Last updated on 2014.08.25
Our new Governor and most legislators say they won't raise taxes to cover South Dakota's budget shortfall. But the Legislative hopper is collecting a number of bills that would raise revenues by other means.
- House Bill 1016 amends the rules for grain buyers, grain warehouses, and weighmasters (close friends of Miss Muffet?). Among other changes, HB 1016 adds the following underlined text to SDCL 49-43-5.2. "The application for a license to operate as a public grain warehouse shall be accompanied by a fee of two hundred fifty dollars for each municipality or location at which the warehouse operator receives or stores grain for hire." Farm friends, fill me in: does that mean Madison Farmers Elevator will pay $250 to license its Madison facility and another $250 to license its Ramona site?
- HB 1031 would hike the national registry fee for real estate appraisers from $75 to $80. One less latté....
- HB 1033 says you can't be an appraisal management company without registering with the Department of Revenue and Regulation. Application and renewal of said registration could cost $1000 bucks.
- The PUC must need a new office chairs: Senate Bill 24 would increase the maximum amount utilities pay to apply for a rate hike from $100,000 to $250,000.
- Ah! Senate Bill 39 isn't a new tax, just new taxpayers. I don't know whom this bill would get, but it wold take the sales tax exemption away from any non-profit charities that do not maintain a physical location within the state.
Penny here, penny there... these proposals are small potatoes compared to what could be coming if the South Dakota Legislature gets it through its thick skull that cutting 10% from education is just nutty talk. (Seriously, folks, do you really think we have 1500 teachers' worth of waste in South Dakota's K-12 system?) The items above won't even cover the sextupling of the lieutenant governor's salary.
But I will be interested to see if the South Dakota GOP's staunch defense of taxpayers against the filching fingers of government will apply to the above revenue-raisers as well.
Thanx for being one of the few to keep the awareness level high for what the Republicans are doing. Keep an eye out for cuts to services.
I thought you commies loved tax hikes?
Todd, whether we "commies" of your ad-hominal imagination love taxes is of much less relevance to the state budget than what the Republicans who control Pierre are thinking and what tax increases they really will support.
So you admit you are a communist?
Note the quote marks, Todd. More importantly, note the irrelevance of your question to the thesis of the post: The declared GOP rejection of higher taxes should require them to vote down the above pieces of legislation. Or do you think Pierre should take more money from grain warehousers, real estate appraisers, utilities, and out-of-state non-profit organizations?
I agree with your assessment of HB1016. $250 for each facility, and I have no problem with it. The PUC licenses grain buyers to do business and unless we want to eliminate the program and the oversight it provides it has to be paid for somehow. I would rather see a system where those businesses that benefit from the oversight provided pay for it than one where oversight is paid for by the general public in the form of a general fund appropriation.
Senate Bill 24 does not "raise revenue". It is an expense incurred dollar recovered situation. The problem is the PUC is incurring more expenses than we can legally collect hence the reason for the change. No general fund dollars.
You have interesting comments Nick.
P.S. It wasn’t the guy from Rapid who fixed your phone Corey.
Commissioner Kolbeck: I must not be using the proper Legislative definition of "revenue." But it does appear that SB 24 would move more money from the private sector to the public sector. Not that I mind: the PUC needs to pay the bills for providing its valuable service and oversight. That's cool. I'm just wondering how that differs economically and philosophically from raising taxes to recover dollars for expenses incurred for other valuable public services like schools and roads.
(p.s.: no midnight rings yet this year!)
I would argue the difference is we are not automatically taking in more money because of the change. We are just adjusting to the times so we can charge the correct amount when necessary. The next rate case may be under $125,000, but current trends and data tell us it will not. The PUC currently can only collect the actual costs up to the amount in statute. That is why we need our statute in a prudent position. I feel it also differs in the fact that no rate cases may be filed next year, so no costs would be incurred or money collected. Where as rising a fee is a somewhat certain rise in revenue. Yes, more money would flow from the “private†to the “publicâ€, but only in the exact amount the “private†costs the “publicâ€. “Cost causer paysâ€â€¦that’s regulatory lingo…:) Thanks.
Glad to hear about the rings !
Indeed, you do have an apple to my orange there, since when it comes to school funding, we can't expect the "cost causer" to pay (tuition for public school? yikes!). Besides, contrary to GOP thinking, education is an investment, not an expense....
Still, should Republicans block any and all revenue enhancements or private-public shifts of money?