Palin raises taxes and redistributes wealth

[SaadBell 0]

[Peikko 1,575]

A victim of socialism while you lived in Alaska? So, although you recieved Permanant Fund Money, you must have contributed more than you recieved. Perhaps you owned one of the wells?

That said, why do you support Palin if she continues to promote a fund that turned you into a vitim?

[EstebanTrabajos 7]

1 sentence answers from the GOPys? what happened? cat got y'all's tongue?

OMG! am I dreaming? wake me up I want to feel the wrath of the republican rebuttals!

To the OP, (a la McCain) my friend, you beat them in their own game and I applaud you for that

Edited November 1, 2008 by GueraYTavo

[Sofiyya 1,687]

First of all,Gov. Palin did not create the Permanent Fund system. The Alaska Permanent Fund was established in 1976 via a constitutional amendment, approved by popular vote. It is a decidedly capitalist system mandating that “At least 25 percent of all mineral lease rentals, royalties, royalty sales proceeds, federal mineral revenue-sharing payments and bonuses received by the state be placed in a permanent fund, the principal of which may only be used for income-producing investments.", and requiring that companies that use Alaska's vast oil and mineral resources to make a profit pay royalties to the state to maintain access to them.

The principal cannot be touched. It is managed by a state owned corporation for the purpose of raising capital for state projects, as well as the distribution of dividends to individual citizens of the state. Every year, a portion of the investment is paid out as taxable dividends to qualified state residents that apply for it. The amount of cash is the same for all, young and old, rich and poor, and it can vary depending on the strength or weaknesses of the return on nvestments. The dividends payouts rely on capitalist forces; no businesses are controled, nationalized or appropriated to produce wealth for the state and its citizens. All operate there freely, and contribute royalities as a means of obtaining access to the resources they wish to profit from.

No individual personal incomes are taxed to raise money for the fund, so, unlike Barry's plan for wealth distribution, it doesn't exploit class envy or class division, nor does it begin with the premise that individual income earnings are the property of the state to do with as they wish. It begins with the premise that the citizens of Alaska, no matter what their personal income, collectively own the land and resources of the state, thus, the proceeds of those resources are theirs to tax and reap benefits from and that they are able to best determine how to allocate their own assets, not have the government decide how to do it for them, as if it knows best.

I hope that helps.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

bump

[rebeccajo 14]

First of all,Gov. Palin did not create the Permanent Fund system. The Alaska Permanent Fund was established in 1976 via a constitutional amendment, approved by popular vote. It is a decidedly capitalist system mandating that “At least 25 percent of all mineral lease rentals, royalties, royalty sales proceeds, federal mineral revenue-sharing payments and bonuses received by the state be placed in a permanent fund, the principal of which may only be used for income-producing investments.", and requiring that companies that use Alaska's vast oil and mineral resources to make a profit pay royalties to the state to maintain access to them.

The principal cannot be touched. It is managed by a state owned corporation for the purpose of raising capital for state projects, as well as the distribution of dividends to individual citizens of the state. Every year, a portion of the investment is paid out as taxable dividends to qualified state residents that apply for it. The amount of cash is the same for all, young and old, rich and poor, and it can vary depending on the strength or weaknesses of the return on nvestments. The dividends payouts rely on capitalist forces; no businesses are controled, nationalized or appropriated to produce wealth for the state and its citizens. All operate there freely, and contribute royalities as a means of obtaining access to the resources they wish to profit from.

No individual personal incomes are taxed to raise money for the fund, so, unlike Barry's plan for wealth distribution, it doesn't exploit class envy or class division, nor does it begin with the premise that individual income earnings are the property of the state to do with as they wish. It begins with the premise that the citizens of Alaska, no matter what their personal income, collectively own the land and resources of the state, thus, the proceeds of those resources are theirs to tax and reap benefits from and that they are able to best determine how to allocate their own assets, not have the government decide how to do it for them, as if it knows best.

I hope that helps.

I don't see the capitalist concept at all. In any oil and gas projects I ever worked on, the only people who got paid if the oil company made money were the actual landowners.

In fact it rather looks like eminent domain to me.

There are probably other places on the globe with a similar concept, but only one comes to mind - the United Kingdom, wherein the Queen supposedly owns all the property and others claim ownership at her pleasure.

[IAMX 3,055]

First of all,Gov. Palin did not create the Permanent Fund system. The Alaska Permanent Fund was established in 1976 via a constitutional amendment, approved by popular vote. It is a decidedly capitalist system mandating that “At least 25 percent of all mineral lease rentals, royalties, royalty sales proceeds, federal mineral revenue-sharing payments and bonuses received by the state be placed in a permanent fund, the principal of which may only be used for income-producing investments.", and requiring that companies that use Alaska's vast oil and mineral resources to make a profit pay royalties to the state to maintain access to them.

The principal cannot be touched. It is managed by a state owned corporation for the purpose of raising capital for state projects, as well as the distribution of dividends to individual citizens of the state. Every year, a portion of the investment is paid out as taxable dividends to qualified state residents that apply for it. The amount of cash is the same for all, young and old, rich and poor, and it can vary depending on the strength or weaknesses of the return on nvestments. The dividends payouts rely on capitalist forces; no businesses are controled, nationalized or appropriated to produce wealth for the state and its citizens. All operate there freely, and contribute royalities as a means of obtaining access to the resources they wish to profit from.

No individual personal incomes are taxed to raise money for the fund, so, unlike Barry's plan for wealth distribution, it doesn't exploit class envy or class division, nor does it begin with the premise that individual income earnings are the property of the state to do with as they wish. It begins with the premise that the citizens of Alaska, no matter what their personal income, collectively own the land and resources of the state, thus, the proceeds of those resources are theirs to tax and reap benefits from and that they are able to best determine how to allocate their own assets, not have the government decide how to do it for them, as if it knows best.

I hope that helps.

Here's the funny part, in your nice way of trying to evade the actual issue of who owns what. If the resources are all owned by the people (poly-speak for "government"), what the flying ** do you think it's called? SOCIALISM. If it's not Socialism, then the people should not be getting any money because the government does not own every single square inch of other states. This has been backed by Palin (who cares if she didn't create it? that was never an assertion in the article), therefore she's a Socialist. Now, elaborate for me what the difficult part of this is.

Here is what she said:

"We can afford to share resource wealth with Alaskans and to temporarily suspend the state fuel tax"

Share the wealth. Who does that sound like? HMM. I wonder?

Edited November 1, 2008 by SRVT

[Sofiyya 1,687]

First of all,Gov. Palin did not create the Permanent Fund system. The Alaska Permanent Fund was established in 1976 via a constitutional amendment, approved by popular vote. It is a decidedly capitalist system mandating that “At least 25 percent of all mineral lease rentals, royalties, royalty sales proceeds, federal mineral revenue-sharing payments and bonuses received by the state be placed in a permanent fund, the principal of which may only be used for income-producing investments.", and requiring that companies that use Alaska's vast oil and mineral resources to make a profit pay royalties to the state to maintain access to them.

The principal cannot be touched. It is managed by a state owned corporation for the purpose of raising capital for state projects, as well as the distribution of dividends to individual citizens of the state. Every year, a portion of the investment is paid out as taxable dividends to qualified state residents that apply for it. The amount of cash is the same for all, young and old, rich and poor, and it can vary depending on the strength or weaknesses of the return on nvestments. The dividends payouts rely on capitalist forces; no businesses are controled, nationalized or appropriated to produce wealth for the state and its citizens. All operate there freely, and contribute royalities as a means of obtaining access to the resources they wish to profit from.

No individual personal incomes are taxed to raise money for the fund, so, unlike Barry's plan for wealth distribution, it doesn't exploit class envy or class division, nor does it begin with the premise that individual income earnings are the property of the state to do with as they wish. It begins with the premise that the citizens of Alaska, no matter what their personal income, collectively own the land and resources of the state, thus, the proceeds of those resources are theirs to tax and reap benefits from and that they are able to best determine how to allocate their own assets, not have the government decide how to do it for them, as if it knows best.

I hope that helps.

Here's the funny part, in your nice way of trying to evade the actual issue of who owns what. If the resources are all owned by the people (poly-speak for "government"), what the flying ** do you think it's called? SOCIALISM. If it's not Socialism, then the people should not be getting any money because the government does not own every single square inch of other states. This has been backed by Palin (who cares if she didn't create it? that was never an assertion in the article), therefore she's a Socialist. Now, elaborate for me what the difficult part of this is.

Here is what she said:

"We can afford to share resource wealth with Alaskans and to temporarily suspend the state fuel tax"

Share the wealth. Who does that sound like? HMM. I wonder?

For Obama's plan, he has to take from my personal earnings to give more wealth to you that you didn't earn. I no longer own or control my private earnings, I don't hold on to my principle. I didn't vote to share with you, I have no say over how much you get, I have no equity or ownership in common with you, I gain nothing from this transaction between us, but you do. That's socialism. No matter how imaginative you are, that's not what they're doing in Alaska. But, I know you just like to argue.

[IAMX 3,055]

For Obama's plan, he has to take from my personal earnings to give more wealth to you that you didn't earn. I no longer own or control my private earnings, I don't hold on to my principle. I didn't vote to share with you, I have no say over how much you get, I have no equity or ownership in common with you, I gain nothing from this transaction between us, but you do. That's socialism. No matter how imaginative you are, that's not what they're doing in Alaska. But, I know you just like to argue.

Evidently if it's the people's property, why aren't they getting 100% of the earnings?

Maybe you didn't get it that things produced and distributed by the government (i.e. people collectively) IS.. SOCIALISM. This is what Palin is for.

Since you love to go on Obama about socialism, as well as plenty of other blind following McCain lovers, lets reiterate Palin's quote:

"We can afford to share resource wealth with Alaskans and to temporarily suspend the state fuel tax," she said at the time.

Last I checked, giving money to people who didn't earn it is not just socialism, but welfare. Not surprisingly, your outrage is 100% selective. Hence you get called out on your hypocrisy. Got you defending socialism right now.

[rebeccajo 14]

First of all,Gov. Palin did not create the Permanent Fund system. The Alaska Permanent Fund was established in 1976 via a constitutional amendment, approved by popular vote. It is a decidedly capitalist system mandating that “At least 25 percent of all mineral lease rentals, royalties, royalty sales proceeds, federal mineral revenue-sharing payments and bonuses received by the state be placed in a permanent fund, the principal of which may only be used for income-producing investments.", and requiring that companies that use Alaska's vast oil and mineral resources to make a profit pay royalties to the state to maintain access to them.

The principal cannot be touched. It is managed by a state owned corporation for the purpose of raising capital for state projects, as well as the distribution of dividends to individual citizens of the state. Every year, a portion of the investment is paid out as taxable dividends to qualified state residents that apply for it. The amount of cash is the same for all, young and old, rich and poor, and it can vary depending on the strength or weaknesses of the return on nvestments. The dividends payouts rely on capitalist forces; no businesses are controled, nationalized or appropriated to produce wealth for the state and its citizens. All operate there freely, and contribute royalities as a means of obtaining access to the resources they wish to profit from.

No individual personal incomes are taxed to raise money for the fund, so, unlike Barry's plan for wealth distribution, it doesn't exploit class envy or class division, nor does it begin with the premise that individual income earnings are the property of the state to do with as they wish. It begins with the premise that the citizens of Alaska, no matter what their personal income, collectively own the land and resources of the state, thus, the proceeds of those resources are theirs to tax and reap benefits from and that they are able to best determine how to allocate their own assets, not have the government decide how to do it for them, as if it knows best.

I hope that helps.

Here's the funny part, in your nice way of trying to evade the actual issue of who owns what. If the resources are all owned by the people (poly-speak for "government"), what the flying ** do you think it's called? SOCIALISM. If it's not Socialism, then the people should not be getting any money because the government does not own every single square inch of other states. This has been backed by Palin (who cares if she didn't create it? that was never an assertion in the article), therefore she's a Socialist. Now, elaborate for me what the difficult part of this is.

Here is what she said:

"We can afford to share resource wealth with Alaskans and to temporarily suspend the state fuel tax"

Share the wealth. Who does that sound like? HMM. I wonder?

For Obama's plan, he has to take from my personal earnings to give more wealth to you that you didn't earn. I no longer own or control my private earnings, I don't hold on to my principle. I didn't vote to share with you, I have no say over how much you get, I have no equity or ownership in common with you, I gain nothing from this transaction between us, but you do. That's socialism. No matter how imaginative you are, that's not what they're doing in Alaska. But, I know you just like to argue.

So if government takes from a corporation and distributes the corporation's profit to citizens who did nothing to earn it, that is somehow different than taking personal earnings and distributing it to citizens who did nothing to earn it?

If that's ok, then why in the hell are corporations in America paying so little taxes? If the US government subscribed to your theory, the tax code would be entirely different......................

[IAMX 3,055]

Once again, rebecca, it's selective outrage, following the political party line.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

For Obama's plan, he has to take from my personal earnings to give more wealth to you that you didn't earn. I no longer own or control my private earnings, I don't hold on to my principle. I didn't vote to share with you, I have no say over how much you get, I have no equity or ownership in common with you, I gain nothing from this transaction between us, but you do. That's socialism. No matter how imaginative you are, that's not what they're doing in Alaska. But, I know you just like to argue.

Evidently if it's the people's property, why aren't they getting 100% of the earnings?

Maybe you didn't get it that things produced and distributed by the government (i.e. people collectively) IS.. SOCIALISM. This is what Palin is for.

Since you love to go on Obama about socialism, as well as plenty of other blind following McCain lovers, lets reiterate Palin's quote:

"We can afford to share resource wealth with Alaskans and to temporarily suspend the state fuel tax," she said at the time.

Last I checked, giving money to people who didn't earn it is not just socialism, but welfare. Not surprisingly, your outrage is 100% selective. Hence you get called out on your hypocrisy. Got you defending socialism right now.

You have been wrong so often, it's becoming a bad habit. Well, you can't be good at everything, and, as I said before, you just like to argue.

[Marilyn. 340]

how come you get to decide who is right or wrong?

[Sofiyya 1,687]

how come you get to decide who is right or wrong?

I didn't realize that someone else had been appointed to do it for me.

[Peikko 1,575]

You dare to challenge the 'Loan Voice Of Reason'? Oh, but as it's you, all you'll get is a pat on the head and a 'but you admit you know nothing about politics so I will not hold that against you'.