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.

Politics : President Barack Obama -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bread Upon The Water who wrote (57955)	7/7/2009 8:38:27 PM
From: koan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 149317

Vintner that is exactly the type of reasoning we had to fight against when we set up the Permanet fund. You act like we did not have to fight the right wing and oil companies ot get it through the legislature. That any fool woul ddo it. why didn't Texas do it 100 years ago. Alberta did it manyyears ago. Would you have been in favor of it? I believe some on htis thread said they did not like the idea even though it is working. Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong. If you start the fund it will keep growing and growing and growing until one day it will pay a significant portion of a states tax needs. Take Texas for instance, imagine how big their fund would be today if they had started 100 years ago! Some day the oil and gas will run out, so they should do it now. Texas and Oaklahoma would never do it under any circumstances as they are controlled by the right wing. You just have to start and sacrifice for the kdis in the short term i.e. pay more taxes. Right wingers do not like sacrifincing for the kids, or anyone. We liberals believe in sacrificing for the kids. We had no idea our Permanent fund would hit 40 billion in 30 years. The way we did it is to put the money in the permanent fund and then inflation proof it every year. it will take awhile to build it up, but it will grow year after year. So why does the population matter? The revenues will still help. It just takes longer to have an impact. I still do not get your reasoning. If the income in 20 years only pays 10% of your budget that is still a lot of help after the states resources are gone. Texas and the other oil states just blew all their oil and gas income. We saved ours. The entire provinece of Alberta did it 50 or 60 years ago. China and Kuaite and Dubai have done it. >> THE SIZE OF THE POPULATION HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH IT as that represents the amount of claims on state revenue for services. I just don't see how you can take a state that has the abundant resources Alaska does with so few people and think that model applicable to anywhere else in the lower 48.>>