7 ms·

While this may be true, Alaska, unlike almost all other states, basically operates without any income or sales taxes. They depend almost entirely on oil revenu

While this may be true, Alaska, unlike almost all other states, basically operates without any income or sales taxes. They depend almost entirely on oil revenue and property taxes which obviously isn't sustainable long term. https://www.bankrate.com/finance/taxes/state-taxes-alaska.aspx https://www.bankrate.com/finance/taxes/state-taxes-alaska.as...

cynicalkane 7y ago
Property, income, and sales taxes are all part of the cost of living and doing business. Raising property taxes won't hurt the general public any more than raising the other two. Taxes aren't a menu where you need a little of column A and a little of column B, just because. It's all money coming from the economy in some form and the important part is what you're incentivizing or disincentivizing. In fact, there's a minor but respectable economic school of thought that property taxes should be greater than 100% of all taxes, and the excess should be redistributed to the disadvantaged. Property taxes disincentivize hoarding and wasteful use of valuable property, which is A Good Thing.
- AWildC182 7y ago
  Sure, but the issue isn't the fact that property tax is the sole source of tax, it's that oil absolutely dwarfs everything else in the state budget. They have property taxes but they don't really cover anything.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- 8ytecoder 7y ago
  Different taxes affect different people differently. Sales tax primarily hits poor people for example - there’s only so much the rich can spend their money on. Bracketed income tax can be made to have low impact for lower income while boosting revenue. Property taxes tax the permanent residents but misses out the opportunity of, let’s say, taxing the tourists. Those are all levers. There was a recent article on economist that compared the tax models of California and Texas. One has a progressive income tax but crippled property tax and the other has no income tax but a steady property tax. Everything from the risk to revenue and the impact it has on the people vary so much. Neither is good in a way. The best system will use all three in the right proportion.
  - zzzzzzzza 7y ago
    tourists can still end up paying for property taxes. They occupy physical space. Best system is a pure land value tax. You can sprinkle in pigovian taxes to taste.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > Property taxes tax the permanent residents but misses out the opportunity of, let’s say, taxing the tourists. Tourists pay real property taxes because those taxes are factors into accommodation prices, and into the prices of goods and services sold to tourists.
    - writepub 7y ago
      > those taxes are factors into accommodation prices Citation needed. Accommodation pricing is typically set by supply and demand. Which is why, last minute hotel deals at steep discounts are a thing. > Tourists pay real property taxes Then states/counties should be recovering delinquent property taxes from them
      - eppp 7y ago
        There is no citation needed. Property taxes are one of the base costs in determining the revenue needed for keeping the accommodation provider open. It then follows that that cost must be paid by the customers if the establishment is to be profitable. If the business is being operated at a loss on purpose then this doesn't apply. The tourists in aggregate are therefore paying the property taxes of the establishment.
        writepub 7y ago
        > It then follows that that cost must be paid by the customers .. It absolutely does not follow at all. When costs are disconnected from pricing, the business undergoes a loss. For instance, many rural Texas cities have high property taxes, and low demand for hotel rooms. In many of these places hotels are unviable, because the market would never pay enough to eke out a profit. In such places, Airbnb is surprisingly effective, as the renter typically sees AirBnB income as a bonus, and doesn't rely on it to make a living.
tastyfreeze 7y ago
Agreed, it is not sustainable. Alaska put themselves in this situation by growing government whenever oil prices were high without any regard to oil prices dropping. There was an opportunity to build Alaska wealth without taxes but I feel the time has passed. If Alaska had instead taken the 75% share of oil revenue allocated to government and invested it the same as the people's portion they wouldn't be in this situation. The entire historical debacle just illustrates in vivid color how horrendous politicians are at managing money. Edit: 75% for government not 25%. 25% is for the dividend fund.
- omegaworks 7y ago
  >The entire historical debacle just illustrates in vivid color how horrendous politicians are at managing money. This is not true everywhere. Norway has a sovereign wealth fund that is doing quite well. Libya was once the most prosperous African nation before the US demolished their government. Sovereign wealth funds are an effective management strategy for the resource curse, if western nation backed multinational corporations don't find a way to seize control of it and/or block you from accessing the global marketplace.
  - seanmcdirmid 7y ago
    From what I heard, it’s own people got tired of Ghadaffi’s crap and revolted, but let e know if that is just western media bias.
    - ljf 7y ago
      Check out the Adam Curtis documentary/social commentary film 'Bitter Lake' for more on this
  - tastyfreeze 7y ago
    An Alaska wealth fund is what I had alluded to. It would have been a prudent investment in the wealth of Alaska. But, that didn't happen when the money was there. Now, there isn't the necessary time or money to build a wealth fund. Maybe the pain of the coming cuts will be enough to encourage building a fund for the future. I haven't seen anything that makes me think it will but, I can dream. It is really good to read that there is at least one country that built a wealth fund to provide for the government and citizens.
audiometry 7y ago
ouch. Would expect Alaska is boned — all the shale-related production is cheaper to produce and closer to consumers than Alaskan stuff.
hollerith 7y ago
If it is unsustainable, then how come New Hampshire hasn't been forced at some point during its 200-year history to adopt an income tax or a sales tax?

cynicalkane 7y ago

Property, income, and sales taxes are all part of the cost of living and doing business. Raising property taxes won't hurt the general public any more than raising the other two. Taxes aren't a menu where you need a little of column A and a little of column B, just because. It's all money coming from the economy in some form and the important part is what you're incentivizing or disincentivizing. In fact, there's a minor but respectable economic school of thought that property taxes should be greater than 100% of all taxes, and the excess should be redistributed to the disadvantaged. Property taxes disincentivize hoarding and wasteful use of valuable property, which is A Good Thing.

AWildC182 7y ago
Sure, but the issue isn't the fact that property tax is the sole source of tax, it's that oil absolutely dwarfs everything else in the state budget. They have property taxes but they don't really cover anything.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
8ytecoder 7y ago
Different taxes affect different people differently. Sales tax primarily hits poor people for example - there’s only so much the rich can spend their money on. Bracketed income tax can be made to have low impact for lower income while boosting revenue. Property taxes tax the permanent residents but misses out the opportunity of, let’s say, taxing the tourists. Those are all levers. There was a recent article on economist that compared the tax models of California and Texas. One has a progressive income tax but crippled property tax and the other has no income tax but a steady property tax. Everything from the risk to revenue and the impact it has on the people vary so much. Neither is good in a way. The best system will use all three in the right proportion.
- zzzzzzzza 7y ago
  tourists can still end up paying for property taxes. They occupy physical space. Best system is a pure land value tax. You can sprinkle in pigovian taxes to taste.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > Property taxes tax the permanent residents but misses out the opportunity of, let’s say, taxing the tourists. Tourists pay real property taxes because those taxes are factors into accommodation prices, and into the prices of goods and services sold to tourists.
  - writepub 7y ago
    > those taxes are factors into accommodation prices Citation needed. Accommodation pricing is typically set by supply and demand. Which is why, last minute hotel deals at steep discounts are a thing. > Tourists pay real property taxes Then states/counties should be recovering delinquent property taxes from them
    - eppp 7y ago
      There is no citation needed. Property taxes are one of the base costs in determining the revenue needed for keeping the accommodation provider open. It then follows that that cost must be paid by the customers if the establishment is to be profitable. If the business is being operated at a loss on purpose then this doesn't apply. The tourists in aggregate are therefore paying the property taxes of the establishment.
      - writepub 7y ago
        > It then follows that that cost must be paid by the customers .. It absolutely does not follow at all. When costs are disconnected from pricing, the business undergoes a loss. For instance, many rural Texas cities have high property taxes, and low demand for hotel rooms. In many of these places hotels are unviable, because the market would never pay enough to eke out a profit. In such places, Airbnb is surprisingly effective, as the renter typically sees AirBnB income as a bonus, and doesn't rely on it to make a living.

tastyfreeze 7y ago

Agreed, it is not sustainable. Alaska put themselves in this situation by growing government whenever oil prices were high without any regard to oil prices dropping. There was an opportunity to build Alaska wealth without taxes but I feel the time has passed. If Alaska had instead taken the 75% share of oil revenue allocated to government and invested it the same as the people's portion they wouldn't be in this situation. The entire historical debacle just illustrates in vivid color how horrendous politicians are at managing money. Edit: 75% for government not 25%. 25% is for the dividend fund.

omegaworks 7y ago
>The entire historical debacle just illustrates in vivid color how horrendous politicians are at managing money. This is not true everywhere. Norway has a sovereign wealth fund that is doing quite well. Libya was once the most prosperous African nation before the US demolished their government. Sovereign wealth funds are an effective management strategy for the resource curse, if western nation backed multinational corporations don't find a way to seize control of it and/or block you from accessing the global marketplace.
- seanmcdirmid 7y ago
  From what I heard, it’s own people got tired of Ghadaffi’s crap and revolted, but let e know if that is just western media bias.
  - ljf 7y ago
    Check out the Adam Curtis documentary/social commentary film 'Bitter Lake' for more on this
- tastyfreeze 7y ago
  An Alaska wealth fund is what I had alluded to. It would have been a prudent investment in the wealth of Alaska. But, that didn't happen when the money was there. Now, there isn't the necessary time or money to build a wealth fund. Maybe the pain of the coming cuts will be enough to encourage building a fund for the future. I haven't seen anything that makes me think it will but, I can dream. It is really good to read that there is at least one country that built a wealth fund to provide for the government and citizens.

audiometry 7y ago

ouch. Would expect Alaska is boned — all the shale-related production is cheaper to produce and closer to consumers than Alaskan stuff.

hollerith 7y ago

If it is unsustainable, then how come New Hampshire hasn't been forced at some point during its 200-year history to adopt an income tax or a sales tax?