Rep. Frank Kloucek and fellow District 19 Democrat Alan Fenner aren't just campaigning for themselves. They are taking time to fulfill the first duty of a candidate: leading a public conversation about the important issues facing the community. To that end, they are hosting informational meetings on the seven ballot measures South Dakota voters face this fall. They hosted three such meetings last Thursday, in Scotland, Tyndall, and Salem. Kloucek and Fenner host their next session on the ballot measures this Thursday, October 25, at 8 p.m. at the Pony Creek Steakhouse in Parkston.
We know that Kloucek and Fenner oppose Referred Law 16, as do the Republicans (Rep. Stace Nelson and freshly converted Republican Kyle Schoenfish) in the House race. I contend that any candidate foolish enough to advocate Referred Law 16, the Governor's really bad plan for merit pay and more standardized tests in K-12 education, stands to lose five to ten points at the polls.
Thursday's meeting will be a good chance for District 19 voters to learn about RL 16 and the other six ballot measures they face along with their candidates. One point of information I offer to that conversation pertains to Initiated Measure 15, the extra-penny sales tax proposed to fund K-12 education and Medicaid. The major problem with this proposal is that it imposes a regressive tax burden.
I got to wondering what would happen if we flipped the tax rates on the income brackets. After all, if we can consider imposing a new 1.1% tax on the lowest income quintile while adding only 0.3% to the tax burden of the upper income quintile, we could just as fairly consider imposing the same tax rates in reverse, right?
Here's what happens when I fiddle with the numbers from the South Dakota Budget and Policy Project:
| income bracket (quintile) |
average income |
Regressive Indiv rate |
Avg add'l tax paid |
New revenue | Progressive alt rate |
alt add'l tax paid |
alt revenue |
| bottom 20% | 11000 | 1.10% | $122 | $12,211,742 | 0.30% | $33 | $3,303,176 |
| second fifth | 27000 | 1.00% | $260 | $26,025,024 | 0.70% | $189 | $18,918,191 |
| middle 20% | 46000 | 0.80% | $371 | $37,135,707 | 0.80% | $368 | $36,835,419 |
| fourth fifth | 70000 | 0.70% | $462 | $46,244,466 | 1.00% | $700 | $70,067,372 |
| top 20% | 184750 | 0.30% | $603 | $60,383,061 | 1.10% | $2,032 | $203,420,597 |
| Total: | $182,000,000 | Total: | $332,544,755 |
Alas, the initiative process doesn't give us the chance to propose amendments. But consider: if we could rectify the greatest flaw of IM15 by flipping the tax rates on income groups to a more progressive structure, we'd raise and additional $150 million, 83% more than the proposal on the table will.