Can I get a break from my own party? To stop Republicans from destroying public schools and privatizing education, we need to make the case that public education is a common obligation, not a fee for service.
And then Democratic Senate Minority Leader Jason Frerichs says something this stupid:
Sen. Jason Frerichs, D-Wilmot, a farmer and rancher, said it’s appropriate to give agriculture a break on property taxes, especially for education. Homeowners deliver students to their local schools and businesses need a skilled workforce, he said, while farms demand little of a school district [Josh Verges, "Bargain on S.D. Farm Land," that Sioux Falls paper, 2013.06.23].
Good grief. Apparently Democratic Senator Frerichs believes...
- Farmers never got an education in public schools.
- Farmers don't send their kids to public schools.
- Farmers don't drive on roads built by workers who went to public school.
- Farmers don't deliver their products to businesses run by graduates of public schools.
- Farmers have no obligation to the general welfare or future generations.
Farmers, ranchers, blue-collar workers, white-collar workers, students, retirees—we all depend on a healthy economic and political culture. We all depend on free, fair, and universal public education to make that culture possible. To excuse any citizen or special class from paying taxes because they "demand little of a school district" misunderstands and undermines the vital principle of public education.
Read your state constitution, Senator Frerichs:
The stability of a republican form of government depending on the morality and intelligence of the people, it shall be the duty of the Legislature to establish and maintain a general and uniform system of public schools wherein tuition shall be without charge, and equally open to all; and to adopt all suitable means to secure to the people the advantages and opportunities of education [South Dakota Constitution, Article 8, Section 1].
...and hand a copy to your farm constituents in case they come asking you for tax breaks.
Related: According to data presented by the Department of Revenue to the Legislature's interim committee on education funding last week, agricultural land made up 35% of property value in South Dakota in 2012 but produced only 25% of the property tax collected. Other commercial property (agriculture is a business, too, right?) made up 23% of property value but paid 31% of property taxes. Owner-occupied property made up 40% of property value and paid 40% of property taxes.
Once again we see which TV cable 'news' network a Democrat watches and believes. Jason should just go join ALEC and complete the transformation. The core beliefs of the Democratic party appear to be to hard to follow.
Sounds like he's gearing up to run against Jim Bolin for School and Public Lands to me...
But isn't this kind of SD's mentality? South Dakotans are the one who voted down a half cent sales tax that would have gone for education, am I correct? South Dakotans apparently do think they're educated enough from voting down a very reasonable next to nothing tax increase.
6. Most farm kids have left the farm and went to the city looking for jobs ever since the tractor was invented. So all those farm kids need a city education also.
As for the roads that taxes pay for, there are more miles of roads per farm than there is per house in town. So farmers ask a lot more for taxes for roads than the city folks do. What if the city people said to the farmers, pay for your own roads.
MR. FRERICK:
maybe everyone else that do not use those country roads should get a break on there taxes that agriculture tears up and while we are at it maybe we should get a break on our income tax that pays for those farm subsides that we all do not get!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ag land prices have gone up 5X to 10X in the last decade. Taxes and "valuation" have not.
A reasonable retort, Jenny... but is there a difference between opposing the imposition of a regressive tax on the general population and advocating for specific tax breaks vor a specific class under the premise that said class does not benefit from public schools?
Wow! I mean really, wow!
I know I have said and defended this position before, when a population is well educated, everyone in the community benefits, even those without children.
To be fair I am not in favor of higher taxes just because some says they need more money. By the same token I do not support tax breaks because people believe they benefit from public school less. Anyone who interacts in the community benefits from well educated population.
An acre of farmland even these days does not generate the income that an acre of walmart does. And farm people pay on their homes as well as their land, so they make up part of the third group. Just something to remember.
That is a good point, Joelie. Your local car dealer and grocer can say the same thing, right?
Joelie mentions income per acre; so would be fairer to tax farmers and Walmart based on their income rather than their acres?
MC, I smell agreement in principle here! Thank you! Now we can focus on the fairest way to tax everyone to support vital public goods like our schools.
I think his statement sounds worse than he meant it. He was referring to property taxes, after all, and South Dakota could do a lot for everyone by instituting an income tax that partly funded both property tax reduction for everyone and school improvement.
Yes, values of farmland have increased, but how much of that is driven by sales to farmers, and how much is driven by sales to speculators or outsiders more interested in farming the tax code or having a nice spot to hunt.
Farms have gotten much larger since the 1930s, but especially with the hollowing out of rural areas since the farm crisis in the 1980s, there are fewer farm families sending children to school.
I think the percentage breakdown given is about right for property tax. The problem is you don't have an income tax to make the entire tax system fair.
Another example of the various fault lines running through the legislature. Just as many issues are decided based upon urban vs. rural as are decided based upon Republican vs. Democrat.
Sen. Frerichs represents a lot of rural folks so you might expect him to champion rural issues. So his argument here doesn't stand up to scrutiny, but how many other people's arguments don't stand up to scrutiny? I don't think his constituents care what argument he makes as long as he gets them their tax breaks. In this particular case, it doesn't really matter what argument he makes because he will have the same people agree/disagree with the tax disparities for which he's advocating.
Frerichs is an instructor at Lake Area Tech, a SDSU grad, a former page in the United States Senate, and SDEA featured him in a television ad about the value of education for South Dakota kids.
It appears to me he misspoke while talking to a reporter.
Let's hope he follows up and says he simply misspoke. But defending public education as a common obligation and not a fee for service should roll easily and immediately of the lips of a Democratic legislator. (Hey, can I make that line a purity test for my party? :-) )
There seems to be several levels of disconnect in his statement and the ramifications:
1. South Dakota farmland is cheaper than most any other state. The net worth of South Dakota farmers has increased because of the value of the land. We know the land cannot be consistently productive to allow a young farmer / rancher to pay even a modest mortgage. With land taxed at market value there would be no ability to pay the taxes also.
2. We currently have a discounted real property tax assessed against farmland to keep farmers as land owners.
3. Does the real property tax raise closer to market value if a non farmer / rancher buy the land? If it does not raise, why not? The farmer / rancher can't own it any longer, why should the assessed tax value stay the low? If the non-ag owner raises the cost beyond the farmer's / rancher's ability and takes possession of the deed, why should the tax stay low?
4. The land is now purely an investment for the non-ag, absentee owner. The non-ag owner is parking money in South Dakota real estate to the determent of the rest of us.
5. The state of South Dakota has given a tax break to farmers / ranchers to keep the land. Now non-ag people are waving big dollars in front of sellers eager to cash in. The should be a payback to the state for the taxes forgiven if the land is sold to non-ag money parking buyers.
6. There is prime example of this situation in the southeastern area of the state where an out of state businessman is attempting to dodge Iowa taxes after selling his business. His billions of dollars are running up the ag land values beyond the reach of almost everyone. Why should his greed and reluctance to repay Iowans for their sacrifice for him, be rewarded in South Dakota? In this process his is ruining the long range value of South Dakota farmers.
.
Just some thoughts, thanks for reading...
I look at it a little different.
If a town doesn't have a school the value of the houses and businesses goes down, goes down big. While it has no effect on the value of farm ground whatsoever.
The other problem I have with having property taxes funding education is that an old landowner who has no kids, pays more then a family of 5 who lives in a house in town.
I just think South Dakota needs to totally rework their tax code, whether thats an income tax or a larger sales tax or something.
Sen. Frerichs knows what Sen. Rhoden knows and what Rep. Peterson knows. 9 out of 10 constituents agree that the best tax is one that somebody else pays. So they keep delivering the sweets their constituents crave to satisfy their tax break tooths.
I wouldn't have a problem with property taxes being replaced with an income tax if that would actually work. That won't work with the current tax code. I don't have a problem with paying taxes to fund schools and roads, etc. I do have a problem with government raising taxes rather than solving the problem of a bloated corrupt system.
I take it, Bree, you're saying the current income tax system is bloated and corrupt, not the public school system?
But even make a bookmark here: if we can assure Bree that a state income tax would be no more bloated or corrupt than our state property tax collection system, she would support my plan to replace dollar for dollar our property tax with a state income tax. We're making progress!
I like where Testor takes the discussion, looking at the market impacts of the property tax. We can make plenty of arguments along those lines about how the property tax is unfair. But Joelie, we shouldn't go the route of saying, "I don't have kids, so why should I have to support the school?" That's kind of like saying, "I have a gun, so why should I have to pay taxes to support the army?" or "I have a garden, so why should I have to pay taxes to pay for farm subsidies?"
There's not much in government that isn't bloated and corrupt right now, including the public school system.
If you replace the property tax with an income tax I'm pretty sure my family would pay no taxes or close to it. This is the rare occasion you'll see my advocating for taxes (do I sound like a liberal?) but I believe in lower taxes for everyone - not no taxes for some. I think the current tax system is broken and especially unfair to the paycheck-receiving middle class. I'm not sure an income tax is better than a property tax - but you'd have to fix the current tax code first regardless.
Why is it appropriate to tax farm land on the basis of increased farm commodity prices, but allow lawyers, doctors, real estate hawkers, etc. to make their money on a few square feet of property never taxed on the basis of income per square foot?
Many people in rural towns pay more for internet and TV per year than for property taxes and may have had a half-dozen kids educated in the school system.
Farmers and ranchers don't get any big price cuts from doctors and professors in gratitude for funding most of their K-12 education. People working in towns wholly dependent on agriculture as it is, think farmers and ranchers should be paying more than 80% of the school costs even if less than 20% of the school students come from the rural land area.
Would city residents be happy finally if agriculture paid for 100%l of the K-12 education or would they still have some jealous bitching expecting their kids be paid salary to go to school by taxes on agriculture?
O.K. Douglas. Have it your way. Ag land can be taxed at market value just like residential and commercial.
How do you think ag property is taxed already? Some doctor or lawyer in Chicago or Minneapolis wants guaranteed pheasant hunting and pays an inflated price for land with soil type X and then all the land in the county gets reappraised on the basis of soil type X percentage.
This is like taxing a lawyer's office in Podunk on the same basis of a corporate patent attorney's income per square foot of office in Washington, DC.
South Dakota needs a kind of gold medal committee to look at all kinds of property and income and government services and then put together a tax system that locks those taxes together unless a special majority changes the ratios. Then some consideration of who and what generates costs to government can be considered in determining the tax rates.
Then we won't have the tax not me, but the guy behind that tree determining every tax increase impacting the most vulnerable according to assessors and lobbyist legislators' imaginations.