We've moved!

Social Icons

twitterfacebooklinkedinrss feed

Sunday, January 25, 2009

South Dakota Budget: Who Wants a Tax Increase?

Sunday fun quiz! Who said the following:

South Dakota has been prudent in its handling of money. That's why it can now give a slight tax increase without it hurting the people. Would that those in Pierre have greater courage to say so.
  1. MSM columnist David Kranz
  2. Liberal blogger Todd Epp
  3. Representative Gerald Lange (D-8/Madison)
  4. NSU professor Jon Schaff
Answer after this random super slo-mo video break:

And the answer is... #4, Professor Jon Schaff! The prodigal blogger—and prodigal conservative?—throws some sausage in the stew by suggesting South Dakota can afford modest tax increases without harm.

If the fiscal ship is sinking, you grab whatever floats. Lots of ideas are floating around right now: cut services, cut jobs, spend reserves, nix sales tax exemptions. Raising taxes also deserves consideration. Interesting that it takes an arch-conservative blogger to bring that up.


  1. Of course the NSU professor offers a tax increase. His transparent suggestion is to counter ideas from others to close NSU; or my ideas to extend the retirement age to life expectancy, or to establish a state university system to capture efficiencies in higher ed administration & management.

    My NSU professor grandfather was subject to mandatory retirement. His second extension was denied. He then taught at DWU and later at Presentation College. Extending state worker's mandatory retirement age benefits the worker and the taxpayer. Some workers may still opt for "early retirement" at less than full benefit; but most workers prefer to be useful eaters.

  2. Professor Newquist offers the best analysis to date of the Round's budget: http://northernbeacon.blogspot.com/2009/01/south-dakota-defines-itself.html .

    Round's budget will continue to define who we are and who we are not.

  3. Count me among those who would favor a carefully planned increase in taxes. But that increase would be predicated on a thorough revision of the state tax code, and would include a modest income tax, which would in fact lower the tax burden for many people.

    As the current shortfall indicates, the state does not have a stable system--it is dependent on sales tax beyond the federal subsidies. While the people of South Dakota are so conditioned to think the income tax would be like being ravished by King Kong, the fact is that it would stabilize tax revenues, permit the removal of the food tax, and provide a way to adequately fund education.

    The Governor's proposals would fall heavily on the counties and school districts, meaning that many of us will probably face higher taxes on our property and our purchases.

    The reason a tax revision is not brought up is because so many people would rather see someone destroyed rather than see some equity brought to the tax system.

  4. The last thing we need is a state income tax.

    Why should we allow people to "retire" when there is plenty in society that they can contribute to?

  5. State income tax is not fair, except to those who pay no income taxes now and would pay no state income taxes then. Then with no tax on food, they benefit even further. Why is it fair for some to pay all the taxes and others to pay none?

    If you want a fair tax, then institute the Fair Tax. Everyone pays.

    Everyone benefits in this society from roads, police, fire protection, etc. Everyone should also pay something.

    We definitely would not see lower taxes with an income tax. Property taxes would not be lowered, despite promises to do so. Look at MN. They have a state income tax, and pay more for licensing cars, but are still short of money, still don't have enough for education, etc. An income tax is NOT the asnwer.

    The only answer is less government. The gov't is not the answer to all our problems. WE are the answer to our own problems in most cases, you know, those nasty little words like "personal responsibility." But the mindset now is that gov't will take care of me, why should I. The only problem is that sooner or later gov't runs out of money, like now, and then where are we? In trouble unless we want to get back to "personal responsibility." Which is the exact opposite of the thinking of the majority of those in the US (think O and Pelosi and their "the gov't is the ultimate answer" philosophy). It won't work, plain and simple. The problem is that there are now more who want the gov't to take care of them than there are who are personally responsible, and they are conditioned to rely on the gov't and its programs. Problem is that the rest of us foot the bill.

    Cut the gov't, federal and state. Get it back to doing what it constitutionally is supposed to and nothing less. Get people reconditioned to providing for themselves, except for those who truly have disabilities etc that prevent then from working. Guess that's in our dreams now.

  6. Sorry, error in the above sentence. "Get it back to doing what it constitutionally is supposed to and nothing MORE."

  7. he who does not work should not eat

  8. I am realizing that the surest sign of a failure to grasp political reality is the resort ot old slogans. South Dakota's budget problem has almost nothing to do with anyone not working. Next.


Comments are closed, as this portion of the Madville Times is in archive mode. You can join the discussion of current issues at MadvilleTimes.com.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.