UMD Libertarians

Palin likes to bring up how Alaska supplies 20% of the US’s domestic production. Oddly enough, she taxes possibly $60 or more into the price of a barrel of oil before sending it down the pipeline to us.

She then gives Alaskans a $3200 rebate check from the oil tax revenues. So, as governor, she basically jacks up the price of oil for the rest of America but cuts Alaskans a break by refunding that money to them. What’s the motto for her husband’s old political party….?

"Alaska First" ………. sounds pretty appropriate.

Other fun facts about the champion of fiscal reform:
1) Palin initiated something similar to a windfall profits tax on oil companies for all sales revenue over $25/barrel
2) Of the 50 states, Alaska ranks No. 1 in taxes initially collected on a per capita basis (over twice the nat’l average)
3) Of the 50 states, Alaska ranks No. 1 in government spending per resident. (more than twice the nat’l average)
4) Alaska also ranks No. 1, year after year, in money it sucks in from Washington. In 2005 (the most recent figures), according to the Tax Foundation, Alaska ranked ….. first in federal spending received per resident ($13,950).
5) Palin’s vaunted veto efforts as governor amounted to 2% of the budget and slashed things like a Wind Farm and a clean coal plant.
6) Campaigned on support for the "Bridge to Nowhere" .. the one she "says ‘No thanks’ for."
7) left her small town in a good bit of debt as a mayor

So, basically Palin collects a bunch of money in taxes, and then rebates it back out using government welfare rebate checks — making the final personal tax burden in Alaska lower than otherwise possible, but jacks up costs for the rest of Americans.

Most of the info can be read here:

That article is clearly unbiased and obviously 100% objective and honest.

WTF

Per the Tax Foundation they have the lowest individual tax burden with no state sales tax and no state income tax and having the 4th "most business friendly" tax environment in the US.

All while being ranked 47th in population while having the 7th highest GDP

And per the census department, in 2004 they had no where near the highest expenditures. Their per capita will be higher because of their higher GDP in relation to population.

Even when some of it is blatantly false?

Who reads what your write anyways

Lecturing to an empty room

… so yet again, you show us that you don’t read very well.

From what I’ve seen, their overall tax burden is low because she hands out the most in government welfare rebate checks. I’m pretty sure that was a large point of the thread. Good thing that you read so well that you saw #2 and yet #3 somehow eluded you.

Take it up with TIME magazine.
Facts are still factz, champ.

I read well enough to pick out the inaccuracies in your statements, again. And I am sure you will fail to address the points, again.

Are you saying that they (Alaskans) have the highest tax burden? Because that is wrong. End of story.

Alaskans have been getting a Alaska Permanent Fund check every year since 1982. Its not a Palin policy. The price of oil doesn’t determine the amount of the fund check either.

No …. you just fail at reading comprehension again.

Did I ever say they have the highest overall tax burden? But, I guess you aren’t smart enough to figure out that their highest government spending ($2000 welfare check) is a large part of that.

Psst… she bumped the welfare checks up an extra $1200, making them $3200.

Yeah… oil revenue has NO relationship to the taxes collected, and the amount rebated. That analysis is pure genius.

Oh goody, I love half truths. The tax burden is the lowest. End of story. The $2000 comes from the states oil-revenue investment fund. The government hasn’t increased any personal income taxes to pay for it.

And when the tax rate is 3.3% below the national average, how do you think that will make the initial taxes collected look when the average income in Alaska is $618 more then the national average?

Psst….I know. Its because the revenue fund has a major surplus. Its to offset the high price of gas in the state.

Oh, cool story.

They get royalties because most of the land where the oil drilling occurs is state owned.

That changes bsolutely nothing about the fact that Palin uses government redistribution to obtain that end-result — taking in the most, and then doling out the most, giving back relatively more to the poorest people.

I guess you’re OK with that. That’s very good to know.

So, is this your way of admission that you are wrong?

And "giving back relatively more to the poorest people"? Everyone in Alaska, regardless of personal income, gets the same check.

And where exactly did I say I was okay with the policy? I am simply pointing out the inaccuracies in your statements. If you want to revert back to a philosophical position as justification for your original argument because what you "feel" is "relative" or "guess" a certain way, I will leave the discussion. I don’t debate about feelings.

So even after explanation, you still don’t see that you’re trying to compare two different analyses of Alaska’s taxation. I’ve stated quite clearly that she collects the most and then spends the most. If you weren’t retarded, you’d understand that her government spending through rebates is what ultimately leads to the low effective tax rates that you keep harping on. For some reason, you feel ok to attack point #2 about government revenue and yet ignore #3 about her government spending. Have fun with that.

Basically the original post was about how she taxes a lot and then hands out a lot in rebates, which results in the lower taxes …. then you somehow object by saying "nuh uh, Alaskans have pretty low taxes!"

You think everyone is paying the same in taxes??

Meh… according to the comment about "same checks" above, you clearly have no grasp of the wealth redistribution entailed. Discussion with you is pointless.

And I have showed you the tax rate is 3.3% BELOW the national average. So explain to me how Alaska collects the most personal income tax with the average income also in mind.

The rebates are from a surplus fund. The government is not spending any extra money for the rebates. The discussion was the lowest effective tax rates, which Alaska has.

I feel okay to attack the government revenue statement because it contained falsities. I fully understand that they spend the most. Like I said, the point was you point out the inaccuracies in your claim. Why would I debate over things that are true?

Show me where I said taxes here. I said income. Regardless of income, each Alaskan receives the same rebate check. If you want to draw this out and infer that regardless of the tax rate applied on net income each Alaskan receives the same rebate check, we can do that too.

"Meh…" is all you have? I am not having a discussion about wealth redistribution or what ever philosophical position you take with it. I am pointing out the fact that each Alaskan citizen will receive a check for $3,200. The guy that makes $6.00 at the mini-mart and the guy that makes $3 million being a development analysis on the North Slope. The same check.

mmm, argumentum ad hominem

So were you supporting her actions or pointing out that they are similar to what Obama means to do?

I never said Palin collects the most "personal income tax." I said they collect the most in taxes per capita. Again, your reading comprehension is so awesome. Though it isn’t a bad thing to add to the thread, you keep trying to bring up personal income taxes as if that’s the whole story. While the effective rate of personal taxes is low, that’s only because of how much she’s able to bring in from taxes in total and then dole out in rebates.

Here’s a link from the same site that YOU linked.

Funny you complain about such taxation structures in other threads. But, then defend her here.

Well … you can keep stating that and trying to change the conversation to effective personal taxes, but it still doesn’t change the fact that Governor Palin collects the most taxes per capita and then spends the most.

……..and so you don’t care about the inherent weath distribution. Yet, you deride Obama for his "neighborliness." Your grasp of economics is exposed by your hypocrisy…..

Neither as of yet.

Just listing the facts.

I do find it interesting that her taxation structure is awfully liberal. Huge taxes on high-profit-margin corporations, rebates to citizens, investments in infrastructure.

That is very interesting. Didn’t know a lot of that before. Thanks!

That is based upon corporate income tax, not state income tax since Alaska has no state income tax or sales tax. This is understandable given the GDP vs population. However, I stand corrected in reference to the per capita taxation statement. I was wrong. However, I feel that the statement of "highest per capita" in this regard is easily misconstrued since it is not the individual tax payer that is taking on the increased burden.

The personal taxes remain low even with out the rebates due to the lower effective tax rate and the lack of personal income tax and sales tax.

Conceded.

There is no hypocrisy. Personal income tax rates should not be increased for the top quintile the lack of a better idea in regards to spending or lack of contribution by the lower quintiles. The corporate tax rate should be not be raised. Once again, where have I said I was okay with the policy in Alaska?
^^

++ respect

You haven’t OK’ed it. But, you haven’t derided it, though … while you have been simultaneously deriding Obama for his progressive taxation ideas.

Handing out flat government rebates is generally a progressive tax policy. It’s the same sort of "neighborliness" (AKA "taxation on marginal utility as opposed to nominal dollar value") that Obama supports.

If I am wrong, you will see me be the first to admit it

I haven’t derided it because I think that, on the basis of government land usage as a source of the income directly experience by the oil companies in this case as well as the reinvestment of the royalties and surcharge directly and without regard to the final price of the oil, that the government influence on the corporate and consumer structure is negligible. I do agree that the total tax rate against the corporations in the state in general can be lowered.

I do not agree with the government rebates that we received a few months back because the lack of a surplus to justify such a flow vs. stock. That combined with the cut off point in the rebates themselves.

The point of the "neighborliness" thread is not Obama’s tax policies but the justification that Obama uses for them. "Neighborliness" is emotional at best, disenfranchising at worst.

Well …..it’s, of course, highly debatable, but the "surplus" to pay for the stimulus would be in the future, as a result of the economic stimulus.

I thought he did well in conveying a complex point.

Why would he ramble on about "marginal utility" and "notional dollar amounts"? Much better to put things in laymen’s terms, and that’s what he did with his example about the waitress.

I’m not sure why so-called fiscal conservatives are so dismissive of Palin’s proven record of tax-and-spend, government-handouts, windfall profits governance.

Related posts:

1. Would you give Hockey Mom Sarah Palin the nuclear launch codes? Not talking about Mccain.. just saying if it came to it and she became president, and we had a showdown...
2. Obama’s Economic plan = income redistribution Obama's 'emergency' economic plan By: August 1, 2008 10:53 AM EST Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) on Friday announced an...
3. Senator Obama’s proposed ‘tax cuts for the middle class’ Senator Barack Obama declared recently that he wants to reform our tax code so that it rewards work and not...
4. But america wants ‘Change’ A little over one year ago: 1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high; 2) Regular gasoline sold...
5. Here’s a good read on windfall taxes and why it’s silly to levy them against Big Oil What Is a 'Windfall' Profit? August 4, 2008 The "windfall profits" tax is back, with Barack Obama stumping again to...