Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (181066)	5/11/2005 8:30:46 PM
From: Bill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Easier said than done.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (181066)	5/11/2005 8:34:07 PM
From: Saturn V	Respond to of 186894

OT -Alaskan Finances With all that Oil Revenue, I find it hard to believe that Alaska is not a self sustaining state. I recollect that in the early 80's, when the Alaska pipeline became operational, the Alaskan government was swimming in money, and the state reduced or eliminated the State Income Tax.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (181066)	5/11/2005 8:34:54 PM
From: willcousa	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

The people of Alaska have been trying to get Anwar drilled for some time now.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (181066)	5/11/2005 8:38:18 PM
From: GVTucker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Lizzie, RE: The problem with alaska is that, unlike california, it is not a self sustaining state, it is heavily subsidized by the rest of the nation and so the voters there will never be autonomous, really. That is incorrect. In fact, Alaska is SO self-sustaining that they PAY people $1000 a year from oil revenues. In essence the tax rate is negative. Also, I doubt very seriously that California is self-sustaining. Most studies that I've seen that maintain that ignore the significant presence of military service there.