Nielson Brothers keep teasing me, saving their poll results on Rep. Kristi Noem's approval rating for last. In the mean time, we get their poll results on adding a penny sales tax to ease our state budget crunch:
The Nielson Brothers Polling (NBP) Labor Day Survey shows 56% of South Dakota voters oppose a penny per dollar increase in the state sales tax, while 35% of respondents support it, with 9% undecided. When asked whether, "in light of state budget cuts," they would support a "one percent sales tax increase," Democrats oppose it 53% to 39%. Republicans oppose it even more strongly 58% to 32%. Strongest opposition comes from Independent and other party members, 60% to 32%.
Those who self-identify as "liberals" are most likely to support the tax increase, with 56% in favor. A majority of "moderates" also support the increase (51%). However, support drops off among self-identified "conservatives" (31%) and even farther among those who associate themselves with the "tea party" (19%). Each group make up roughly a quarter of the survey respondents [Nielson Brothers Polling, press release, 2011.09.14].
I don't envy the task petitioneers face in getting a one-penny sales tax increase on the 2012 ballot. When I knocked on doors getting signatures to refer HB 1230 last spring, I had a relatively easy sell. The economic development grant program took a little explaining, but I could break my message down to, "This measure won't raise your taxes, but it will make sure your taxes aren't turned into corporate handouts."
If Moving South Dakota Forward requires more tax dollars (and there's a strong argument to be made that it does), it will take some hard convincing of a lot of voters. South Dakota has growing wealth; we should be able to spend more on public services. But even if sales tax petitioneers can make that case and break through the opposition NBP finds to increased taxes, they'll still have to convince us that the best way to tap that increasing wealth is to tax everyone at the cash register.
p.s.: For some participatory poll fun, the Yankton Press and Dakotan is running an online poll on whether we should raise the sales tax to fund education and health care. When I checked this morning, Yes and No were tied.
Sadly, I think the only real chance this has is if food and clothing are exempt.
So we have the left saying it is OK to tax the poor, reduce the amount they can buy by $180 million in order to "to ease our state budget crunch". Sad that the myth created by the SDGOP that the budget was cut $127 million, when it was reduced only $2 million, is believed by most everyone. The real plan is to increase taxes in order to fund Obamacare, a Democrat agenda that benefits Big Insurance, which was enacted with SB38 & SB43. Insurance mogul Mike Rounds has to be elated...having the left blamed for adding a tax on the poor that funds his empire. If he and his SDGOP establishment cohorts were really against this thing, they would be making the "higher taxes will hurt the economic recovery" argument.
A better approach by the Move SD Forward groups would have been to explore/research the BEEF program. 1% on all gross receipts to fund the state aid to education formula with elimination of property taxes and the state general fund(sales tax)to do the same would be more fair. property taxes would still fund capital outlay, bonding, and special ed. plus all local governments.
The ballot initiative, as written, allows a way to keep the sales tax increase from being applied to food. If passed, it would apply the additional 1% sales tax only to items that are currently taxed at the 4% state rate. Thus, if the 2012 legislature would reduce the sales tax on food, by say one-half-percentage-point, we could avoid having the tax on food increase, if the petition passes. It is my hope that both supporters and opponents of the initiative will agree that keeping the tax on food as low as possible would be helpful for children, families, seniors and would thus support a small reduction in the food tax during the 2012 legislature.
Without this exemption, I'd be inclined to oppose the initiative. By reducing the current sales tax on food and thus avoiding an increase in the sales tax on food, I'd be inclined to support the initiated measure.
I agree with Dr. Nesiba that if the initiative passes, there definitely needs to be an exemption for food. Increasing the regressive tax on the poor who already pay a far higher percent of their monthly budget on food than do those in higher income brackets is immoral.
The poor don't buy food, they use food stamps. Anybody want to answer what happens to an economy when the people buy $180 million less goods and services?
First of all, many low income people DO NOT receive food stamps or only receive a partial allotment.
"The poor don’t buy food, they use food stamps."
Really. So people who aren't on food stamps but live at the poverty line -- I guess they don't buy food? It just magically appears on their tables?
This sort of nonsense is both mean-spirited and insulting. You can't tell me that any of us who grew up in South Dakota didn't know hard-working people who were poor, yet who didn't get food stamps -- and yet you're going to sit there and type some flippant nonsense like this?
A great many low-income people do not have food stamps. For example, all the kids who eat reduced-price lunch at school. None of their families have food stamps, due to too much income.
As mentioned, some have partial allotments, as little as $16/month in food stamps. They buy the rest of their food with cash and pay tax on it, whether their meager budgets can afford the tax or not.
Oh, Dr. Nesiba, that Legislative fix is complicated! And I would worry that the Legislature, which rejected an extra-penny sales tax and turned back an effort to roll back the food tax during this year's session, would be even less inclined to consider a food-tax repeal if they see it as helping the chances of an initiated sales tax increase. Don't count on the Legislature for help!
I'm with Charlie: we need smarter taxes. Consider his BEEF tax. Consider a pipeline tax that would get us a portion TransCanada's big oil profits (and that not one South Dakotan will pay, because that oil will never hit the South Dakota market). Consider a corporate income tax.
Sibby, did you want to retract that "...they use food stamps" line.
It's understandable that you hate poor people, that seems to be in vogue with the radical, and not so radical right, but to make a patently false statement is either ignorant or mean spirited...possibly even both.
Reality check (as I see it, of course) ...
BEEF tax: No chance of passage or voter approval. It's a brand new tax, attended by a whole new bureaucracy, and people would instantly susupect that it could only go up with time.
Corporate income tax: No chance of passage or voter approval. It's a brand new tax, attended by a whole new bureaucracy, and people would instantly suspect that it would morph into a general income tax and then rise with time (or affect people with lower and lower incomes).
Penny sales tax increase: Not likely to pass in the legislature in any form. Unlikely to pass in a referendum to voters either. Only chance: Exempt groceries and maybe essential clothing. Even then, it's a toss-up, and only in a voter referendum.
We can face reality and try to get real money for education by means that actually have a chance to work, or we can deny reality and keep on banging the drums of impossibility, intermittently citing polls that, with fabulous stretches of the imagination, appear to alter reality to suit our desires, with no real effect whatsoever.
In my opinion.
As usual Sibby's made up his mind and doesn't want to be bothered with the facts. :roll:
Stan, you know how I feel about reality.
Actually, I did take the pragmatic stance you suggest last winter when I advocated voting for the temporary tourism sales tax. A somewhat odious tax, but probably the tax with the best prospect of passing the Legislature at that moment. It still failed.
In the long term, I'm still inclined to fight to change public opinion on the income tax. Sure, it might not pass tomorrow. But fighting to pass it would give us a chance to make the case as to why it would be better for South Dakota than our current system (and yes, I'll still stick with my advocacy for replacing sales and property tax with income tax).
I'm also not convinced it creates a whole new bureaucracy. The nice folks at the Department of Revenue just get some new spreadsheets and process some different checks. They are professionals; they are trained to handle new taxes.
And hey, if checks start coming to my household from a new source, I don't throw my hands up in despair and say, "Oh, no! Now I have to do a whole lot more paperwork!" I record the numbers, write a receipt, cash the checks, and make good use of the money! :-) I suspect the state could persevere similarly.
If states are supposed to act like corporations, then the law of supply and demand would dictate that the state have "tourism tax" of some sort. Tourism season increases a demand for service; increased demand means increased cost for provider and customer.
At some point, it seems to me that both the states and federal government should scrap their entire tax systems and start from scratch.
Both state and federal tax systems need to be about raising the necessary revenue in the most fair way possible instead of promoting social behavior or protecting campaign contributors.
I'm not holding my breath waiting for that to happen in my lifetime.
"Sibby, did you want to retract that “…they use food stamps†line.
It’s understandable that you hate poor people, that seems to be in vogue with the radical, and not so radical right, but to make a patently false statement is either ignorant or mean spirited…possibly even both."
I see nothing in Steve's posts which indicate he hates anybody. He may be suggesting policies on the basis of fallacious data or warped view of reality. It may not happen in all communities, but I see enough people who swipe that neat card to pay for groceries that I know it is a factor. It may be irrelevant in terms of repealing the sales tax on food however.
However, even some of the money from food stamp system gets into the SD economy and keeps things moving.
The 1% city sales tax should be removed from city use and applied to school funding. That might reduce city special interests from being so exited about boondoggle entertainment facilities.
I don't like paying sales taxes on food, but I especially don't like paying sales tax on food when I have no voice in how the revenue raised is spent ..or too often wasted. Taxation without representation is something the TEA party ought to be hammering on...it might even be one of those causes that is in parallel with the wishes and opinions of US founders and patriots.
Although I don't like the idea of raising the sales tax, since the legislature cut funding to education, I understand that we need to do something to make up for that. However, unless groceries are exempt from the sales tax increase, I will not support it. Even better would be the removal of sales tax on all groceries, not just the additional penny of sales tax.
"Sibby, did you want to retract that “…they use food stamps†line. "
First off, it is the welfare system that creates an environment that fosters the making of poor people. And second, those that I know who use food stamps smoke cigarettes, have cell phones, and go to $40 a night rock concerts.
And corporate socalists love the welfare system because they make interest on the debt funding of programs that allow "the poor" consume their products (cigarettes, cell phones, rock concerts, etc.).
Bill, it is you who can't handle the facts. When you correctly analyze the situation, it is the socialist left who promote programs used by the corporate right to oppress the poor. Why do you guys accuse those of us who bring the truth to light, "haters of the poor". Like I used to say over and over, Bill...get a mirror.