Last updated on 2014.06.25
South Dakota is one of seven states that taxes food. We don't tax the food we give dairy cows; we're so eager to grovel before the dairy industry that we're going to stop taxing the straw those cows sleep on. We doggedly refuse to tax gold. But our Republican Legislature insists on raising the price of food for your kids by 4%.
In 2004, Republicans defused efforts to repeal the state food tax by offering a refund program: low-income folks could apply for a refund of the oney they paid in sales tax on food. For five years, that program refunded an average of about $2.8 million annually to just under 38,000 people, or about $75 per applicant. That's the equivalent of the state sales tax you'd pay on $1870 worth of groceries. That's roughly the amount one thrifty adult would spend on groceries for himself or herself in 2009. (Statute keys the refund to that thrifty food budget guideline.)
Then the Legislature kicked food stamp recipients out of the refund program. By limiting eligibility to folks sitting between 130% and 150% of the poverty line, the Legislature reduced the reach of the program from $3.05 million to 42,161 South Dakotans in 2009 to a projected $57,300 to 264 of our neighbors this year.
The Legislature still appropriates about $800,000 a year for the food tax refund program. Most of that money thus sits in limbo, doing no good to feed hungry South Dakotans.
Rep. Susy Blake (D-13/Sioux Falls) has a better idea. Her House Bill 1206 would end the food tax refund program. Instead of imposing bureaucratic rigamarole on a handful of low-income (though not lowest income) South Dakotans, Rep. Blake wants to direct that money to Feeding South Dakota, which provides food assistance to folks around the state. Check out this return on investment:
"What we would be able to do is take these dollars that are available in the general fund for this program in this rebate program and take those dollars to procure and transport more food to the people of South Dakota," Feeding South Dakota Executive Director Matt Gassen said.
If this bill passes the state Senate and takes effect, the value of the food that Feeding South Dakota could give out would be in the millions of dollars.
"We are talking over $5 million worth of food for an $800,000 investment. We think that's phenomenal," Gassen said [Kellee Azar, "Bill Would Give Money to Feed the Hungry," KELO, 2012.02.17].
Hmm, let's see: end ineffective bureaucracy, help a non-profit feed more people. It's not as good as a repeal of the food tax, but it's a pretty good idea.
Strangely, Rep. Blake has had to fight had to keep this good idea alive. House Appropriations initially voted 5-4 to kill this bill. Through some vigorous persuading and consensus-building, Rep. Blake was able to rescue the bill from committee and get it passed through the House on a 49-18 vote (all of the nays come from Republicans whose partisanship apparently keeps them from recognizing good practical policy).
HB 1206 goes to Senate Appropriations tomorrow. You might want to contact these committee members and tell them to support good food policy for our hungry neighbors:
"HB 1206 goes to Senate Appropriations tomorrow. You might want to contact these committee members and tell them to support good food policy for our hungry neighbors"
Yes I am going to tell them to find a hungry neighbor and give then some food. Why add on the cost of a Department of Social Services.
You have to understand that in South Dakota there is the belief that you have to work for what you get. You have to do a good job to get better pay, and all must be responsible. So when the store owner says they can not pay more than minimum wage because the worker has to be worth their pay and we believe that South Dakotans have a good enough work ethic and that they can go anywhere and get a job, and we have better test scores than average and have consistently lowest teacher pay, we already have the work ethic but we also need to get the pay them what they are worth ethic also.
We have so many wannabe rich people that they will vote for whatever is best for the rich. There is this myth that if the rich get richer by astronomical salaries and low taxes that they will generate more jobs. The workers are the ones buying the products and cutting them means less consumption and that means less demand so those who only look at supply side economics will fool themselves into thinking they are on the cusp of success while they slide down into a depression.
"The workers are the ones buying the products and cutting them means less consumption and that means less demand so those who only look at supply side economics will fool themselves into thinking they are on the cusp of success while they slide down into a depression."
Roger, unless you are the one printing the money, making interests on the debt that is used to fund welfare programs that make good little consumers out of the sluggards. Too bad we don't understand that the ones printing the money are causing the inflation that becomes the root cause of poverty to the working class.
Steve, the James River is being sold off in cubic feet to ecocidal archcriminals and you're throwing spitballs at its defenders to salvage the pennies you scrimp.
Got colonoscopy?
I'm all for a good tax cut in this situation. Also, Mr. Kurtz, what happens to be your stance on climate change? I'm interested.
Mr. Knuths, Cory isn't all that keen on my obsession with the hijacking of threads so i'll be brief: it's all Bush's fault...
Mercer: James River manager sacked.
It is curious to me why the 18 voted nay? Hunger is not a problem for me, but I do have enough empathy to understand it damn sure doesn't feel good for those that do have that issue.
There are about 30 states with no tax on food for home. How much data does our state need. I also see SD as a lower income state than any that do not tax.
Roger, you have a firm grasp on the fallacy of trickle-down economics. South Dakota has been putting its faith in trickle-down economics since before Reagan trickled into the White House, and we have yet to become a model of universal prosperity.
Les, indeed, I have a hard time seeing why anyone votes against this program except for partisan purposes. It takes money already allocated and serves that money's original goals more effectively. I think those Republicans just don't want the legs kicked out from under their rhetorical defense of the food tax.
EWG: Tell USDA to stand by its pesticide data program.
http://www.ewg.org/agmag/2012/02/don%E2%80%99t-let-the-pesticide-lobby-play-bully/
Democrats=safe; Republicans=cheap:
http://leftcoastvoices.wordpress.com/2012/03/01/subsidies-sickness-and-profit/