Mike Mueller and Julie-Frye-Mueller are trying to replace property tax with a retail transaction tax because, the cons contend, property tax is “immoral“:
Property Taxes are Immoral because the crime (not paying property taxes) doesn’t fit the punishment (having your property taken away) as they are greatly unequal in value.
Government uses a threat of taking your property away if you do not pay. This is what the Feudal System looks like in the United States. This makes the Government over the people. Our state motto is ‘Under God the People Rule’. Either that is a lie or government has usurped the people’s legal authority.
Abolishing property taxes is essential for restoring the rightful ownership of property to the people. It is necessary to eliminate this unjust system that penalizes property owners disproportionately. Our movement aims to bring awareness to the unethical nature of property taxes and advocate for fair and just alternatives [Mike Mueller and Julie Frye-Mueller, About page, Abolish Property Taxes South Dakota, retrieved 2025.08.20].
Ah, right-wingnuts do like to style themselves as deep philosophers, when really they just want to dodge taxes. Let’s dismantle these dodgers’ pretense behind their proposed constitutional amendment:
Punishment should certainly fit the crime. But I smell circularity in the “because” that leads this passage. Other crimes, like dealing drugs, lead to forfeiture of property. Even a failure to pay the retail transaction tax the Muellers propose will lead to some sort of penalty involving the surrender of property (i.e., a cash fine) or—worse, I would think—liberty. If government using the threat of taking your property away renders a tax immoral, then the Muellers should be working to repeal every tax and perhaps every law on the books. I see nothing in the Muellers’ spiel that demonstrates the unique nature of property taxes that renders immoral the common, standard punishment of deprivation of property. I can hear the Muellers saying, “But property taxes are different because they are immoral,” which would only lead us back to a premise begging for support.
Invoking the “Feudal System” is a distraction. The “feudal system” is a construct long dismissed by serious historians.
Invoking the state motto is another distraction. We all know God doesn’t exist. ;-)
Even if we disagree on that minor existential point, ruling under any god or gods allows the people to delegate their authority for day-to-day decision-making to a republicanly elected legislature and executive. South Dakota’s republicanly elected Legislature has used that properly delegated authority to implement, among other things, property tax. That exercise of authority does not falsify the state motto, and it does not represent any usurpation of power.
The last paragraph says South Dakota’s property tax system “penalizes property owners disproportionately”. Here the Muellers get sloppy with their language. By “property owners,” they must mean “people who own land and buildings”. South Dakota’s property tax applies only to land and structures on it. The Muellers propose to eliminate only that tax, not the tax South Dakota imposes on ownership of automobiles (annual license fees). Why is a tax on land and buildings unjust but a tax on cars not? Are the sponsors of this amendment really making a philosophical stand for the right to property in its fullest sense, or are they simply seeking a tax break for favored owners of a specific kind of property?
The proposed amendment does not really rest on a commitment to the right to property, since it replaces a tax on ownership with a tax on gaining ownership. The sponsors seem to be saying, Sure, we won’t make you pay taxes if you own land and buildings, but every time you try to acquire other property, we’re going to hit you with a different tax. Respect for the right to have property is empty without respect for the right to get and use property..
And there comes a real philosophical rub. Some of my property (and likely yours!) is money. I wouldn’t exert myself so hard to get money and keep bandits from stealing it if I couldn’t use my money—i.e., spend it to get more property. But the Muellers’ amendment would tax me every time I use my money (at least at Hy-Vee or the bike shop; the draft amendment language doesn’t define “retail transaction”, so maybe it doesn’t cover buying a ranch or hiring a hooker, but those practical details are for another post). The retail transaction tax would penalize people who use their money just as the property tax penalizes people who use their land and buildings to raise families, run cattle, and weld skid loaders.
The proposed amendment has no clear, consistent philosophical foundation. The Muellers’ proposal does not take property rights seriously. It simply replaces one limitation—one tax—on property rights with another.