The #1 item on the South Dakota Legislature’s agenda is the opportunity to raise South Dakota teacher pay from 51st in the nation to 37th… or maybe 28th! But both the Governor and the Democratic leadership have proposed funding those teacher raises with more regressive sales tax.
So let’s see what you think: the latest Dakota Free Press poll asks you three fundamental questions:
- Is raising South Dakota teacher pay good policy?
- Is raising South Dakota sales tax good policy?
- Is raising South Dakota teacher pay by raising sales tax good policy?
The first two questions are relatively easy compared to the third, which is the hard question before our legislators. Register your answers here (the poll questions are in the near-right sidebar for you desktop users; mobile users, scroll down below the blog posts to find the polls). As always, simple binary poll questions oversimplify the issue, so submit your justifications, arguments, and questions about this combination of policies in the comment section below.
Are higher teacher pay, higher sales tax, and the combination of those policies good for South Dakota? I’ll take your votes on those matters until Wednesday at breakfast time, when I’ll tally and comment on those results. Vote now, and bring your friends!
I think question 3, “Is raising SD teacher pay by raising sales tax good policy?” is misleading. Is the assumption that a “no” is a “no” to the teacher pay increase, or is it a “no” to the sales tax, or is it a “no” to both? Is there also a belief that a “no” means that there is an expectation that there will be some other viable funding source on the table (not in the ether) that makes increasing teacher salaries “good policy?”
Focusing the discussion on sales tax skews the discussion away from the real need to better fund teacher salaries in SD (and reduce the shortage that robs students of opportunity) – something that the Governor’s State of the State presents as a problem (in past years whole legislative sessions have been spent trying to establish the problem).
When talking about $107 million (or $214 million), is there any serious belief that legislators will set up a whole new taxation process, income tax, corporate tax, . . ., to fund this sliver of a $4.8 billion dollar budget?
If serious about debating the merits of how SD funds its budget, then have that holistic discussion about the $4.8 billion total appropriations budget. Poking at only “new” spending doesn’t seriously move the fairness of taxation issue forward – it only holds up the new spending issue from being discussed on its need. Questioning only the new 1/2 cent sales tax gives the impression that the current sales tax absent that increase is OK.
But O, Question #3 is the actionable question before us. I’m asking #1 and #2 to get a sense of what a NO on #3 really means, but if a bill embodying #3 goes to a vote, it won’t matter whether the NO is aimed at the first half, the second half, or both halves; 24 NOs in the House or 12 NOs in the Senate, and we’re done.
I agree that now may not be the time for a discussion of tax reform, that that subject may be too big to handle in a debate about teacher pay. But even if teachers are going hungry, if the Governor and the Democrats advocate making more Soylent Green to feed them, isn’t Charlton Heston entitled to submit the Soylent Green ingredient list in committee testimony?
If the legislature does anything on increasing teacher pay they will wimp out and go with fearless leader, the governor.
Maybe this will start a conversation on sales tax exemptions and the fairness of taxes on foods, but I doubt it. The cities, thinking that sales tax is their domain, will fight this. I would propose that the legislature take away 1% of the cities 2% and use it for this purpose. It bothers me when I buy things in Pierre, or Rapid City, (or Murdo) and have to support their city government for projects that are of no use to me.
Cory, Charlton Heston submitting the Soylent Green ingredient list is probably not allowed under NAFTA rules.
For those thinking sales tax increases are a great way to rush in and start, from Scott. http://www.southdacola.com/blog/2016/01/interesting-comment-on-using-sales-taxes-to-fund-education/
You can have his Soylent Green rece when you pry it out of his cold,dead cookbook. Wingnuts would declare it Classified Info and then give it to their cronys to make a killing off “the people.”
What does dedicated actually mean to a pol when talking revenues?
Is funding cops salaries with fines good policy?
Is raising cop salaries good policy?
Is raising the amount and number of fines to give cops raises good policy?
(Brilliant, Paul! :-D )
Les, the issue Scott’s commenter raises isn’t with sales tax itself; the problem is that sales tax is projected to increase faster than the 3% cap in increasing school funding.
Exactly why a sales tax increase is not the right vehicle for the needs in education?
Nobody here seems to mind all the fees. User fees that have been applied as no tax increases. How about user fees for education? We have a basic formula and families with children pay an adder. For life maybe? Or maybe we just get rid of regressive taxation completely and grab Montanas system.
Cory, I see what your point is. But using the Soylent Green example, is the objection only to the new level of ingestion of people (spoilers), or is it to the totality of the pervasiveness of that ingestion? Are you willing to throw the baby (school funding) out with the bathwater (sales tax) on this issue? Is the SD revenue collection system OK if we just leave it where it is?
For 30 years, teacher salaries and the role that those salaries do (and will) play in schools’ ability to educate the students of SD has been an issue sidelined by the legislature. Now that there is a level of bi-partisan momentum, is the introduction of a “poison pill” (creation of a new tax source) worth ending the progress on shortages being addressed. Is your position that any sales tax increase is too large of a give to achieve well-staffed classes for students? Is there a separation between intellectual reservations and real, political necessities to accomplish goals?
I’m all for reading the Soylent Green ingredients, but read that as an objection to the $4.8billion budget, not as the reason to scuttle one specific, demonstrated, essential need for funding. Don’t deliberately hand the opposition more ammunition.
Well, Les, as O is suggesting, the issue is not so much that sales tax is not the right vehicle for teacher pay as it is a regressive vehicle that isn’t right for any major policy proposal or as much of a chunk of the state budget as it funds now.
O, your question about intellectual reservations versus political necessities came up during the Sioux Falls Democratic Forum conversation on Friday, and it is exactly the question I’d like to get to the bottom of with readers here. I don’t like more regressive taxation; that’s why, if I’m limited to a choice between the Governor’s half-penny sales tax plus property tax relief versus the Dems’ full-penny sales tax plus food tax repeal, I choose the latter. But that position makes clear that I’m willing to accept more of a yucky tax, if we can make it less yucky. Is even that food tax repeal a “poison pill” in this debate?
Cory, your “choice” between the Governor/BRTF proposal and the Democrat’s proposal seems like an intellectual exercise only. If the choice factors in the reality of political machinery and policy making, and the choice is really between the GOP majority plan and nothing, does that change the discussion? Is an “ideal” plan that does not pass better than a “less-than-ideal” plan that does pass?
I am glad, intellectually, there are advocates for more salary for teachers and less taxation for the poor, but do any other plans have better potential to bring legislative policymakers together to pass a 2/3 vote of both houses?
O, I’m working on the choice between the two main comprehensive plans offered. There’s still no bill in the hopper, so what else should I consider? I tremble at dark imaginings of amendments that Republicans could slap on what we have so far in committee.
What is the potential for any plan to win two-thirds majorities on both chambers? I frankly have no idea.
Perhaps this poll and this intellectual exercise will not affect the outcome of a vote on raising teacher pay… and perhaps they should not. But perhaps what we learn from this intellectual exercise, which we may well set aside when the time comes to cast the final votes on the plan, will inform the next big discussion we have, perhaps on the campaign trail, perhaps in the next Legislative session, about fair taxation.
I am in favor of increase in Teacher Pay. I will pay the 1/2 cent in sales tax to do that. It is not good policy in that it hurts the poor. If you would raise the sales tax increase to 1 penny and take tax off of food; that could help the greater majority in this issue and not hurt the poor. This “new” idea isn’t really new. We were told years ago education would get a boost with gambling money. Never happened. So, I hope this is not too little too late in that we have already lost teachers to other states and students are not going into the teaching field. But, we have to start somewhere and if this is the best they can give us in South Dakota, then we start there. However, the legislature will need to hammer it out.
M.K., I agree that the Democratic proposal to raise our average teacher pay to $50K with an extra penny sales tax and an exemption of food from sales tax to temper the regressivity of the sales tax is reasonable policy. I also appreciate your practical approach—”if this is the best they can give us in South Dakota, then we start there.” It’s important to remember that we will not craft a one-off, catch-all solution. We will have to keep revisiting this issue, whether it’s just to make sure any newly appropriated money continues to go toward its intended purpose, or to continually update the target average salary, or to refine the target student-teacher ratio.
I have heard speakers say the sales tax increase would not hurt the poor, After all, they buy used clothing so no sales tax. We have allowed the poverty mentality to pervade our society. We shop Walmart and eat at McDonalds. Things will change only when we but on our big kid panties and raise the wage to a liveable level, and start buying mom and pop so the tax revenues flow again. We have seen more revenue since the new minimum wage has come to be. It’s time to take that next step. This half cent stuff is just pandering.
Yes, No, and no.
If I understand correctly, South Dakota has the 14th highest tax rate for low income families, and the 2nd lowest tax rate for high income families. And the best solution we have for the problem of low teacher pay is to raise the sales tax. This creates a heavier burden on low and middle income (i.e. teachers) families. We have the 2nd lowest tax rate in the country for millionaires, and some of the lowest paid teachers. The proposed increase in sales tax doesn’t fix the problem, it’s just more of the same strategy that got us into this mess. If we want to compete with surrounding States to hire and retain teachers (which is an excellent idea) maybe we should look at how they’re doing it. Minnesota looks like a good place to start. If we fix the underlying problem of an unfair and unsustainable tax system our economy will grow along with surrounding states. Then we can retain and hire quality teachers.