Sarah Palin Shares the Wealth with Alaskans

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

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?

Please forgive me, I obviously misunderstood you. *rubs his eyes in dis-belief as he reads BH actually supports Palin*

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

Obama taxes incomes over $250K
Palin taxes oil companies that sell Alaskan oil

One example each of "Taking money"

Obama distributes taxes from the >$250K incomes to those of lower income
Palin distributes oil company tax revenue to Alaskan citizens.

One example each of "Giving money".

No difference. Not Socialism.

reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic


I agree, if this is about a tax then so be it. If I have misunderstood what we are talking about here then I humbly apologize. However, I believe I am right in assuming that this is about the wealth that is sent out to each citizen in a small check each year. THAT is not what I thought this discussion was about.

A tax, as defined, comes from the people and businesses that are within the jurisdiction of the state/government. How that is distributed depends on the state. In Ohio, I have to pay federal, state, local AND school district taxes on top of property taxes. Each portion goes to a different entity but I do reside within their jurisdiction.

Taking money from revenues generated by their natural resources, as they made an agreement with the companies that wanted to tap those resources, is simply a completely different matter.

So, yes, this IS twisting words, as has been done often enough by all sides.

The windfall tax is something else entirely.

Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic

What huh? You lost me totally on this one

So this makes no sense to you?

Lets say you show up to my house on Holloween eve with a bag full of candy. I compare your bag to the bags the other children are holding open and declare you have 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 praise your giving as patriotic, and send you on your way knowing full well the reason you had more candy in your bag was the direct result of your starting earlier in the evening and going to more houses.

That's actually a very good thing!

[edit on 10/29/2008 by TheRooster]

reply to post by dariousg


Agreed, there is entirely too much spinning...

I see it as two different subjects:

1) Let's call it dividends, paid to Alaskan citizens for Alaskan oil

2) A further tax on oil companies for oil sold above - what was it - $42 / barrel? Something like that.

I'm in favor of both, actually.

My only argument here is that neither Obama's nor Palin's tax plan is Socialism. I am not arguing the merits of either, just the inaccurate label.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
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.

The wealth hasn't been unequally 'distributed'. It has been EARNED.

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

Because it's not equal and because people don't understand dividends.

reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic


Okay, you have your view on this and others have a different view. It looks like we are going to have to agree to disagree.

Because my difference, as THOROUGHLY explained before a couple times, is that the resources are owned by the state and thus they came to an 'AGREEMENT' with the companies about profit sharing. A LONG TIME AGO!

The PEOPLE do not pay into this fund out of their own pockets in order to get some back each year. It ALL comes from the resources.

Obama wants to tax people making $250k or above per year. The key word there is 'PEOPLE'. I don't know how else to make this more clear.

There simply IS A DIFFERENCE.

reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic


Okay, now I see why you are saying what you are saying. It's not about the differences in each plan. It's about NEITHER being Socialism.

Which I completely agree with.

Misunderstanding what others write is a common problem on these sites and I apologize if you feel I was singling out your replies. I was simply trying to explain something that I now believe you already understood.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Hey BH..
When it comes to State money versus Federalized/redistributed State money.
I'd have to say that accountability of expenditures would be the biggest issue for me. That having the Federal government in charge of the cash, makes it tougher to track.
Then there is the issue of roving packs of lobbyists, wining, dining for a piece of the action.
I think state level control is easier to manage.

Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic
Obama taxes incomes over $250K
Palin taxes oil companies that sell Alaskan oil

The money in the Alaskan Fund does not come from taxes. It is generated from the money oil companies pay to hold leases on the land.

an investment for at least 25% of proceeds from some minerals [such as oil and gas] sale or royalties. The Fund does not include either property taxes on oil company property nor income tax from oil corporations, so the minimum 25% deposit is closer to 11% if those sources were also considered. The Alaska Permanent Fund sets aside a certain share of oil revenues to continue benefiting current and all future generations of Alaskans.

en.wikipedia.org...

So again we're back to square one. How does the dividend payments from royalties equal entitlements that are paid to the poor from excessive taxation of the wealthy?

Originally posted by dariousg
Okay, now I see why you are saying what you are saying. It's not about the differences in each plan. It's about NEITHER being Socialism.

YES! I can't speak for OMS, but I'm saying the same thing.

Neither is Socialism. They are different implementations of taxing one sector and redistributing that money to others.

Originally posted by dbates
The money in the Alaskan Fund does not come from taxes.

But the money in the Alaska’s Clear and Equitable Share (which Palin supported) DOES.

See source on page one.

reply to post by dariousg


Yup, sounds like we are vehemently in agreement!

I'm talking about the windfall tax structure, compared to Obama's tax structure.

Thanks...

Originally posted by dariousg

Here I am again defending yet another candidate against a ridiculous claim.

Then maybe you should take some Pepto Bismol, crawl in bed with a copy of Sarah Palin's biography, and get some rest

I was born and currently live in oil rich Alberta. In 2003 our provincial gov't issued a $400 dividend to each resident of the province, this was due to a gov't surplus. Since then we haven't recieved another penny from the massive profits of the oil industry in our province. In fact our gov't doesn't even follow the recommendations of its own report titled "Our Fair Share".

I find this totally unfair, shouldn't the people benefit from their own resources? Instead alls we got out of it is a bunch of crappy mediocre paying jobs. When I say "crappy" I mean the work itself inside of these plants is dirty polluting and all around disgusting. Yeah the wages used to be good but now with inflation the way it is, and the gov't blocking our Union's from negotiating fair contracts, by making it virtually impossible to strike. They even let these companies bring workers from Mexico and China to keep the value of our labour down. I think the average Albertan gains nothing from the supposed boom.


to Union pride and socialist ideals

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

So they did receive a $1200 payment from extra tax revenue. Interesting.
I disapprove entirely of this. It was entirely a dumb thing to do. Yes, that would be socialism by some measures. It's the equivalent of buying votes in my opinion. Politicians are all the same in the end aren't they? If one person in government pays you $1200 for a vote it's bribery. If they collectively do it then it's a windfall tax.

Well, thanks for pointing this out. I was just looking at the Alaskan Permanent Fund which doesn't include taxes.

Originally posted by chickenshoes

Originally posted by dariousg

Here I am again defending yet another candidate against a ridiculous claim.

Then maybe you should take some Pepto Bismol, crawl in bed with a copy of Sarah Palin's biography, and get some rest

Nope. That wouldn't give me any rest. You see, I don't agree with Sarah. I'm just trying to defend her against something that is not her doing.

Now, if someone comes out with something that says she is evil and backs it with facts that cannot be refuted, then I will agree with them.

I have defended Obama, McCain and Palin against many bogus charges. The bulk of the BS out there is, well, BS.

So I will not relax to a biography of Mrs. Palin. I don't agree with her.

Originally posted by dbates
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

So they did receive a $1200 payment from extra tax revenue. Interesting.
I disapprove entirely of this. It was entirely a dumb thing to do. Yes, that would be socialism by some measures. It's the equivalent of buying votes in my opinion. Politicians are all the same in the end aren't they? If one person in government pays you $1200 for a vote it's bribery. If they collectively do it then it's a windfall tax.

Well, thanks for pointing this out. I was just looking at the Alaskan Permanent Fund which doesn't include taxes.

I too was debating the wrong thing. I agree fully that this $1200 payment is plain and simple bribery and thus WRONG.

However, still not socialism.

This is not the same socialist agenda that Obama is trying to set up. His Robinhood plan is to rob the rich and give to the poor, basically.
The set up in Alaska is like owning stock in a corporation. Shareholders get a dollar amount that is relative to the value per point of stock times how many shares they hold. In Alaska, the citizens are basically considered equal share holders in the state's oil and gas business, invested by state affiliation.

Obamacons can spin this anyway they want, but this is alot more ligitimate process than what their "messiah" is going to plague the upper class with. I think there are going to be a lot of poor and middle class people that are going to be sadly disappointed with their bloodmoney bought vote in the short and long run with this joker.

BTW...I dont support McCain either. I prefer my candidate to be able to get through a single sentence without spinning multiple viewpoints on a single thought.
"I agree that I agree to disagree with the agreement that I refuse to agree with until such time as I can decide to agree or disagree with the policy that I agree with."
Thats about all I hear every time McCain starts talking.