Page 22 of 26 FirstFirst ... 122021222324 ... LastLast
Results 421 to 440 of 513

Thread: More bad news for Alaska's future..

  1. #421
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    141

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mkay View Post
    One way to raise revenue is to charge user fees on services, such as some type of tolls on roads like the haul road. The idea being a road like that primarily related to commercial activity would have some of it's maintenance paid for by those that use it.That can be expanded for many things. Not saying it's good or bad.
    User fees on the end user are the "fairest" of all taxation measures. A sales tax is a user fee, one sure way to avoid the tax is to not purchase an item. If I use a road that you never use and it provides no value to you or your family why should you pay for it?
    "Now you know, and knowing is half the battle." - G.I. Joe

  2. #422
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    4,835

    Default agree..

    I suspect if you tried to get the various industries and people of Alaska to pay their own way you would find out that very few other than the oil industry actually provide more benefits than they receive. The state has for decades, and will continue to do so, run on oil money for undesignated funds. Even today, with the drastic drop in contributions, the oil industry still funds the state's schools, roads, public safety etc. etc.. I've never set down and looked at the spending vs. revenues, but I suspect t hat commercial fishing, mining, tourism, timber industries barely, if even, pay their own way.

    The latest revenue forecast is here: http://tax.alaska.gov/programs/docum...wer.aspx?1331r

    So -yes, I agree - let user's fees pay for services. Let's start with rural Alaska that is so heavily subsidized by the urban taxpayers like myself. As a starter, why should I pay for rural airports and internet service that provide no benefits to me?


    Quote Originally Posted by Patsfan54 View Post
    User fees on the end user are the "fairest" of all taxation measures. A sales tax is a user fee, one sure way to avoid the tax is to not purchase an item. If I use a road that you never use and it provides no value to you or your family why should you pay for it?
    Living the urban lifestyle so I can pay my way and for my family's needs, and support my country. And you?
    ".. ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" JFK

  3. #423

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tvfinak View Post
    So -yes, I agree - let user's fees pay for services. Let's start with rural Alaska that is so heavily subsidized by the urban taxpayers like myself. As a starter, why should I pay for rural airports and internet service that provide no benefits to me?
    Everything in Alaska has been heavily subsidized by taxpayers in the lower 48. And the vast majority of those who paid the taxes to subsidize Alaska will never see the benefit.

    So if that's what you want then you should immediately stop using any shred of infrastructure in Alaska. Because if you're against subsidies to rural areas that you make for things you don't benefit from, I'm sure you wouldn't want to use anything that may have been subsidized by others they don't benefit from. Because using those would be rather hypocritical of you, yes?

  4. #424
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    4,835

    Default benefits...

    Actually, the lower 48 has received tremendous benefits from Alaska since it was purchased from Russia a century ago. I haven't ever heard from anyone that Alaska was bum deal- ever.

    And the companies I've worked for any myself have paid a bunch of taxes over the years. Remember that the Federal dollars coming to Alaska go to two main groups - the military and rural & native Alaskans who as a group pay very little in taxes anywhere to anybody. Everything is subsidized to some degree - but those in the rural areas receive the most and pay the least.

    Did you see where the Alaska House of Representatives want to pass and income tax now? So who will pay the tax- urban Alaskans of course and the money will go to the rural areas primarily while they pay nothing.

    When I lived in Anchorage I paid around $6000 a year in property taxes alone plus another $200 - $400 a month for utilities. I also paid hwy taxes on the gas I used, a universal connection charge so rural areas could have heavily subsidized communications etc. etc. And of course there was federal income tax, social security, Medicare tax etc. etc.

    I'd be happy as heck to pay my own way in Alaska and drop the subsidizes if everyone else did the same things. But the rural folks would never go for it - they are too used to that subsidized lifestyle paid for by others. But now that the money is running out - things are going to get very interesting.



    Quote Originally Posted by Cheeser View Post
    Everything in Alaska has been heavily subsidized by taxpayers in the lower 48. And the vast majority of those who paid the taxes to subsidize Alaska will never see the benefit.

    So if that's what you want then you should immediately stop using any shred of infrastructure in Alaska. Because if you're against subsidies to rural areas that you make for things you don't benefit from, I'm sure you wouldn't want to use anything that may have been subsidized by others they don't benefit from. Because using those would be rather hypocritical of you, yes?
    Living the urban lifestyle so I can pay my way and for my family's needs, and support my country. And you?
    ".. ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" JFK

  5. #425

    Default

    As far as indirect benefit as you state, it's fair to say everywhere has received some sort of benefit from everywhere else. Your perception of "benefit" is subjective. But you have and still benefit from massive subsidies by many in the lower 48 who will never directly benefit from those taxes sent to Alaska. There's no way you can claim the high ground on the subsidy issue. YOUR lifestyle is subsidized by others every single day whether you want to admit it or not.

  6. #426
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    4,835

    Default show me..

    Any idea how much the average Alaskan living in Anchorage receives in "subsidizes" from the federal government- or are you making a statement that can't be supported?

    Regardless of what we get as urban residents, it pales in comparison with what the rural residents receive. And urban residents do pay taxes in many forms; other than a few hidden taxes on products, do the rural residents pay any taxes at all?


    Quote Originally Posted by Cheeser View Post
    As far as indirect benefit as you state, it's fair to say everywhere has received some sort of benefit from everywhere else. Your perception of "benefit" is subjective. But you have and still benefit from massive subsidies by many in the lower 48 who will never directly benefit from those taxes sent to Alaska. There's no way you can claim the high ground on the subsidy issue. YOUR lifestyle is subsidized by others every single day whether you want to admit it or not.
    Living the urban lifestyle so I can pay my way and for my family's needs, and support my country. And you?
    ".. ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" JFK

  7. #427

    Default

    Sure. It only took about 5 seconds to find this information.
    Total federal spending per capita: $17,762Federal income taxes per capita: $2,565

    BTW, you could have just asked for the numbers and skipped the attempt at insulting me by implying I just made things up.

  8. #428
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    4,835

    Default per Alaskan or ??

    I've seen similar figures for ALASKA as a whole, skewed of course by rural, Native, and defense spending. And of course, even in Anchorage, the figures are skewed by support for the rural and Native Alaskan health care, defense spending etc.

    So again - got any figures for the urban Anchorage workers federal benefits vs. taxes paid? If what you quoted are such - please reference the source.


    Quote Originally Posted by Cheeser View Post
    Sure. It only took about 5 seconds to find this information.
    Total federal spending per capita: $17,762Federal income taxes per capita: $2,565

    BTW, you could have just asked for the numbers and skipped the attempt at insulting me by implying I just made things up.
    Living the urban lifestyle so I can pay my way and for my family's needs, and support my country. And you?
    ".. ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" JFK

  9. #429

    Default

    You are the one who made the claim so the onus is upon YOU to provide the proof. When you provide that proof, please go back to your first day in Alaska. Because the entire history of how you've used subsidies provided by others gives us the true picture of how you have benefited from them.

    In that light, you have already admitted you have benefitted by subsidies provided by others who will never see any benefit from providing that subsidy for you. So it's sounding like is the subsides were ok when you needed/need them. But when a group you don't like needs them, they're bad.

  10. #430
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    4,835

    Default subsidizes or spending?

    The figures - most likely the ones you quoted - compare federal SPENDING per capita to income tax collected per capita. That is obviously an invalid comparison.

    Federal spending includes much more than subsidizes - the two biggest components in Alaska are defense spending and federal wages. Defense spending benefits all of us obviously, but federal wages benefit some more than others. Spending on Native care obviously benefits Natives much more than other and can be called a subsidy for Natives, likewise for other federal employees in and serving rural locations. Likewise subsidizes for rural post offices, rural airports etc. etc. And since rural Alaskans pay little or no Federal taxes, it is clearly obvious they live a subsidized lifestyle.

    I don't have the figures for all residents of Anchorage, but the last year -2013- I worked there full time, I paid more in Federal income taxes than the federal government spending per capita LESS the spending on defense and federal wages. SO YES- I DID PAY MY OWN WAY as far as Federal subsidizes. Likewise for when I came up in 1981 if you want to go back that far.

    No - I don't think subsidizes other than to remedy an catastrophic and unusual event are right, and I haven't ever received them that I am aware of. And to live generation after generation on the backs of others - that is just plain wrong. And to justify living a subsidized lifestyle with the excuse that other do it to is about as bad- perhaps an denial is even worse than the deed!


    Quote Originally Posted by Cheeser View Post
    You are the one who made the claim so the onus is upon YOU to provide the proof. When you provide that proof, please go back to your first day in Alaska. Because the entire history of how you've used subsidies provided by others gives us the true picture of how you have benefited from them.

    In that light, you have already admitted you have benefitted by subsidies provided by others who will never see any benefit from providing that subsidy for you. So it's sounding like is the subsides were ok when you needed/need them. But when a group you don't like needs them, they're bad.
    Living the urban lifestyle so I can pay my way and for my family's needs, and support my country. And you?
    ".. ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" JFK

  11. #431
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Anchorage
    Posts
    268

    Default

    FWIW

    - 2016 (my most recent year as an Alaska Resident), I paid more than the Federal per capita spending ($17,762) in my own federal taxes (without redaction for defense, indigenous peoples support, federal land management, etc)
    - 2012 (my immediately prior year as an Alaska Resident), I paid more than the Federal per capita spending in my own federal taxes (without redaction for defense, indigenous peoples support, federal land management, etc)
    - In both of those years, my wife also paid more in federal taxes than the Federal per capita spending
    - Those federal taxes don't include the tax monies paid to MOA (property tax and minor amounts for bus licenses and the like) or to MSB (property taxes).

    I consider myself fortunate to have this tax liability...and fortunate to have State of Alaska tax liability prior to '82 (giving my age away); that being said, I don't view my residency in Alaska as subsidized by the L48 at all.
    Back in AK

  12. #432

    Default

    You have always received subsidies your entire time in Alaska and you still do to this day. It appears you simply don't want to recognize the subsidies you get and only want to recognize the subsidies groups you don't like get.

    Like your convenient exclusion of some types of federal spending (military and wages). Those are federal dollars and are in the same lump of money every other federal dollar is in. You liking what that money is spent on doesn't change that it is a federal subsidy (via a program) that pumps federal money someone else paid into Alaska. Hence, a subsidy.

    You have basically proven my point that subsidies you've benefited from and still do to this day are ok but subsidies to groups you don't like are not ok. Which negates any point you are trying to make as your argument is subjective, not objective. It's opinion with nothing to back it up.

    BTW, this is the last comment I'll make on this. Debating an issue where one side overtly ignores reality means it isn't a debate and no value is gleaned from the effort.

  13. #433
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    4,835

    Default subsidies, spending, and logic

    Lumping all federal spending into one class of "subsidies" that benefits everyone equally is simply absurd.

    Like the example I pointed out, federal money paid to doctor that treats rural Alaskans benefits me as an Alaskan to a small degree, but the vast majority of the benefits and subsidizes go to the rural Alaskans that he/she treats. And as I also pointed out, I help pay for that doctor's costs, while the rural Alaskans pay little or nothing.

    So your logic is: that because I receive some benefits and subsidies that I at least help pay for, it is OK for others to receive far greater benefits and subsidies that they pay nothing for. Thank you for clarifying your belief.

    Actually when I look into what Alaska receives in benefits and "subsidies" I see how skewed the whole picture actually is presented. One good example is the federal taxes paid per resident per federals dollars spent. The problem is that these figures totally ignore that wages earned in Alaska by non-residents that do receive some Alaska benefits or subsidies. Money paid into social security by those that retire outside Alaska is another example.


    Quote Originally Posted by Cheeser View Post
    You have always received subsidies your entire time in Alaska and you still do to this day. It appears you simply don't want to recognize the subsidies you get and only want to recognize the subsidies groups you don't like get.

    Like your convenient exclusion of some types of federal spending (military and wages). Those are federal dollars and are in the same lump of money every other federal dollar is in. You liking what that money is spent on doesn't change that it is a federal subsidy (via a program) that pumps federal money someone else paid into Alaska. Hence, a subsidy.

    You have basically proven my point that subsidies you've benefited from and still do to this day are ok but subsidies to groups you don't like are not ok. Which negates any point you are trying to make as your argument is subjective, not objective. It's opinion with nothing to back it up.

    BTW, this is the last comment I'll make on this. Debating an issue where one side overtly ignores reality means it isn't a debate and no value is gleaned from the effort.
    Living the urban lifestyle so I can pay my way and for my family's needs, and support my country. And you?
    ".. ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" JFK

  14. #434

    Default

    Well, when you put words in my mouth that I did not state (which indicates a losing argument), I have to reply again. If you're going to quote me, quote me verbatim. Making up things to support your position and attempting to make it look like I said it reflects poorly upon you, not me.

    Thank your for proving me correct - hypocrisy is telling you that the many, many, many subsidies you've benefited from over the years are ok but if it's a group you don't like, their subsidies are bad.

    Reply all you want, I'm done.

  15. #435
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    4,835

    Default where??

    I didn't know we even had an argument or I had a position - other than rural Alaskans live a highly subsidized lifestyle.

    And I certainly never said I didn't like any particular group. Oh well, the subsidizes are starting to go away - that is a wonderful thing as subsidizes are a bad idea to begin with. If able individuals can't pay their own way - something needs to change.

    But back to the topic at hand - Alaskan Resource Development. Any updates on this oil and how it will affect Alaska?

    https://www.usgs.gov/news/usgs-estim...hale-formation



    Quote Originally Posted by Cheeser View Post
    Well, when you put words in my mouth that I did not state (which indicates a losing argument), I have to reply again. If you're going to quote me, quote me verbatim. Making up things to support your position and attempting to make it look like I said it reflects poorly upon you, not me.

    Thank your for proving me correct - hypocrisy is telling you that the many, many, many subsidies you've benefited from over the years are ok but if it's a group you don't like, their subsidies are bad.

    Reply all you want, I'm done.
    Living the urban lifestyle so I can pay my way and for my family's needs, and support my country. And you?
    ".. ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" JFK

  16. #436
    Member DannerAK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Whiskey River
    Posts
    1,088

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tvfinak View Post
    I didn't know we even had an argument or I had a position - other than rural Alaskans live a highly subsidized lifestyle.

    And I certainly never said I didn't like any particular group. Oh well, the subsidizes are starting to go away - that is a wonderful thing as subsidizes are a bad idea to begin with. If able individuals can't pay their own way - something needs to change.

    But back to the topic at hand - Alaskan Resource Development. Any updates on this oil and how it will affect Alaska?

    https://www.usgs.gov/news/usgs-estim...hale-formation

    Subsidize, subsidizes - verbs
    Subsidy, subsidies - nouns
    Gee whiz
    "The North wind is cold no matter what direction it's blowing"

  17. #437
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    4,835

    Default sorry-

    Please forgive me - I was in a hurry and got sloppy with my grammar. Or maybe I need to go to a subsidized school that has subsidies for old dudes like me that aren't subsidized. Did I get that right?

    But the intent of the message stays the same.


    Quote Originally Posted by DannerAK View Post
    Subsidize, subsidizes - verbs
    Subsidy, subsidies - nouns
    Gee whiz
    Living the urban lifestyle so I can pay my way and for my family's needs, and support my country. And you?
    ".. ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" JFK

  18. #438
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    4,835

    Default latests news..

    latest update on oil prices: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-does...-prices-sound/

    With another big drop in oil prices, the pressure will really be on for an income tax.

    But even with an income tax, things are going to get real bad for many Alaskans without jobs that depend on the state and others to maintain their lifestyles.
    Living the urban lifestyle so I can pay my way and for my family's needs, and support my country. And you?
    ".. ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" JFK

  19. #439
    Member BluNosDav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    425

    Default

    The ploy of folks like Cheeser - is to attempt to make everything morally equivalent. Example; one person collects a tiny insignificant benefit, while another lives entirely off of public welfare, so Cheeser, et al, try to assert that both are equal freeloaders. That's both false and wrong!

    I can assure you that I pay far more in taxes than I take in as benefits. But, even if I did benefit by having one highway pothole patched more than my total contributions. That does not make me the same, as someone who has had their entire lifestyle subsidized for generations.

    Nice try, Dave.
    "Luckily, enforcement reads these forums, and likely will peruse this one...Especially after a link of it is forwarded to them....." - AlaskaHippie.

  20. #440

    Default

    Blu - Thank you for admitting that you didn't comprehend a single thing I wrote.

Page 22 of 26 FirstFirst ... 122021222324 ... 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
  •