South Dakota Ends Fiscal Year with $96.8 Million Surplus

@SoDakCampaigns

South Dakota Ends Fiscal Year with $96.8 Million Surplus 

PIERRE, S.D. – Today, Governor Kristi Noem announced that South Dakota closed the 2023 budget year with a surplus of $96.8 million.

“South Dakota’s economy is continuing to thrive because we keep state government small, taxes are low, and we spend within our means. This surplus shows that what we are doing here is working,” said Governor Noem. “As long as we continue to budget responsibly, families across the state will be able to keep more of their money in their pockets, and we will be able to avoid unnecessary debt by using this surplus for future prison construction costs.”

State government spent $79.7 million less than appropriated in fiscal year 2023, with the total revenue finishing above the legislative adopted forecast by $17.1 million. Sales and use tax, which is the state’s largest revenue source, finished 0.5% below estimates, down $6.9 million.

“South Dakota state government continues to budget responsibly on both the revenue and spending sides of the equation,” said Jim Terwilliger, Commissioner of the South Dakota Bureau of Finance and Management. “Our state’s economic metrics are very strong because we stick to our conservative budget principles. Going forward, we must keep following those principles. With so much uncertainty surrounding the national economy, conservative spending will ensure our long-term fiscal health.”

Over the last several years, South Dakota has seen unprecedented economic growth. By keeping the state “Open for Business” during the COVID-19 pandemic, Governor Noem ensured that South Dakota came out stronger than ever. South Dakota continues to maintain a AAA credit rating and is one of the only states with a fully-funded pension. Now, with the lowest unemployment in the history of the nation, South Dakotans are still working hard and guaranteeing that our kids and grandkids will inherit a thriving state.

By law, the fiscal year 2023 surplus was transferred to the state’s budget reserves. The state’s reserves now total $335.7 million or 14.7% of the fiscal year 2024 general fund budget.

###

40 thoughts on “South Dakota Ends Fiscal Year with $96.8 Million Surplus”

  2. Thanks to the blue states like Minnesota that help pay welfare state South Dakota’s bills. Republican Socialism at it’s best.

        1. That is an excuse. Time for South Dakota to pay it’s own way and quit being a moocher state.

  3. Agree with Nonymouse that it is time for the legislature to devise and pass a long term program of State Aid to county government. The methods we use for taxation leads to the State Government amassing large amounts of money in so-called “surplus” accounts. “Surplus is just another name for over taxation. The State should either develop and implement expanded state aid programs for sub division (counties, school districts) or start writing refund checks to tax payers.

  4. Our county wants to raise our property taxes by over 50%.brcause they claim to be broke. I agree with Terry and nonymouse. If the state has this much surplus and is just waiting for an emergency to use it, maybe this is the emergency. The state is actually each and every one of its citizens/taxpayers in each county, and it isn’t right that the state sits on a huge suplus while counties are struggling. Maybe this is the rainy day!

    1. You must be a lake county resident. Our tax code is working as expected. Keep voting red and you’ll get to pay even more in property tax.

  5. Within three years as medicaid expansion kicks in and federal dollars dry up, there will be no surplus

    copy this down and put it on your refrigerator for future reference.

    1. You guys have been claiming this for years. Still hasn’t happened. In fact, every state who has expanded medicaid is saving money. The only way it does what you say is if Republicans cut the funding to give breaks to their rich donors. Shoot yourself in the foot a few more times.

      1. “still hasn’t happened.” could that be due to the implementation timeline? al gonquin is not proved wrong quite yet. don’t pretend there’s a contrary history of success already.

      2. anonymous at 6:56, funny thing about “rich donors,” they tend to pay more in property and sales taxes than the poor do. Isn’t it amazing how that works? It’s their money and you complain because they want it back. Oh, the outrage!!!

        1. They may pay more, but it’s still a regressive tax structure that places a larger burden on the poor and middle class. Do you enjoy saddling the less fortunate and elderly with a greater burden to society? It’s so very Christian on you. Especially, when you aren’t even close to the level of wealth where removing income taxes makes you pay less than our current setup.

          1. “It’s so very Christian on you.”

            Isn’t it just amazing how the libs love to throw the above phrase around as an attempt to shame and guilt those who have a point they can’t dispute. Especially when those very libs couldn’t give two sh##s about Christianity and go out of their way to mock and denigrate it (and in one case are provided a comfortable lifestyle from it)?

            1. Oh wow, it is so surprising that Republicans want to push their Christian morality down our throats and put it into our schools but God forbid liberals throw it back into their faces when that morality ends at their checkbooks. Don’t want it thrown in your face? Then, don’t try pushing it down our throats. Take it off the table and you wouldn’t have to defend being a hypocrite.

              1. Typical liberal response. Defends the attack but has nothing of substance to counter what Anne Beal stated and has to resort to shaming.

                Judging by this triggered response, I suspect you are the one in particular that is referred to above.

              2. The conservatives are the ones who give to charity. Its been studied: there’s an interesting book by Arthur C Brooks titled “Who Really Cares: America’s Charity Divide, who gives, who doesnt, and why it matters.”

                Conservatives give, liberals don’t.

              3. Do you talk to your wife that way Cory? You probably shouldn’t being that her Christian profession is keeping a roof over your head.

      1. ~ Destroy rural communities. You should run with that one. ~

        Counties are on the path do destruction now, so consolidating court houses is an option.

        1. This has been discussed in depth and always ends with any bill sponsor bringing a bill to reorganize multi-county government structure is pushing a petition for a firing squad in the next election.

      2. Anonymous, inefficiency/excessive costs for services ultimately will be the demise of small towns and failing to consolidate just insures failure. Rural communities and the people who live there ultimately are best served where equilibrium is found. For instance, keeping a high school open that graduates 15 students a year not only is excessively expensive but deprives the students the depth of education required to be successful as adults (whether living locally as a business person or farmer or moving somewhere else).

        1. So based on SD being a welfare state, they should probably consolidate nd, SD, mt, and WY too. If it makes sense for rural communities, then it would make sense for states as well. I bet that will go over just as well when we lose our pull in washington.

    2. That is a reality that people will fight. It makes sense in some cases, though, to consolidate districts.

  7. Ziebach County has just over 2.000 residents. Do you think its justified to have a full county staff?

    People don’t want their property taxes to go up but want more and more services from the various levels of government.

    I

  8. That is a reality that people will fight. It makes sense in some cases, though, to consolidate districts.

  9. Raising taxes is never the answer, red or blue raising taxes is the easy answer for any moderate or liberals instead of doing their job and cutting spending. I don’t know all the details about all this stuff but In my mind I don’t want more government intervention and services. less is better, for taxes and government

  10. We could start taxing churches and private schools in the state since the part time occupant in the governors office and a number of legislators are trying to pass taxpayer paid school vouches to fund religious private schools.

    That additional tax revenue from churches and private schools would help South Dakota pay it’s own way and quit being a financial burden on other states.

    1. ~ That additional tax revenue from churches and private schools would help South Dakota pay it’s own way and quit being a financial burden on other states. ~

      Show me the study that proves your statement.

      1. More tax dollars from south dakotans means less tax dollars needed from blue states. I don’t need a study to understand basic math. SD is a welfare state. Everyone knows that.

  11. ~ That additional tax revenue from churches and private schools would help South Dakota pay it’s own way and quit being a financial burden on other states. ~

    Show me the study that proves your statement.

Comments are closed.