Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Since when does the State of AK sell fuel at the pump? It's true that the State, Federal, and local governments make money from every gallon of fuel sold, as well as from property tax imposed on the property that sells or transfer fuel. Perhaps the boroughs should lower property tax, and the State and Federal should cut down on the amount of tax they make at the pump. But that will never happen in Alaska, since 90% of the revenue-according to what i heard on the radio a few days ago-comes from oil. Giving the primary source of revenue would break the State, and so the boroughs'.
Heating fuel is the big problem in the interior of AK, since homes are heated by furnaces and boilers that run on heating fuel. What the State should do, if they were going to give some money back, is to refund a fixed portion of the fuel/electric cost to property owners upon proof of purchase.
I guess the whole take the money then give it back thing just doesn't make much sense to me... seems unneccesarily wasteful. Wouldn't lowering costs (through subsidy if necessary) and giving incentives and tax breaks/reductions up front be more efficient?
Last edited by MissingAll4Seasons; 05-16-2008 at 07:52 PM..
Reason: typo
I guess the whole take the money then give it back thing just doesn't make much sense to me... seems unneccesarily wasteful. Wouldn't lowering costs (through subsidy if necessary) and giving incentives and tax breaks/reductions up front be more efficient?
Even if the State would not tax the seller, he or she would still charge the same price per gallon. I believe that the federal government and the States take around $0.47 per gallon in taxes. On top of that, the boroughs take a lot of money on property tax from the gas stations, refineries, and even the land the Alaska pipeline runs trough. If the State would not tax all sources of revenue (mining, timber, tourism, oil and fuels), then they would have to create an income tax to be paid by all workers in Alaska. In reality, the boroughs are worst than the State in relation to taxing property owners in Alaska. and their budgets are gigantic.
1.) How is she going to insure that people are going to use the money for energy? There are a lot of people out there that are now going to have state-sponsored alcoholism.
Um -- people who use their money for alcohol instead of fuel probably do not have a heater to keep themselves warm with in the first place. You live in Juneau? Look around you. Those people do not DESERVE help?
Um -- people who use their money for alcohol instead of fuel probably do not have a heater to keep themselves warm with in the first place. You live in Juneau? Look around you. Those people do not DESERVE help?
I didn't say these people don't deserve help. I've been advocating for emergency assistance this entire time.
But I don't think the answer is to give us money to pay our bills. This is just a very sneaky way of giving more state money to the oil companies, so no, I don't approve of her plan in the least.
Now Xaat...hate is such a strong word. Besides, how can you be mad at her when she's so "cute"?
From the report I heard on the radio, Palins proposal would require that the money be spent on fuel costs, some sort of one-purpose debit or voucher system.
Unless the money goes directly to the energy provider there's really no way to stop the recipient from spending the money elsewhere. Hurricane Katrina is the best example of how not to give people money, at least lower -48 wise.
I'm in a quandry on this right now. I haven't made up my mind yet.
Out of principle I am against the governement just giving money to people.
But out of principle, I am against the government having more money than it needs.
So, whose money is it????
It did not get the money by taxing us individually, it got it from oil royalties and from taxing the oil companies.
So we either should give it back to the oil companies because we took to much, or we should save it for a time when we we need it to run the government, or we should spend it on productive infrastructure, or just give it to the people, who collectively own the oil.
I'm in a quandry on this right now. I haven't made up my mind yet.
Out of principle I am against the governement just giving money to people.
But out of principle, I am against the government having more money than it needs.
So, whose money is it????
It did not get the money by taxing us individually, it got it from oil royalties and from taxing the oil companies.
So we either should give it back to the oil companies because we took to much, or we should save it for a time when we we need it to run the government, or we should spend it on productive infrastructure, or just give it to the people, who collectively own the oil.
Very good points. I see that you understand where the State has gotten the money from.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
isn't that the plan already?
