Sarah Palin Shares the Wealth with Alaskans

This is too funny...

The distribution of wealth from Alaskan based resources to the general population is one thing. As has been noted, this has been going on for a long time (not that that really matters), and is not so much Socialism as it is payment of dividends.

Then we have the windfall tax that Palin signed into law in August of this year.

This tax has exactly the same structure as anything Obama has proposed: it taxes one group and distributes the revenue from those taxes to another group that did not earn it.

There may be implementational detail differences, but the basic structure is exactly the same.

The hypocrisy here is delicious... Palin is absolutely no more and no less a Socialist than is Obama...

by dariousg
I just don't like smear campaigns against human beings. This is a MAJOR twisting of the meaning of what is really going on. Typical BS and I'm quite frankly sick of it.

This is not a smear. This is no more and no less a twisting of the meaning than what is being done with Obama's proposal. A tax is a tax is a tax. You can agree or disagree on whom a tax should be levied, and who should receive the revenue thus generated, but the tax structures in each of these cases is exactly the same.

reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic


I'm looking for the part where Alaska sends that windfall tax money to the Federal government for National redistribution. Is that in there somewhere?

Originally posted by dariousg
I just don't like smear campaigns against human beings.

If I haven't made it clear, let me do so now. I am not smearing Palin for sharing the wealth. I AGREE with her. I think the people of Alaska should share in the wealth of their state.

And on a larger scale, I think the people of the US should share in the wealth of their country. Especially since the wealth has been so unequally distributed in the past.

My point is that Palin's accusations of Obama are hypocritical when she supports spreading the wealth in her state (albeit with somewhat different implementation).

Originally posted by dbates
If a lumber company gives you money for harvesting trees on your land ...

But the oil that the people in Alaska are benefiting from is NOT on their private land. It's just in the state. They don't own all of Alaska. In fact, people who rent someone else's property share in the wealth, too. The oil is not coming from their land, they did nothing to earn the money, but, because they live in the state, they share in the state's wealth.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
But the oil that the people in Alaska are benefiting from is NOT on their private land. It's just in the state. They don't own all of Alaska. In fact, people who rent someone else's property share in the wealth, too. The oil is not coming from their land, they did nothing to earn the money, but, because they live in the state, they share in the state's wealth.

The weight of their state crushing down on the dead dinosaurs and plantlife is what made that oil in the first place. Since they live there why should they not benefit from it? Their added weight helped make the process happen.

It's not like everyone doesn't have the oppurtunity to get that money for themselves, they just have to move to Alaska and gain residency.

Originally posted by spacedoubt
reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic

 

I'm looking for the part where Alaska sends that windfall tax money to the Federal government for National redistribution. Is that in there somewhere?

Not relevant. The size of the recipient group has no bearing on the basic tax structure.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by dariousg
I just don't like smear campaigns against human beings.

If I haven't made it clear, let me do so now. I am not smearing Palin for sharing the wealth. I AGREE with her. I think the people of Alaska should share in the wealth of their state.

And on a larger scale, I think the people of the US should share in the wealth of their country. Especially since the wealth has been so unequally distributed in the past.

My point is that Palin's accusations of Obama are hypocritical when she supports spreading the wealth in her state (albeit with somewhat different implementation).

Originally posted by dbates
If a lumber company gives you money for harvesting trees on your land ...

But the oil that the people in Alaska are benefiting from is NOT on their private land. It's just in the state. They don't own all of Alaska. In fact, people who rent someone else's property share in the wealth, too. The oil is not coming from their land, they did nothing to earn the money, but, because they live in the state, they share in the state's wealth.

Sharing the wealth of the country.How? What wealth does the federal government have that is not derived from the taxpayer? The majority of land is privatly owned,therefore the profits from that land belong to the owners.You my friend are comparing apples and oranges,or tilting at windmills.

Originally posted by dbates
It's been a long-standing tradition for thousands and thousands of years that that the land owner owned the resources on their land be it water, trees, gold, or oil.

Oh puh-leeze... Moving to Alaska makes you an owner? Who's signing the paper?

Face it: it's a populist handout and not different from socialism.

By the way, if you insist on your logic, the American people own the land and whatever belongs therein. That corporations of ANY sort make business in this land (including oil) makes them liable to pay the dues that the people decide should be levied.

Originally posted by daddyroo45
Sharing the wealth of the country.How? What wealth does the federal government have that is not derived from the taxpayer? The majority of land is privatly owned,therefore the profits from that land belong to the owners.You my friend are comparing apples and oranges,or tilting at windmills.

This is getting off the point of Palin's hypocrisy, but at least some of the petroleum in Alaska is on national land, i.e. owned by the Federal gov't and therefore by current law does in fact belong to the nation as a whole.

There is at least some "wealth of the country".

No apples, no oranges, no windmills.

reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic


I agree, size does not matter..
State's rights do, however.

Originally posted by daddyroo45
The majority of land is privatly owned,therefore the profits from that land belong to the owners.

If I own a small plot of land in Alaska, I still get the same socialist handout from Palin as my neighbor who doesn't own anything. So I'm robbed, in a sense.

A different line of thought -- people are a resources for business (it's not accidental they call the employment office "Human Resources"). As such, it's a component of production just like oil or timber. And people are not privately owned, thank God. So they should be able to collect just like Palin does it in Alaska.

Originally posted by spacedoubt
reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic

 

I agree, size does not matter..

State's rights do, however.

That's pretty good!

Once again, be it a state, a nation or a county is not relevant to the basic structure of the tax system.

These are all irrelevant to the question at hand: tax one group, distribute to another group.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


So if I understand you correctly... If the govt handed me a lease to drill for oil in your front yard, you wouldn't expect one red cent? If you had no say in it and watched me pull millions of dollars out of your front yard and turned that into billions, you would still be okay with it?

Let's say you live in a deed resrticted community and the homeowners association arranges a dividend payment for you for a portion of the profits I pull out of your front yard, does that sound like socialism to you?

Lets say you show up to my house on Holloween with a bag full of candy. I compare it to the bags the other children are holding open and declare you have a whole lot more candy than they do, and in order to have that much more candy you must have oppressed someone. I then declare you to be elite and take a portion of your candy and proceed to pour it into the bags of the other kids. I then tell you your giving is patriotic and send you on your way knowing full well the reason you had more candy is the direct result of your starting earlier and going to more houses.

So you see BH, with all due respect, "O" is just wrong on this one, and it's okay for you to admit it, no one will think any less of you.

[edit on 10/29/2008 by TheRooster]

[edit on 10/29/2008 by TheRooster]

Originally posted by buddhasystem
If I own a small plot of land in Alaska, I still get the same socialist handout from Palin as my neighbor who doesn't own anything. So I'm robbed, in a sense.

You would have to prove residency in Alaska. Just owning land somewhere does not prove that you live there.

You would at least benefit from the reduced property taxes of Alaska.

I fail to see how you are robbed in that case since you do not pay anything into the program.

reply to post by COOL HAND


You misunderstood. If I own a piece of private land, I should be entitled to MORE handout than my neighbor, provided are both residents. This ain't happening.

It's ridiculous, in a sense. If I move to Alaska (and in fact I was looking for jobs there after my two trips and scaling McKinley) I automatically become an "owner". That's super-commie logic! Palin is a pinko socialist.

reply to post by buddhasystem


As usual you have missed the point entirely.When I said "the majority of land is privately owned" I was speaking of the lower 48 states.Alaska's land holdings are emense and revenue from that should go to the residents of the state.Alaska doesn't discriminate between land owners and renters.the monies are distributed to the residents of the state.So as not to place an undue burden on one "class" of citizen

Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic
These are all irrelevant to the question at hand: tax one group, distribute to another group.

No one here has yet shown how Obama's tax plan (Taking money) is equal to Sarah Palin's Alaskan dividend plan (giving money).

Using Halloween as an analogy the dividend plan in Alaskan says everyone can get 20 pieces of candy for free as long as they live on that street. What they do with the candy after that is their own business.

Obama's plan will rummage through the bags and take candy away from those that have more and give it to those that have less. If you collected more than 250 150 pieces of candy, get ready to have over half of it taken away and given to those that have less.

If you can't see the difference between giving money and taking money then I doubt any amount of words I type will explain the difference to you.

Originally posted by TheRooster
So if I understand you correctly... If the govt handed me a lease to drill for oil in your front yard, you wouldn't expect one red cent? If you had no say in it and watched me pull millions of dollars out of your front yard and turned that into billions, you would still be okay with it?

It would not matter if BH, or you, or I liked it or not. As it happens, there is a substantial difference between land ownership and mineral rights. It is definitely possible and happens that someone that does not own land, but owns the mineral rights for that land can go and dig gold or oil or whatever, and is not by law required to give the land owner anything.

Let's say you live in a deed resrticted community and the homeowners association arranges a dividend payment for you for a portion of the profits I pull out of your front yard, does that sound like socialism to you?

Not to me.

Lets say you show up to my house on Holloween with a bag full of candy....

What huh? You lost me totally on this one.

So you see BH, with all due respect, "O" is just wrong on this one, and it's okay for you to admit it, no one will think any less of you.

Obama may indeed be wrong on his tax ideas, they may destroy the entire Milky Way galaxy, who knows?

But they are not socialism

Originally posted by TheRooster
So if I understand you correctly... If the govt handed me a lease to drill for oil in your front yard, you wouldn't expect one red cent?

You don't understand me correctly. You clearly haven't read where I said, "I AGREE WITH PALIN". I think Alaskans SHOULD share in the wealth of the state.

And spacedoubt, what's the difference between state and country? I mean really, it's just a larger group. I support state laws, too, but it's all imaginary lines. We're all individuals contributing to and taking from a larger whole. Whether it's a state or a country, who cares? What's the defining line between state and country?

Originally posted by buddhasystem
You misunderstood. If I own a piece of private land, I should be entitled to MORE handout than my neighbor, provided are both residents. This ain't happening.

Whether or not someone gets the money is based on living in the state and contributing to the economy.

It's ridiculous, in a sense. If I move to Alaska (and in fact I was looking for jobs there after my two trips and scaling McKinley) I automatically become an "owner". That's super-commie logic! Palin is a pinko socialist.

No, you have to live there for at least 11 months as an Alaskan resident in order to qualify for the program.

Try again.

Originally posted by daddyroo45
Alaska's land holdings are emense and revenue from that should go to the residents of the state.

Why? Really, why? The oil companies are investing billions of dollars into infrastructure and create good jobs, why should they in addition to pay cash? That's a commie pinko socialist robber perpetrated by the lying hypocrite Palien.

Alaska doesn't discriminate between land owners and renters.

And that's wrong! If I invested in Alaska, I have more rights to its riches than some drifter who didn't. Again, commie liar Palin took away these rights.