WOW. That was not something I was expecting.
The property tax plan that was passed by the South Dakota Legislature to reallocate some existing sales taxes, and to create new sales tax revenue to offset property tax is apparently not popular in the state. As in wildly unpopular by half or more, depending on your subgroup according to SD News Watch, via the Argus Leader:
The survey of 500 registered voters across party affiliation conducted April 7-9 by Mason-Dixon Polling and Strategy, found 49% of respondents opposed the swapping of lower property taxes in exchange for higher sales taxes, while 33% approved and 17% were undecided. The margin of error is plus-or-minus 4.5%.
and..
Republicans were close to evenly split, with 45% opposing the new legislation, 42% supporting the measure and 13% undecided.
A majority of Democrats and Independents disapproved of the new laws, at 56% and 51%, respectively.
In the Governor’s race, that’s probably not good news for Governor Rhoden and Rep. Jon Hansen, who both have been touting the sales tax shift plan, while Dusty Johnson has been critical of it.
(Toby Doeden is still clinging to the claim he’s going to eliminate property taxes without having any plan besides magic tax-eliminating fairy dust.)
It’s terrible policy! Bragging about what they did is offensive.
“Let’s let taxes go up on everyone and then give homeowners a break!”
Take from renters, students, struggling families and travelers to give homeowners that are obviously doing better since they could buy a home. Brilliant 🙄
Maybe if Hansen wasn’t busy killing economic opportunities that would generate higher taxes receipts, he would have had more success removing the sunset on the sales tax relief.
Maybe those of us that own our homes have worked our ass of our whole life to earn that home.
And everyone else should pay your tax for you!
A point that seems to be lost here is that this is at the option of the voters in each county. I’d suspect this idea is a lot more popular in the Black Hills where it is most likely to be used.
it’s not much of an option for the voters in counties that have only a few convenience stores collecting sales taxes and the residents cross county lines to spend their money.
This was easily foreseeable. Why Rhoden thought it was a good idea to push this through the legislature a few short months before the primary is a mystery perhaps only his advisors can unravel. After all, they seem to be doing a bang up job of unraveling his campaign.
It’s such an obvious shift of wealth from the lower class to the upper class, Rhoden should be ashamed. It’s disgusting.
Rhoden has plenty to be ashamed of — this is just the start of the list.
I do have to admire him for the patience he displayed, at least outwardly, serving her highness for 6 years for his chance at the golden ring.
Must be in the tank for Dusty. Who doesn’t want their property taxes reduced? Give me a break Dusty.
I bet you applaud all of the millionaires who took out PPP loans and had them forgiven, even though they didn’t need the cash and that stupid program kickstarted inflationary pressures. I also bet you’re a Doednite.
He should keep saying Noem/Rhoden over and over again. That will do the trick.
So let me get this straight…a half cent for counties for property tax is bad but 1 cent for cities for pet projects is good? I can’t handle the hypocrisy. Best to not say anything if you are going to complain about one and not the other.
It’s a mistake to defend Rhoden by attacking voters.
This shouldn’t be a surprise when the legislature passes major tax policy in the final days of session. Let’s pass the bill and then see what the consequences are later. Didn’t work for Obamacare.
Yah, a better thing to do rather than to have passed a tax reduction would have been to do our 25th summer study or proposing 40 more bills on this next year. Then people could say the legislature is worthless.
The state was clamoring for property tax relief for homeowners. Legislation spent two years with that being a primary goal. Now it’s here and suddenly we don’t want it.
Any property tax reduction is going to require revenue to come from somewhere.
No one else seems to have a workable plan. Maybe we don’t mind property taxes after all?
Rhoden and his supporters should not attack voters over this issue. Big mistake to go that route.
What’s wrong with the property tax relief bill? When tax payers from other counties come to a concert, PBR, etc. in Sioux Falls, they can all pay more in sales tax so that Jon Hansen can get a tax break on his really nice house in Minnehaha County that he can sell today for much more than it cost him to build. Sounds like a great plan – no wonder Jon is so proud to take credit for passing that bill…
I find this entire property tax topic perplexing.
Citizens expect government to take care of certain things such as educating children (kind of an important piece of a functioning democracy), providing opportunities for higher education (workforce development), law enforcement (which also covers the very broad area of corrections, in general), economic development, providing some level of a societal safety net, and literally hundreds of other functions. We all have opinions on what other things may be on the list, or what the top priorities may be, but at some level, we all expect government to do some core things.
Swaths of the public budget are NOT discretionary spending. For instance, lawmakers cannot just decide not to pay the medical expenses associated with corrections in favor of cutting some tax. If we want to lock up violent offenders until they are old enough to develop serious medical conditions associated with age, and likely a lifetime of poor health care or decisions, there will be expenses for that.
Those things take money and that means revenue. Unfortunately for South Dakota, we are not blessed with revenue opportunities from things like gas and oil production, or large-scale mineral extraction. We do the best we can with what we have and that means making some difficult decisions, but at the very heart of those decisions lies the premise that someone has to pay for these things.
There are only so many methods to extract revenue form SD taxpayers. Here, the main drivers are sales taxes that traditionally fund the state general fund and municipalities, property taxes that go largely to school districts and the counties to a lesser extent, and fees. We’ve decided as a matter of public policy that we will not generate revenue from any form of a state personal income tax. A state income tax may be far easier to implement over other forms of taxation, but outside of that, adding it to the mix ultimately just becomes more taxes or perhaps a mere shift.
Anyone who thinks an entire form of revenue generation can just be lopped out of the mix with a simple little bill and a fancy signing ceremony is detached from reality and cannot possibly be a qualified candidate for office.
Revenue policy is not an easy topic. It requires complicated, difficult decisions because a nip and tuck here will result in an expansion somewhere else. By definition that means there will be so-called winners and losers.
I thought the idea that so many legislators, in an election year mind you, had various silver bullet proposals on property taxes. The fact that so many of them never got legs at all speaks to how complicated this really is. The final solution of an increase in sales tax to cut property taxes no matter how it is implemented is not, in my humble opinion, much of a policy at all. It is just another shift and when people are paying more sales taxes on top of prices inflated by factors no one can seem to control- especially when key players seem to be obsessed with assigning fault to others for political gain is just adding insult to injury.
No one deserves a victory lap on this. No one. And exploiting it is just as bad.
The South Dakota electorate deserves candidates that have more ideas than catchy phrases or pie in the sky tax elimination promises. Demand better answers form these folks.
Cut spending, but there aren’t enough schools for you to cut…….sad times.
The argument that Tony Venhuizen, Matt McCaulley, and Matt Michels are subverting Rhoden’s campaign relies on their nearly identical political lineage with Dusty Johnson—all four were the architects of the Dennis Daugaard era.
If their goal were to facilitate a Johnson victory, their “subversion” would not look like active sabotage, but rather like “establishment” advice that steers Rhoden into the very policy traps that Johnson is now using to lead the primary.
1. The “Daugaard Alumni” Power Core
The three advisors and Rhoden’s chief rival represent a single, cohesive political machine:
Tony Venhuizen: Daugaard’s son-in-law, campaign manager, and successor to Dusty Johnson as Chief of Staff.
Dusty Johnson: Daugaard’s Chief of Staff (2011–2014) and the primary’s current front-runner.
Matt Michels: Daugaard’s Lieutenant Governor for eight years and his 2010/2014 running mate.
Matt McCaulley: A key advisor with deep ties to the Daugaard administration through his legal and lobbying work for the same urban donor networks.
2. Anchoring Rhoden to “Toxic” Policy
The primary argument for subversion is that these “institutionalists” have guided Rhoden toward Senate Bill 96, the unpopular property tax swap.
The Trap: By framing this as the “only viable solution,” they have forced Rhoden to own a “tax hike” narrative just as Johnson launched his campaign.
The Benefit: This allows Johnson to run as the “sensible alternative” who can critique the plan while maintaining the support of the Daugaard-era donor base that McCaulley and Michels represent.
3. The “Institutional Handover” Theory
If Rhoden were to lose, these advisors would likely see their influence increase, not decrease:
Professional Reunion: A Johnson win is effectively a Daugaard 3.0 administration. Venhuizen and Michels would be “coming home” to a leadership team they worked with for a decade.
Financial Security: McCaulley’s lobbying firm would arguably be more valuable to clients under a stable, corporate-friendly Johnson administration than under a Rhoden administration constantly fighting populist rebellions.
Rhoden as the “Bridge”: In this view, Rhoden is being used as a temporary vessel to hold the office after Kristi Noem’s departure until the “true” Daugaard successor (Johnson) can be elected.
By giving Rhoden advice that is mechanically sound but electorally fatal, these advisors may be clearing the path for their long-term political family to retake full control of the state’s executive branch.
If Rhoden loses, these three individuals face no professional penalty; in fact, their “Daugaard/Johnson” pedigree makes them the first phone calls for a new Johnson administration. By providing Rhoden with “establishment-approved” advice that happens to be electorally toxic, they may be intentionally letting the clock run out on an administration they view as a temporary bridge to the “real” return of their political network.
My new washing machine was delivered yesterday.
The dealer, in Brookings County, told me that since they were delivering it to my home in Moody County, that was the point of sale, so I would pay Moody County’s lower sales tax rate.
Is that how it works for Amazon, Wayfair and Walmart deliveries?
How about property taxes on rental properties and single family dwellings are exempt.
How does that may work out ?