Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 45

Thread: PFD/hunting fund cut...

  1. #1
    Member BRWNBR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Big Lake
    Posts
    8,464

    Default PFD/hunting fund cut...

    I just read where the PFD has been cut to $1000 for this next year at least, probably before they take the rest of it. Anyone else get wind of this? Gonna cut into some folks hunting funds I'm thinking.
    Www.blackriverhunting.com
    Master guide 212

  2. #2
    Member ProHunterAK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Counting Frogs and Skeeters
    Posts
    851

    Default

    Been a resident since 2005 never claimed a PFD as well as my family (my mentality was I am not truly an worthy of applying for a PFD until I am retired or out of the military and permanently living here.) I retired last year and still did not apply and did not plan on applying until this year but I was so used to not applying that I completely forgot to do so for myself and my wife and kids. Next year we may or may not apply as we do not "need" the money but I wouldnt mind having a few extra bucks to spend on the kids and money to toss into their individual savings. I do feel sorry for families that honestly greatly benefit from the PFD as they rely on it each year (especially before the holiday season and winter to top off fuel, buy gifts and prepare for winter etc.)

    "Whoever said the pen is mightier than the sword obviously never encountered automatic weapons."

  3. #3

    Default

    It's going to be cut to $1000 starting next year. This year is still open for guessing what it will be. Haha.
    I'm with you when you say it will cut into hunting funds, that extra money is nice to have, but I'm so used to putting it right into savings I probably won't miss it that much.
    Those that use it for heating oil, Christmas and whatnots. Will definitely feel the decrease but I think it will be a great budgeting tool.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  4. #4
    Member akhunter4811's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    nome
    Posts
    97

    Default

    what I have read is that they are proposing that the PFD will be set at $1,000 for the next 3 years and the state will get $650 million to help with the budget.... something to that effect. The estimated PFD over the next three years is supposed to be around $2,000 each year. this info I have gotten from the ADN website. there are alot of people that have been talking to their representatives and are against it so as part of the hunting community if you don't agree with what is going on I recommend you contacting the politicians and letting them know. just my two cents

  5. #5
    Member Meanderthal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Anchorage, AK
    Posts
    288

    Default

    The state should reduce PFDs to zero before any other revenue sources are considered. What better way is there to equally share the burden of closing the budget gap?

  6. #6
    Member AKducks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Fairbanks
    Posts
    485

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Meanderthal View Post
    The state should reduce PFDs to zero before any other revenue sources are considered. What better way is there to equally share the burden of closing the budget gap?
    I would like to see a small income tax first (we actually end up paying less taxes because it becomes a write off on our Fed Income tax) and a restructure of the oil tax system (need a system that pays Alaska when oil prices are down). would really miss have a 2K PFD but in the end it's free money, I'm not really entitled to it.

  7. #7
    Member BRWNBR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Big Lake
    Posts
    8,464

    Default

    I say a sales tax. I say let some of the seasonal tourism community help pay for all the roads they drive on!

    No way they would cap at $2000, that's the high end of what they have been. That wouldn't really be a "cut".
    Here's where I got my info.

    http://www.adn.com/politics/2016/06/...acklash-so-far

    Alaska's big resource is tourism and seasonal activity, the businesses and travelers that come up here and enjoy the prosperity or uniqueness of this place should be helping with funding it, not just cutting residents PFD. Cost of living is increasing, wages and jobs are going down. Taking the money from locals is almost like pushing the cart off the hill.
    Then again, there's a lot to this I'm not familiar with. And it is my fault for having a big family and barely making enough to support them, not the states responsibility to make up the difference.
    Www.blackriverhunting.com
    Master guide 212

  8. #8
    Member Meanderthal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Anchorage, AK
    Posts
    288

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AKducks View Post
    I would like to see a small income tax first (we actually end up paying less taxes because it becomes a write off on our Fed Income tax) and a restructure of the oil tax system (need a system that pays Alaska when oil prices are down). would really miss have a 2K PFD but in the end it's free money, I'm not really entitled to it.
    Income taxes only impact those with taxable earnings and provide negative incentives for production. That well is only half full as it is and going empty without any additional pressure.

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    2,085

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Meanderthal View Post
    The state should reduce PFDs to zero before any other revenue sources are considered. What better way is there to equally share the burden of closing the budget gap?
    That's not equality. That takes more of a % of total income from the poorest and takes the least from those who can better afford it. This will hit bush Alaska the hardest.
    An opinion should be the result of thought, not a substitute for it.
    - Jef Mallett

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Meanderthal View Post
    Income taxes only impact those with taxable earnings and provide negative incentives for production. That well is only half full as it is and going empty without any additional pressure.
    Do you know anyone who really decides to make less money to lessen their income tax? An income tax would address the seasonal workers from outside just taking the money away with them.

    I think the problem is so large, all of these ideas need to be used. Look at each source of new revenue and implement each as much as the economy can handle. Share the load all around. Some from the PFD, some from a sales tax, some from income tax, some oil tax restructuring, and of course cost cutting as far as the economy can handle.

  11. #11

    Default

    REALLY, taxes? our legislature has a spending problem. why should I or anyone else pay for all these state giveaways? If government does not have money for all their redistribution of funds. start cutting. Post last state income tax, the state was doing fine. These drunken sailors (Legislators) went hog wild during the high price of oil. I didn't have my hand out then and I am not going to get my pocket book out now.

  12. #12
    Member Meanderthal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Anchorage, AK
    Posts
    288

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AKMtnRunner View Post
    Do you know anyone who really decides to make less money to lessen their income tax? An income tax would address the seasonal workers from outside just taking the money away with them.
    Yes, me and many others in the construction design and engineering fields.

    Imagine that you are a school teacher who works 9 months per year and has three months off for summer. Then you are confronted with the opportunity to teach summer school for the same pay rate but not only will you have to pay income taxes on the three additional months but it will increase the tax rate for the normal school year too. A rational decision would include the whole picture.

    So when a project comes along I weigh all of the factors in making the decision whether or not to take it. Prior to oil crashing I had been doing less work and making other sacrifices instead so I can afford it. In my case almost all of the work that I turn down goes out of state. This year is different because the construction level fell off a cliff so I am pretty much taking whatever I can.

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    952

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Meanderthal View Post
    Then you are confronted with the opportunity to teach summer school for the same pay rate but not only will you have to pay income taxes on the three additional months but it will increase the tax rate for the normal school year too.
    That's not true. At least for federal income taxes, which is what most proposals for a state income tax are based off of. Once you make enough to cross into the next tax bracket, let's say from 15% to 25% ($37,650 if single). Only that extra pay is taxed at the higher rate. In this case 25%. The tax bill on the amount you made before doesn't change.

  14. #14
    Supporting Member Amigo Will's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Wrangell
    Posts
    7,600

    Default

    Take away federal money and Alaska would really be bust
    Now left only to be a turd in the forrest and the circle will be complete.Use me as I have used you

  15. #15

    Default

    [QUOTE=Meanderthal;1544332]Yes, me and many others in the construction design and engineering fields.


    How many of your job opportunities are state or federally funded?
    Because government does not create or generate money. they take it from us and give it to someone else.

  16. #16
    Member Meanderthal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Anchorage, AK
    Posts
    288

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NRick View Post
    That's not true. At least for federal income taxes, which is what most proposals for a state income tax are based off of. Once you make enough to cross into the next tax bracket, let's say from 15% to 25% ($37,650 if single). Only that extra pay is taxed at the higher rate. In this case 25%. The tax bill on the amount you made before doesn't change.
    I'll accept that correction but the broader point about folks and businesses making rational economic decisions based on external incentives still stands. Just a few days ago a friend of mine asked me what I thought about him buying a more expensive house. When I brought to his attention that the numbers given to him by the mortgage people did not include the increase in property taxes he was immediately deflated. I stand by my assertion that taxing work is a bad idea, and just because the Feds are doing it already doesn't make it less so.

  17. #17
    Member Meanderthal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Anchorage, AK
    Posts
    288

    Default

    Deleted to repost along with quote so it will have context.

  18. #18
    Member Meanderthal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Anchorage, AK
    Posts
    288

    Default

    [QUOTE=isnarewolves;1544337]
    Quote Originally Posted by Meanderthal View Post
    Yes, me and many others in the construction design and engineering fields.


    How many of your job opportunities are state or federally funded?
    Because government does not create or generate money. they take it from us and give it to someone else.
    I've done quite a bit on for military bases but not so much that I couldn't live without it. Very few of my projects have been directly state funded but state spending does have a profound effect on the design and construction industry as a whole.

  19. #19
    Member Bullelkklr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage Alaska
    Posts
    4,839

    Default

    Alaska needs to Trim the FAT off the beef. Not tax us more. The legislators couldn't budget their way out of a tax lottery winning..........

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    12

    Default

    As a state employee I have attempted to contact the Governor and legislature on multiple occasions to bring forth ideas of saving money and have heard nothing back. If residents knew about the specifics of the wasteful spending you would be ashamed of us. Right now I have an idea that would cut two job positions and save approximately $85,000 -$90,000 a year in my office alone. You as tax payers are paying for: multiple incompetent employees that cannot perform their duties and in my office there are 25 employees and of this 9 are supervisors. Right now I have a coworker who has half the caseload of the average person in my position and they conduct less than 10 percent of a key function of my job. The state operates a Top Heavy employment structure where supervisors are overseen by supervisors performing the same duties, who are then overseen by a supervisor who oversees all the supervisors. In my office there is currently an employee making $50-$55k a year who is overseen by a person making $60 -$65K a year, who is then overseen by the director who makes $75 - $80k a year. So much waste and people need to look into it and do something about it. I'm so tempted to contact the media, but I'm scared of the consequences.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •