Coalition Organizes to Oppose IM-28
PIERRE – A broad group of South Dakotans has launched a coalition to oppose Initiated Measure 28 in the November General Election. The coalition believes eliminating the sales tax on anything for human consumption would result in irresponsible funding cuts to essential government functions or lead to new tax increases.
IM-28 would eliminate state and local taxation on “anything sold for human consumption,” including tobacco, CBD, mouthwash, vaping products, toothpaste, marijuana, beverages, and a host of other items, excluding alcohol and prepared food.
It would eliminate more than $176 million annually in state revenues and millions more from already lean local city budgets and will negatively impact South Dakotans. IM-28 will directly result in across-the-board cuts that will reduce quality of life and essential services unless other taxes are increased. At the state level, the $176 million shortfall will result in painful cuts impacting schools and healthcare patients—the two largest expenditure categories in the state budget.
The IM-28 opposition effort is led by South Dakotans Against A State Income Tax, comprised of Sioux Falls Mayor Paul TenHaken, South Dakota Retailers Association Executive Director Nathan Sanderson, and Rapid City businesswoman Erin Krueger.
“Eliminating the sales tax on anything for human consumption will have widespread tremendous negative consequences and could set South Dakota up for an income tax,” said Krueger. “An income tax is the wrong approach for South Dakota, so we urge voters to oppose IM-28.”
South Dakota is one of only seven states without a state income tax. The other states are Alaska, Florida, Nevada, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming. South Dakota also has one of lowest tax burdens in the nation and operates on a balanced, fiscally conservative budget. According to Wallet Hub, South Dakota has the seventh lowest tax burden in the nation at a rate below neighboring states Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska and North Dakota.
“The language in IM-28 was chosen for one of two possible reasons; to eliminate sales taxes on many items to set up South Dakota for a state income tax, or it was drafted improperly,” Sanderson noted. “Either way, it’s bad for South Dakotans and voters should vote no on IM-28.”
The measure will also prevent municipalities from collecting sales taxes on these same items. Current state law (SDCL 10-52-2) says that municipalities can only charge a sales tax as long as the “tax conforms in all respects to the state tax on such items with the exception of the rate,” if the state cannot charge sales taxes on “anything sold for human consumption,” neither can cities and towns.
“Eliminating the sales tax for cities and towns will leave a huge hole in city budgets,” said TenHaken. “In Sioux Falls, we would see major cuts to funding for law enforcement, road repairs, pools and parks. Unlike the state, cities don’t have the ability to impose a local income tax, meaning property taxes on seniors and working families would have to increase or city services would drastically be reduced. A sales tax based on consumption levels and also paid for by non-South Dakotans is fairer to the pocketbooks of South Dakotans. IM-28 should be rejected and we should avoid its consequences.”
Founding members of the coalition opposing IM-28 include:
- South Dakotans Against A State Income Tax
- Coalition for Responsible Taxation
- Greater Sioux Falls Chamber of Commerce
- SD Association of Cooperatives
- SD Bankers Association
- SD Cattlemen’s Association
- SD Chamber of Commerce & Industry
- SD Economic Development Professionals Association
- SD Education Association
- SD Farm Bureau
- SD Hotel & Lodging Association
- SD Licensed Beverage Dealers & Gaming Association
- SD Municipal League
- SD Music & Vending Association
- SD Petroleum & Propane Marketers Association
- SD Retailers Association
Citizens and organizations can find more information and sign-up to join the coalition at nosdincometax.com.
A formal opposition Ballot Question Committee was established with the Secretary of State by South Dakotans Against A State Income Tax in June 2024.
###
Attachments:
Paid for by South Dakotans Against A State Income Tax
Get your facts straight. There are 9 states with no income tax and all but 1 of them have NO tax on groceries and the other one has a reduced grocery tax rate. How do those states manage but SD can’t figure it out?
Those other states don’t have donors to provide kick backs to, they probably have checks and balances within their state government too. The citizens also may require transparency in government. Most of SD is just concerned only about Trump v. Biden, they are willing to give up their freedom, savings, and property if the inner party says it is needed “bECaUsE of BideN”! It makes no sense.
Maybe it’s because they either jack up property taxes to high-heaven, or have a ton of natural resources that they earn revenue on (looking at you Alaska).
Regressive tax structures. Less federal funding for SD will mean we pay more and that is the future of the Republican party.
No tax on tobacco, vapes associated products Marijuana, CBD, Magic Mushrooms and other intoxicants sold at those seedy Tobacco shops?
Agreed, IM-28 is poorly written and overly broad. It will pass easily.
Stupid and uninformed voters will get what they sow. And it ain’t good.
Noem should’ve worked harder.
The death of the measure, initiated as number 28, will simply be the sloppily written crap that happens with every Mr. Weiland measure, initiated. In essence, the death of the measure, initiated as number 28, is that Mr. Weiland is involved at all. Weiland = Fail
Forthwith. I think you’re having a stroke. Get help immediately.
Ms. Hubbel, she who is one of the insaner-but-prettier ladies of the internet, emailed grudznick to point out that her friend, Mr. H, is blogging about some sort of bicycle trip where he appears ill equipped. It may be, and I’m just sayin…that grudznick’s close personal friend Lar snapped young Mr. H’s mind for good.
grudznick’s granddaughter’s boyfriend, who is clearing a better wheeler than Mr. H, read the bloggings and noted that where Mr. H failed, a few short miles from a marker, it was not from his lack of preparation but from his lack of using the correct tools. His velocipede, fancy as it may have appeared, was of quality lacking. Mr. H did not splurge for the right tools. And he did not have the fortitude to walk 10 more miles.
Who amongst you is not surprised?
Why would the SDNEA support no grocery tax? The local cities must fund schools and IM 28 will certainly take funds from education.
Secondly, I’m not opposed to removing a grocery tax on real, nutritious foods. The state could regulate using common sense – no tax on unsweetened cereals, fresh fruit and veg, meat, unsweetened daily products. All junk foods like chips, ice cream ( I’m a big fan), soda, and sugary drinks removed. Was the department or health involved in determining food values? Families need budget relief and thus is one way to help them with out giving handouts.
It is a misnomer that our schools need more money. Case in point: https://www.amazon.com/-/he/John-C-Dale/dp/B0D6XX98M1
Schools are not funded from City or municpal budgets.
So, does the money that would be paid to taxes vaporize, or? What happens to that money and how might it impact the claims above? I mean .. it has to go somewhere, right? Does that money not running through municipalities gain velocity and help the economy in any way? My biggest concern is the infantile complex .. when you talk about taking something away from government organizations, they become infantile, but instead of throwing toys or screaming, they hurl poverty, stalking, and intentional infliction of pain on those questioning the cash flows.
That’s like a handy convenient list of everybody that must be on the tax/spend/waste gravy train. South Dakota’s housing projects (and the NY style administrivia that was created to manage them) are a boondoggle. Our tax dollars were leveraged to create massive debt /liability for these projects, no?
it is entertaining to watch any trump advocate hold forth on the infantile nature of a thing.
Or, as stated by the Mayor of Sioux Falls, “drastically cut services.” Government, at all levels, should only fund those things inherently governmental. One definition of “inherently governmental” is “inherently governmental activity is an activity that is so intimately related to the public interest as to mandate performance by government personnel.” See https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/legacy_drupal_files/omb/circulars/A76/a76_incl_tech_correction.pdf.
Republicans say they support lower taxes and limited government. How you vote on IM28 is an indicator if you actually believe this or just say it.
Lots of fat to cut from the Sioux Falls City budget.
No one does spending for things which are NOT “inherently governmental” than Progressive Paulie (e.g. spending $9 million to purchase a fitness center from Sanford Health; tossing [proudly, with celebratory selfies] a million and a half to a private project to restore a theatre).