for governor, moved swiftly to distance herself. In an interview with WMUR last weekend, she declared flatly: “We will have no income tax, we will have no sales tax on my watch.” Her camp is reportedly frustrated that Volinsky has injected income taxes into the campaign bloodstream at exactly the moment Democrats were hoping to focus on kitchen-table affordability without the toxic “tax-and-spend” label.
Republicans are gleeful. Governor Kelly Ayotte’s spokesman wasted no time connecting the dots, warning that “we are never more than one election away from becoming Massachusetts” and suggesting Warmington would lack the courage to stop her party from passing broad-based taxes if elected. For the GOP, Volinsky’s plan is a gift — a fresh opportunity to relitigate the tax wars on favorable terrain heading into November.
But the deeper question is whether Volinsky has also tapped into something real. Poll after poll shows property taxes as the number-one concern of New Hampshire voters. The Pledge may still command deference from politicians, but voters in towns like Charlestown, Allenstown, and Manchester are increasingly asking a question their leaders have no answer for: if not an income tax, then what?
Timeline: One Week in New Hampshire Tax Politics
Monday, March 2
Volinsky’s group “Cut Our Property Taxes” announces the 3-3 Tax Savings Plan via press release. Democratic gubernatorial candidate Cinde Warmington tells WMUR she opposes any new taxes.
Tuesday, March 3
Press conference on State House steps unveils plan details and online tax calculator. Within hours, the NH Libertarian Party posts on X that it is “perfectly permissible to kill” Volinsky. Both Republican and Democratic leadership condemn the income tax proposal. House GOP leaders call it a “billion-dollar income tax scheme.”
Wednesday, March 4
Libertarian Party posts additional content including a poll on when political violence is “legitimate.” Volinsky contacts law enforcement. Osborne introduces last-minute floor amendment to CACR 10 to constitutionally ban an income tax. House Democratic Leader Simpson condemns the death threat.
Thursday, March 5
House votes down the income tax ban amendment on a near-party-line vote, falling short of the 60% supermajority threshold. House also passes a bill asserting current education funding is adequate, and votes on a resolution honoring the assassinated Minnesota House Speaker — during which Simpson raises the Volinsky death threat from the floor. Attorney General’s office confirms awareness of the Libertarian Party posts.
Monday, March 9 (Upcoming)
House Ways and Means Committee to hold public hearing on CACR 12, the Senate-passed amendment requiring a two-thirds vote for any new income, sales, or capital gains tax.
The Conversation That Won’t Die
Volinsky’s group insists the 3-3 Plan is not about this legislative session. It is about 2026 and beyond — about getting candidates to engage with the math rather than recite The Pledge and move on. To that end, the coalition’s online tax calculator invites every Granite Stater to run their own numbers. The implicit challenge: look at what you actually pay in property taxes, and then tell us the current system is working.
Critics have a ready response. Drew Cline, president of the free-market Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy, points out that inflation-adjusted per-pupil spending in New Hampshire public schools has risen 45 percent since 2001 even as enrollment dropped 26 percent. An income tax, Cline argues, would not curb spending — it would “further encourage unchecked spending” while eliminating the competitive advantage that has made New Hampshire an economic outlier in New England.
Deputy Majority Leader Joe Sweeney summed up the Republican position with characteristic bluntness: “Our answer is still HELL NO.”
But between the hell-no caucus and the income-tax reformers lies an enormous, anxious middle: homeowners watching their property tax bills climb year after year, in a state where the average home sale price has soared but the average wage hasn’t kept pace. For them, the conversation Volinsky started this week — however politically toxic, however clumsily received — may be the only honest one anyone in Concord is having.
The Claremont rulings may or may not survive the Supreme Court’s review. The Pledge may or may not hold through another election cycle. But the property tax bills arriving in mailboxes across New Hampshire this spring will be very, very real. And no constitutional amendment, no death threat, and no political stunt has yet made them any smaller.
Sources & Reporting
This report draws on coverage and public statements from NHPR, New Hampshire Bulletin, Concord Monitor, Union Leader, InDepthNH.org, NH Journal, Valley News, Eagle Tribune, and Citizens Count. Legislative records referenced include CACR 10, CACR 12, and HB 1800 from the 2026 New Hampshire legislative session. Statements from the NH Attorney General’s office, the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire, and elected officials are drawn from published reports. The 3-3 Tax Savings Plan details are sourced from the “Cut Our Property Taxes” coalition’s public materials and tax calculator at nhtaxsavingscalculator.com.
Share this:
Discover more from Granite State Report
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
