This blog printed on 100% recycled electrons.
Steve Sibson shows off his new web template -- with comments! -- and points us toward a story in that Sioux Falls paper about more corporate welfare. South Dakota will hand out $14 million in refunds to businesses this year and at least $15.5 million next year. Bureau of Finance and Management Commissioner Jason Dilges says that's a low estimate; big projects like the Hyperion refinery, the Big Stone II power plant, and the TransCanada Keystone pipeline could swell those figures.
These refunds come from sales tax ($8.7 million in givebacks) and contractors' tax ($6.8 million in givebacks). Next year they'll amount to 1.2% of a projected $676 million in sales tax collections and 6.6% of a projected $92.6 million in contractors' tax collections [see Terry Woster, "Tax Breaks to Cost S.D. $15.5 Million," that Sioux Falls paper, 2008.04.09]. Arguably those aren't big percentages.
But notice that even a quarter of those refunds would have been enough to expand the governor's high school laptops program by the $3 million dollars he asked for, or enough to double the $3 million the Legislature added to the budget to increase teacher pay. For just half the amount of the refunds, we could cover both of those expenditures and restore the highway patrol funding the governor said we can't afford.
So who needs $3 million more: 10,000 South Dakota teachers who make the lowest salaries in their profession nationwide, or a foreign oil company that made $380 million in profit in the fourth quarter of 2007 (that's enough profit made in three months to pay the full yearly salary of every teacher in South Dakota)?
Argue all you want that teachers don't deserve any more money. But don't turn around and hand even more money to the richest players in the economy.
Drinking Liberally Update (11/15/2024)
-
In Politics: Nationally: The Election is over and the wrong side won. I
have nothing to contribute to the barrels of ink being used by Pundits to
explain a...
3 days ago
Just like the city bending over backwards for Shaeffer. Or any business that has moved into Madison for the last 25 years or more. And Brookings doing the same for Lowe's. I beleive in free enterprise, and I certainly don't think this amounts to free enterprise.
ReplyDeleteOne comment about the contractor's excise tax, though. Part of that should be refunded, or done away with. The way this tax is set up, contractors pay excise tax on sales tax. And if they work for a government entity they pay the sales tax the tax-exempt entity didn't have to.
I'm sorry about the spelling and grammar in that last post; I should have proof-read.
ReplyDeleteNo sweat -- I think it's more important someone proof-read the state budget (and, as you point out, the local budget) and edit out all this corporate welfare.
ReplyDeleteAgain with the low teacher pay?
ReplyDeleteThat's funny: that's the same thing the teachers say when they get their contracts.
ReplyDeleteYes, again and again, until the problem is solved.
I have to agree that teacher pay is much to low, not only in South Dakota but in most of this country. Teaching is a hard job!
ReplyDeleteAs a believer in free enterprise (not plutocracy), I think "corporate welfare" is a latter-day equivalent of Robin Hood in reverse.
As a self-employed person, I do not ask for, nor would I accept, any "welfare" from the taxpayers. Why should big businesses be any different?
Some of the large oil projects have nowhere else to go with their pipelines, so why offer any incentives at all? After all, we're giving them the pathway for their pipelines so they can profit in the billions over the years. Hyperion has other choices, but not TransCanada. If Hyperion wants to build in SD, give them some incentives for the jobs and tax base they'll create, but certainly not TransCanada. Their only other choice is to fly the stuff to their refinery.
ReplyDeleteSo if Hyperion is so weak that it can't build a refinery without government handouts, is it really that good of an investment? I'd rather have businesses that can turn a profit the old-fashioned way, by earning it.
ReplyDelete