Alaska, the welfare state?

[Sisyphus]

I see there's been a lot of argument recently (here, and in the national dialogue) about throwing the word "socialist" around, and about what it actually means and whether it's necessarily bad. So I thought I'd bring up this particular example and give it its own topic, because, due to its current governor's central role in the name-calling, this might be especially revealing.

 

Ok, so here's the deal: Alaska has zero state income taxes and zero state sales taxes. Instead, almost all of its revenue comes from the federal government (Alaska receives almost twice as much federal money as it pays in federal taxes) and from charging oil companies to use the land. This latter isn't all used to pay for infrastructure, etc. (we all do that with our federal taxes), but to mail every Alaskan citizen a yearly check. Governor Palin has increased this check by $1200, to a current total of $3269. Said the governor earlier this year (before her nomination), "We’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs."

 

I don't know if this is technically socialism, but I don't know what to call it. It is "collective ownership" and "sharing the wealth," at least. Yet Obama is accused of "socialism" by this same person with the same distaste one might call him a Nazi, for using the phrase "spreading the wealth" while debating presidential candidate Joe the Plumber. Clearly the distinction here is not only significant but the crucial difference between good and evil. So what is it?

[YT2095]

Alaska has zero state income taxes and zero state sales taxes. Instead, almost all of its revenue comes from the federal government (Alaska receives almost twice as much federal money as it pays in federal taxes) and from charging oil companies to use the land.

 

doesn`t it get lots of money from selling tins of Salmon as well?

I know it`s quite expensive here!

[ParanoiA]

I don't know if this is technically socialism, but I don't know what to call it. It is "collective ownership" and "sharing the wealth," at least. Yet Obama is accused of "socialism" by this same person with the same distaste one might call him a Nazi, for using the phrase "spreading the wealth" while debating presidential candidate Joe the Plumber. Clearly the distinction here is not only significant but the crucial difference between good and evil. So what is it?

 

Well all Alaskans get that check don't they? Not just the poor ones? I readily admit I know nothing in the way of details on this system, so I can only comment on the implied principle of the deal.

 

If they get that check from business paying to use the people's land, then it's a business deal - not wealth redistribution. If they were to tax the business; to coerce property from them, and then spread that property around to the people, then that's spreading wealth. Instead, they're inticing business to give them their property by selling them rights to the people's land, and so the profit should go to the people since they own the land. It's just straight up business as far as I can tell.

 

I wonder why other states don't do this. Well, I guess it would really suck to send out checks to the people when they could have kept the money and spent it on studying the goth culture in Blue Springs, MO. (In case you're wondering, yes, that actually happened; they spent I think 1 million dollars on this, and Blue Springs is a tiny little town and the outcome of the study? They're just going through a fad... http://www.rickross.com/reference/goth/goth4.html).

Edited October 29, 2008 by ParanoiA

[Mr Skeptic]

What makes this whole deal highly suspicious is that they are handing out money to their citizens and getting federal money to pay for their infrastructure. Makes me wish that my state had the land and resources belonging to the people instead of to the government, so that we could get the money instead of our state government.