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 : Actual left/right wing discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: koan who wrote (9078)	12/16/2010 1:16:04 PM
From: Oeconomicus	1 Recommendation Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 10087

Jeez, dude. A state managing resources on or under public lands for the public benefit and ending up with huge fiscal reserves as a result does NOT make it a socialist system. An exception to the unfortunately norms of government, perhaps, but socialism, no. Also, your assertion that Alaska has "no state taxes" is simply wrong. Alaska's corporate income tax is the highest in the nation on a per capita basis, almost twice that of New York as of 2007. In total, from corporate income taxes, various excise taxes, motor vehicle taxes, and various taxes on fishing, mining and other activities, the state collected almost $1.2 billion on FY2007. That's almost $1700 for every man, woman, and child in the state. Alaska also, as of FY2007, ranked #1 among the states in per capita transfers from the federal government and #2 in per capita state debt, BTW. More generally, trying to prove anything about government, or even only US state governments, with regard to fiscal and regulatory responsibility based on Alaska is patently absurd. Huge oil resources and the population of Bhutan or Comoros. Lastly, the suggestion that Alaska stands out as being immune to corporate-political entanglements or corruption is a fantasy.