Gov. Rhoden Unveils Property Tax Savings Map
PIERRE, S.D. – Today, Governor Larry Rhoden unveiled a county map that shows how much South Dakotans save under his plan to cut property taxes, SB 96. You can find that map here.
“South Dakotans deserve a real property tax cut – and that is exactly what my plan delivers,” said Governor Larry Rhoden. “This new interactive map allows South Dakotans to see firsthand how much they can save under my plan. It puts numbers behind our promise to deliver relief for homeowners across our state.”
Governor Rhoden previously introduced his plan to cut property taxes, which gives counties the option to replace their share of property taxes with a half-cent sales tax. County commissions could implement this tax cut, or it could be referrable to a vote of the people, or the people could also initiate it for a vote in their local community. The proposal would also help counties draw more revenues from tourists and out-of-state visitors.
You can find more information about Governor Rhoden’s plan to cut property taxes here.
###
Editor’s note.. Here’s a few samples from the map:
Ok, but that’s savings off of property tax only. Reality will be far lower actual out of pocket savings, because you will be paying an additional sales tax (if your county votes to enact one). I’m not saying I entirely hate it, I’m just saying it isn’t the full picture. Plus people that can’t afford homes get to pay to subsidize homeowners property taxes. Lucky them.
It’s a 1/2 cent sales tax. If you are one of the counties that would see $400 savings on a $325,000 home, you would have to purchase $80,000 in goods and services to offset that. For those in farming communities, this would not apply to farm implements.
This amounts to 50 cents on a $100 grocery bill.
It’s only Dusty and Larry left in the race on the GOP side?
Dusty is the only one with petitions in.
Larry had a lobbyist/Pierre event earlier this week. Jon Hansen sent out a text message begging for support yesterday, pretending to still be serious in the race. Haven’t heard much from Doeden. He must still be hibernating.
I would venture Doreen is in negotiations with Dusty to drop out. They’re probably hashing out the quid pro quo.
My preference was the bill defeated by the House. Raise the state sales tax to eliminate all school property tax for owner occupied property. Get it done.
Rhoden’s plan favors some counties over others. Dusty’s plan is too small and favors young/new homeowners – when we all need relief. And we need real tax relief. Why can’t the legislature figure that out?
Why should anyone over 60 get relief? They spent the last 40 years creating this mess along with the debt. They were busy wasting their children’s future and we need to help them more? No thanks.
You’re a vile human being.
I guess I should be happier about generational theft.
I also liked the bill defeated by the house. It failed because legislators didn’t want to look like they voted for a tax increase.
When is the legislature and governor going to finally admit it’s too late, because taxes will not go down from where they are now, they’re just looking to slow down the rising costs cost for the next housing boom, if one happens.
The legislature should have acted last year, but they were too busy asserting their morals on everyone.
I agree. My property taxes will get very little help, despite spending 10s of thousand of dollars on a summer study that only filled the pockets of the a few legislators. But hey, at least now our state has determined that boys have penises and girls have vaginas. Thanks for nothing Speaker Hansen.
The website demonstrates exactly what Dusty was saying, take from the poor rural counties and give to already rich urban counties. Lots of events are held in Sioux Falls and Rapid and everyone from out of town will be directly subsidizing the property taxes in the county when they go there to spend money. No Thank-you. Bring back HB1308 that at least treats everyone equally.
This is absolutely correct and the fatal flaw of Rhoden’s idea. Dusty’s idea is just too small. We need a fresh and bold approach.
I like Dusty’s plan of wanting to earmark the 0.3 sunset sales tax to go directly to property tax relief, into the bucket that Senator Deibert’s bill created, before Legislators in Pierre get their hands on it and use it on their personal pet projects. Unfortunately due to politics, the Hansen/Odenbach crew couldn’t allow this to happen and couldn’t allow Dusty to get a win before he even takes the Governor’s seat.
Don’t you already subsidize the property owners in SF and Rapid when you willingly pay city sales tax when you go there to spend money? If the cities couldn’t impose sales tax, do you think the property owners would have to pay higher city property taxes to provide city services? If the answer is yes (it is), you already subsidize property owners in those cities.
If someone thinks a .5% sales tax is rural counties subsidizing urban areas than the Dusty/Hansen idea of a .3 sales tax does the same thing at a smaller scale with a much smaller tax break. However the map doesn’t prove what Dusty was saying and in my opinion minimizes that argument. The map shows the rural areas getting a similar and some cases bigger property tax break than the $400 under the other plan or than urban areas. The rural counties appear to see very large tax breaks. Perkins county is $879 which is only $7 different than Pennington’s $886. Harding is $1,105, Walworth is $869. Hutchinson is $970 compared to Minnehaha $927. Then yes some like Turner are less at $494 but still bigger than $400 under the other plan. The reality is this plan treats every county equally if they want to implement it and that seems practical.
Small counties do benefit pretty well. They have a much smaller owner-occupied tax base that they are offsetting with the sales tax. Most small counties would be able to replace the entire portion of the county levy on owner-occupied, and this bill would allow that refund to spill over into the other classes of property.
I think Rhoden’s plan has merit. It might be a tax shift, but will actually result in a tax cut for South Dakotans because visitors will pay a bigger share. No one is going to change their travel plans over a 1/2 cent tax, they won’t even realize it on their 5 dollar ice cream cone. And for those who think it’s unfair to give property tax owners a break, I would remind them that in my area of Pennington County, property owners pay 100 percent of the school taxes with a little help from the feds and none from the state and 100 percent of emergency services (ambulance, county fire administration, and fire department) with none currently coming from sales tax so property owners are footing the bill for non-property owners in these 2 areas.
All property is owned. You’re either paying directly or you’re paying through your landlord in the form of rent.
The whole issue brings one thought to my mind: if you can’t afford your property taxes, maybe you can’t afford your house?
Anonymous @ 8:59 blames the people over 60 for creating this mess. That’s the generation of boomers who grew up in families of 5+ kids in homes with one bathroom and three bedrooms, The female children shared one bedroom, the males shared the other. Everybody had bunk beds, some of those were triples. You lined up to use the bathroom. There was no “family room,” there was a backyard. Mom’s home office was a large cardboard box on the kitchen counter and Dad’s was in the garage on a work bench.
Some of us look at what today’s young families with only one or two children and the homes they say they need and think “they’re nuts.”
If you can’t afford your house, you can’t afford your house. You made a mistake when you bought it. Deal with it.
Perhaps the most insightful comment I have ever read. Same goes for college tuition.
What’s it like being wrong?
https://crr.bc.edu/boomers-need-alternative-forms-of-housing-as-does-everyone-else/
Boomers of course painting themselves as martyrs and blaming everyone else. Prime example of why they should be called the ME generation, greedy and hopelessly out of touch and prone to using cutsy anecdotes and not proven data.
I am speaking of the homes the boomers’ parents raised them in: suburban sub-developments, “little boxes, on the hillside, little boxes looking just the same, and they’re all made out of ticky-tacky and they all look just the same.” (Remember that Pete Seger song?)
The housing boom of the 1950s was dominated by the construction of little single story ranch style houses with 3 bedrooms and one bathroom. The garage was big enough for one car. That was it. We look at what’s left in those housing developments (because many houses have been added on to, or demolished to build bigger houses,) and wonder how they did it. How did they raise so many children in such little houses? Even the Brady Bunch had only three bedrooms!
Now the boomers want those houses back. What a surprise. And they are competing for such housing with young couples who need only enough space to raise one or two kids.
Still doesn’t change the fact that like everything else you spend money on, if you can’t afford it, you can’t afford it. You need to consider the cost of a home before you buy it, not after.,
With how much press this issue gets, people might assume that everyone has an issue with their property taxes. I, personally, do not. It’s just the cost of my mortgage.
Maybe that’s a privileged position to be in but schools need funding and I’d rather it be collected proportionately on housing than paying more for things that already shouldn’t be taxed, like groceries and clothing.
People that are more well off can afford a bigger house with higher taxes, compared to someone struggling that still needs to feed their family. One is a choice, the other is not.
It’s not about the people that are looking to buy a house and know what the property taxes are up front. It’s about the people that bought their houses 5 or 10 years ago and the property taxes have gone through the roof at a far faster pace than anyone’s salary has gone up. The current assessment formula is destroying people who now have an insurance/property tax bill that is more than their mortgage payment. They know that their income is likely going to stay the same, but their house that was affordable 5 years ago, that they could budget for, has now risen 40-50% with tax bills to match. It affects everyone, regardless of their income bracket. The bills this session aren’t attacking the fundamental problems. They are all just band-aids.
If you have to pay a tax on your home, you don’t really own it. We’re all renting from the government.