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.
Is it because they are a socialist paradise that taxes the removal of a state owned commodity and disperses that money to residents. Or is it because they get back nearly $2 for every $1 they send to the federal government? Maybe both?
Quote:
Originally Posted by whogo
Alaska is the most socialist state in the union. A little dingbat is partially responsible for that.
Why, because Alaska profit shares? This is not even remotely the same as any form of true socialism.
Is Alaska a classless society? NO
Does the state control all means of production? NO
Does the state own all the property? NO
Those are the three main tenets of all forms of socialism, and Alaska has none of them.
The Federal government has become a tax and spend machine, forces us to buy HC through their exchanges, has been militarizing local law enforcement, signed away our Bill of Rights with the NDAA... etc. You have a lot more and better examples of Socialism than using some Insider Monkey article to base your assertions on.
Talk to your local governments central planning bureaucracy.
They don't want low income, with low economic output, for less revenue to their coffers.
The older rundown homes they can afford, are being torn down and tax evaluations rise, to get more revenue. McMansions are the new America.
Let me start out by saying. The reason why America doesn't have "slums" like many other countries, is not because there is anything particularly wonderful about America. It is that, for the most part, America has made slums illegal. As a comparison, you should read about New York City in the early 1900's. The "tenements", or you can read about my absolute favorite place of all-time, "The walled city of Kowloon".
Let me just say, if any part of any America city left even a portion of itself unregulated like the Kowloon Walled City, America would have its own Kowloon within a relatively short period of time.
The question is, why is something like the Kowloon walled city a bad thing? And what types of people are fighting against it?
In my opinion, there are two "types" of people who oppose things like the walled city. There are the "NIMBY" types, and there are the people who truly think they are helping.
The NIMBY-types(not in my backyard), are there to protect their interests by keeping up their property values and keeping undesirable residents far away from their neighborhoods and schools. A Kowloon would bring immigrants, drugs, prostitutes, minorities, and would undermine the "licensing" of professions which allow unions and other special interests to charge huge sums for their work.
And so the NIMBY's use government to pass building codes/zoning laws because the fewer low-income residents you have in an area, the more the wealthier people want to live there. Wealthy people bring in more money, which means more tax revenue. While also increasing property values of current land/home-owners. From an economic perspective it is sort of a "win-win".
Of course the problem with the NIMBY view of housing, is that it seems to ignore the fact that the poor have to live somewhere. And by artificially increasing property values and making it impossible for the poor to own or rent in a desirable area. It either means the poor are driven out, or they are left homeless.
Which comes to the next group of people who hate things like Kowloon. These are the type of people who want to help the poor and find it atrocious for the poor to live in "sub-standard" housing. They think it is a travesty that anyone in a wealthy country should have 4-5 people sharing a single bedroom, or multiple families possibly a single bathroom and kitchen.
They decide that they are going to fix the problem by having government provide the poor with "decent" housing. And thus, the government public-housing was born.
On the surface, the housing projects appear to be a vast improvement for the poor in comparison to something like the "tenement" houses or slums they came from. But ultimately there are two problems with the public-housing system. First, per square footage of space, a lot more people can be housed in something like a Kowloon or a tenement building than in public-housing. Which means, if you tear down a Kowloon and replace it with public-housing. The people who had lived there have to be moved somewhere else. But unlike the tenements of the lower-east side of NYC, where they were located very close to the jobs and opportunities of central Manhattan. The new public-housing areas tend to be much further away. And as the amount of housing is drastically reduced, the cost of the housing that remains goes up significantly(increase demand).
The actual result of public-housing, is that the poor who either aren't working or are working in more questionable fields(drugs/prostitution) are the ones who actually stay in the public-housing. Everyone who can afford to get away from public-housing, leaves as fast as they can. But when they leave, they are now forced to pay much higher rents.
In my opinion, the perception of slums is improper. There is this idea that a persons well-being is somehow reflected by the quality of their housing. I don't agree. I believe the well-being of a person is directly related with the quality of people around you. I have often said, that I would be glad to live in a shack if the price was right, and I lived next to people I liked.
I would like you to watch these videos if you have the time. I actually absolutely HATE, DESPISE, LOATHE these women in the videos who are supposedly coming in to clean up these slums or trying to lobby governments to abolish "tiny apartments". I think they are doing a massive disservice to these people, and ultimately, are just serving business interests.
I rarely find government doing anything ever, that isn't being pushed by some business interest hoping to make a lot of money. I say, leave people alone. If YOU want to help people, you help them.
I love the comment in this video... "So they just kick all people out and make them homeless just because It don't look good on image of the piece of **** Government. Clap Clap. "
How many states with state income taxes have rainy day funds with an actual balance in them ?
Ohio has 1.48 billion in a rainy day fund and is one of the reasons why I am voting for Kasich for Gov. he started off with a deficit and turned it into a huge surplus. You can read about it here:
Rapaport: Didn't you see this recent survey. Note how many northeastern states residents are high on the I want to get out list.
Note how many no income tax states are low on the I want to get out list. Apparently those folks in the no income tax states are happy and think they are better off.
Why, because Alaska profit shares? This is not even remotely the same as any form of true socialism.
Is Alaska a classless society? NO
Does the state control all means of production? NO
Does the state own all the property? NO
Those are the three main tenets of all forms of socialism, and Alaska has none of them.
The Federal government has become a tax and spend machine, forces us to buy HC through their exchanges, has been militarizing local law enforcement, signed away our Bill of Rights with the NDAA... etc. You have a lot more and better examples of Socialism than using some Insider Monkey article to base your assertions on.
You're only mucking things up with nonsense.
Fine. Does "Social Democracy" work for you or does the pedantry know no bounds?
I was being sarcastic to make a point to the OP that Alaska, a state toughted as good for not having an income tax, is able to thrive because it's in part propped up by the feds, and because they socialize profits from a state owned resource.
Only 7 don't tax labor
Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington and Wyoming.
2 only tax dividend and interest income.
New Hampshire & Tennessee.
I find this counter productive and amounting to being a slave of the state, if I want to feed my family and survive.
How can it be, those states without a state income tax, are economically better off, with rainyday funds in the coffers, than those with States that feel they need all the income they can get, to make crony deals to their buddies.
Alaska has so much extra cash on hand, they pay their citizens every year.
Jeez, how can one be so wrong about things.
For starters, most of those states are "takers" rather than "makers," meaning they receive more Federal funds than they contribute. I'll go down the list:
1) Alaska is sparsely populated and one of the largest "takers" of Federal funds
2) Florida & Nevada exist without an income tax due to thriving tourism districts. Florida gets a lot of income from high property tax and high hotel tax (lots of stinkin' hotels in Florida).
3) South Dakota, Wyoming, & New Hampshire have less people than most Metro Area's in the country, so it's tax structure is basically irrelevant. A few companies in theory could provide enough corporate tax revenue to negate any need for an income tax
4) Texas has a gaping budget deficit. Rick Perry used all stimulus money to sweep it under the rug. Texas has cut all public services from its budget other than education and health care, and still has a deficit. Texas also has extremely high sales and property tax. Basically, Texas will move to an income tax because its rate of growth is unsustainable without one in the forseeable future.
5) Washington has an extremely high sales tax (highest in the nation), and Boeing is a major player there. I don't know too much about the state otherwise.
As for your ideological rant, income tax is less regressive agains the lower classes. It is the best way to fund the state and make the upper income folks pay taxes. Income tax does not make you a slave to the state, no. What is the difference between paying tax on your income or paying tax every time you purchase an item? Or paying monthly property tax? They are all taxes.
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.
