Last updated on 2026-03-14
In floor debate on Senate Bill 245 Monday, Representative Will Mortenson (R-24/Fort Pierre) aptly summarized the nature of the transfer of wealth that will result from this Session’s disappointing effort toward tax relief:
Over half of the property tax relief, property tax transfer that will be done, would go to the 20% most valuable houses in town. Let me say that again: more than half this money we’re gonna put out is gonna go to the one fifth of the very biggest houses [Rep. Will Mortenson, in Jackson Diercks, “Capitol Restoration, Property Taxes and More,” SDPB, 2026.03.10, timestamp 3:28, transcribed by CAH–DFP].
Rep. Mortenson voted nay on SB 245, which dedicates $55.9 million this year and over $100 million from the impending hike in sales tax from 4.2% to 4.5% every year after to lowering the property taxes homeowners pay to school districts. Mortenson also voted nay on the other major property tax/sales tax swap, SB 96, Governor Larry Rhoden’s plan to allow counties to impose a 0.5% sales tax to lower their property taxes.
Mortenson is right to vote against these unfair transfers of wealth from people buying groceries to people buying mansions. His opposition now contrasts with his advocacy of a straight swap of sales tax for property tax last fall. Last year he touted a plan with the same mechanics: reduce every homeowner’s property tax by a certain percentage by increasing state sales tax by a certain percentage. Perhaps he’d have gotten more traction with his newfound opposition to transferring wealth from landless commoners to landed elites if he hadn’t been pushing that transfer prior to this Session.
That upward transfer is baked explicitly into SB 96: counties that adopt the local ta must allocate all the money they raise “as a credit against the county property tax levy on all property classified as owner-occupied, as defined in § 10-13-39, in an equal percentage.” If counties give 20% back to shacks, they have to give 20% back to mansions. SB 245 is remarkably vague on how the state gets the money into homeowners’ pockets: it directs the state to use the additional sales tax to lower the local funding effort it requires schools to put toward general education, but schools still have to decide how much to lower their levies. Nonetheless, SB 245 does not authorize schools to impose different levies on different value brackets or exempt the first $100K of homes’ taxable value or any other formula that might provide some relief from the effectively regressive, wealth-concentrating tax scheme that Mortenson has recognized is bad.
We should be impressed that the Legislature and the Governor have found the will to raise any taxes… or, in the case of SB 245, to let taxes rise back to where they were three years ago, and in the case of SB 96, to let counties impose a new tax. But the 2026 Legislature is squandering this meager fiscal bravery. The Legislature and the Governor are not investing one penny of the new tax dollars in better roads or bridges or parks or personnel. They’re just pulling more money out of everyone’s pockets and stuffing it into fewer people’s pockets, with the lion’s share going, as Mortenson laments, to pockets that are already full enough to build and buy the nicest houses in town.
Well, duh! What else do you expect in South Dakota. Not only do the rich not pay their fair share of taxes, but they make sure to soak the poor to get the largest share of tax relief. I don’t understand why people put up with this.
I have heard that the rich are not paying their fair share of taxes for most of my
life (82 now). Can someone please tell me what constitutes fair share? Give
a number please.
So, what’s not to like about the usual six month winters, rampant racism, chilling effects on civil rights, an extremist legislature, living in a chemical toilet, sacrifice zone, perpetual welfare state and permanent disaster area?
I make less than $25,000 a year so I know little about tax structures.
Here’s Oxfam’s answer:
Higher tax rates: The IRS code should raise individual tax rates for billionaires and equalize taxes on capital gains and labor income so work isn’t taxed more than wealth.
A fair tax on their wealth: Billionaires should pay a wealth tax, and we should close tax loopholes that permit the rich to stash profits in tax havens.
From Gemini (Aren’t you proud of me Mr. Lansing?): Proposals often suggest a 1%–5% wealth tax on ultra-millionaires, a 10% rate on income over $1 million, or ensuring the top 1% pay a higher percentage of total taxes than their income share.
Larry, you are not talking about the South Dakota that I experience.
If you are indeed talking about South Dakota.
South Dakota is a hole.
I would echo much of Ben/Oxfam’s analysis. I would draw closest attention to “income.” Labor is taxed at a higher rate than capital gains which is taxes at a higher rate than inheritance. That radiance seems like a scheme for those who make the most to be taxed the least.
This is the wealthiest nation on earth. The holdings of many crosses well into the level of obscene.
Yet even this discussion skirts the true issue: what is the need? What amount is necessary for the execution of the social safety net and public-good infrastructure to make this a great nation. Tax collection ought to be the discussion AFTER those value are costed out on the balance sheet.
Not an amount Mr. Arndt, a percentage. That can be determined. It will have a gazillion loopholes but its a good start and would lead to good debate on fairness.
So nobody yet knows what constitutes fair.
Larry, according to recent election returns, the vast majority of
South Dakota residents are at least somewhat satisfied with
the status quo.
I know what isn’t fajr. The middle class is paying through the nose. The rich are not paying what they used too. Just check it out, read Thomas Piketty for a good start.
Ok anyone can look up the rising inequality in our country. The K shaped economy. The top one percent own what the bottom 90 percent do and it keeps increasing every year since 1970. At what point will the status quo change?
Ignorance is bliss, Mr. Arndt.
If you don’t recognize there’s a problem, then you wouldn’t care what “fair” means in the first place. Once you recognize there’s a problem, then a debate can be had on the best way to solve it. I and others have provided some ballpark ideas.
From 1944 to 1963, the top tax rate was over 90%. That sounds like a fair starting place for me. It was good for the nation then; it will be good for the nation now. MAGA!
Edwin, 6 of 8 are the South Dakota “everyone knows”. When my 83 year old mother died she would have agreed with Larry. Trump, at 79 does not know.