Originally Posted by tryreading

Exactly right. The extra tax in Florida on tourism, since it is used to promote more tourism, helps bring more money-spending people to the state than might normally come here. This brings more income to the state to take care of the needs you mention. That's the whole point. Alaska should use that money to attract more business, create more opportunity for increased commerce. But they have a giveaway, and that money disappears.


An added benefit is the people that come to Florida also contribute to the overall prosperity of the citizens here. We can make money off them, avoid an income tax (or have so far, anyway), and have outsiders pay for some of the state's basic needs.

Originally Posted by jallman

What, exactly, is your problem with the government in Alaska spreading the benefits of the resources among the people while still maintaining a balanced budget, that almost always runs in a surplus and still entices industry and business to it's borders?

Texas could only wish to run the state as well as Alaska does.

Originally Posted by Gill

"tryreading" what I actually wrote.

Originally Posted by Iriemon

There is nothing wrong with what Alaska is doing, adding a higher tax on the production of a resource, and distributing the proceeds to all citizens for the general welfare of the state.

I find it a bit ironic however for conservatives (to referring specifically to Jallman) to rant about the Dems being "socialist" and "communists" for proposing a higher tax and then distributing the proceeds to citizens for their general welfare, yet support the same thing that Alaska is doing.

Originally Posted by jallman

Except that socialism takes from individuals and redistributes. All Alaska does is taxes its own resources before they get sold out. That's not socialism. At least not in the way Democrats would like to implement socialist policies.

Originally Posted by jallman

How the hell did you just tie in a retroactive reparative measure with a proactive preventative measure. Not even close to being the same thing.

Originally Posted by danarhea

Originally Posted by jallman

Except that socialism takes from individuals and redistributes. All Alaska does is taxes its own resources before they get sold out. That's not socialism. At least not in the way Democrats would like to implement socialist policies.

Originally Posted by Iriemon

I'm not sure what definition of socialism you are using. Socialism means government ownership of means of production, which sounds a lot closer to taking a cut from resources produced to me. And distributing proceeds equally to all citizens, heck even Marx would like that idea.

Originally Posted by jallman

Exactly. The government doesn't the means of production, just the raw materials. That's why I can't really say it's socialism. It's more like the government in Alaska sells the right to produce the resources but it doesn't actually levy tax on raw profit.