Every single Alaskan to receive $1107. from their investment

[Bandit]

returns also known as their Permanent Fund. It is no longer based upon oil although that is how it originated. It is a huge bank account that draws interest and that interest is divided among all residents of Alaska. Whether you are one day old or one hundred years old. A family of five would receive five thousand five hundred dollars right before Xmas. Do you ever wonder why your own state does not institute something similar? Usually what I hear from people here is to take it away from Alaskans instead of creating such for themselves. Kind of like that old Russian tale of one neighbor complaining that another has a goat and they don't. When asked how to remedy the situation they said kill the goat. :shrug:

[StClone]

1. Are Alaskans Successful Socialists?

Am I way off on this view?

[Bandit]

3. I find it difficult to equate Capitalism to Socialism

Do you consider interest from your bank account Socialism? Or how about Stock investments. If you buy a stock at a dollar and sell it for two dollars is that socialism? That is what is happening in Alaska except that every single Alaskan is part owner of their account and this is just their annual dividend.

[StClone]

11. My take

They were warded this money as a shared ("nationalized") part of the natural resources value. Socialism theory does not preclude making income and by some even advocates mixed economies. My basis for making this quip was directed at the original decentralizing of ownership of the Alaska's wealth.

[Bandit]

12. And your problem with this other than that horrible name Socialism?

:shrug:

[StClone]

20. No way! I defend Chavez

Not because he could beat Bush at Chess, but more in part because he has Nationalized Oil Companies. I like the idea that Alaska shared the wealth and I point it out that the so-called rugged individuals that inhabit that state may have in fact benefited from Socialistic ideals. In my (maybe misguided) opinion Pubic schools, Libraries and roads (public infrastructure) are all Socialistic and the better they are the better we are as a nation.

[alarimer]

2. All states should have something like that

I don't know how it would work. If the state takes tax money and invests some of it, the taxpayers should at least reap the dividends. Or from royalties on minerals on state land, something like that.

[Bandit]

4. The Federal Government should have something like this

Plus every state as well. Every state has assets that could be utilized for all residents instead of just a few politicians.

[LisaM]

5. Don't Alaskans get more tax dollars per capita than any other state?

Federal tax dollars, that is. I heard that once, though information like that is extremely hard to find online.

[Taoschick]

8. Ted Stevens

Is the king of earmarks. If Alaska is doing so well, why are the rest of us paying for his special projects?

[Bandit]

10. Per Capita, yes they do

:shrug: It is a very large geographical area..

[razors edge]

6. back in 82 a friend of mine from alaska

was living with me in hawaii, she and her youngdaughter both got about 1000 a year, she said it was from oil sales, and that it was started as an incentive to get/ keep people in alaska.

[William769]

7. So that means they can pay for their own bridge to nowhere?

[Blue_In_AK]

15. We don't want the bridge to nowhere...

WE DON'T WANT THE BRIDGE TO NOWHERE!!!!

[MissB]

22. Only Ted wanted that bridge, right?

I mean, shit, it isn't like the residents of Anchorage or Fairbanks were screaming for the bridge. :rofl:

[Blue_In_AK]

23. Believe me, NOBODY was screaming for the bridges.

I'm not sure what Ted and Don's motivations were, but the vast majority of Alaskans could care less about the stupid bridges. The one up here by Anchorage makes a little bit of sense since it would connect Anchorage with the Mat-Su Valley, which is the fastest growing area of the state, and there's presently only one highway out of Anchorage to get there, but since the bridge was supposed to be a toll bridge and would only cut a few minutes off anybody's commute time, it probably wouldn't even get much use for all the expense. The one for Ketchikan makes even less sense.

I think Don Young wanted the one up here, just so he'd have something named after him. He's an ass.

[rinsd]

9. Well.....for one thing population matters

The pop of Alaska is roughly 650,000. Multiplied by $1100, that is $715 Million this year and it varies year to year(its roughly 2% of the permamnet fund, essentially paying out the interest).

Currently the fund is worth about $32 Billion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund

Compare that with a state with a population of 5 million(I am using this a median). Cut the payout roughly in half($500 to make the math quick) and that is $2.5 Billion. To be equivalent to the permanant fund the size of the fund would be $125 Billion.

Now compare it to CA with a population of roughly 34 million. Let's cut the payment in half again(to $250) and we have an outlay of $8.5 Billion drawing form a fund that is $425 Billion.

Lots of zeros especially when you do not have the initial capital to start the fund(ie: oil)

[Blue_In_AK]

13. Woo-hoo, yea!!

The late Governor Jay Hammond was a genius, pure and simple. The only Republican I ever loved.

[Tyler Durden]

14. Lay off us Socialists.

And everything that originates with the Government such as oil royalies and their revenues is not necessarily SOCIALIST, but sure as FUCK ain't Market Capitalism.

Besides that, Michigan is too broke from exporting jobs to Mexico, Korea, Canada, Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi. We can't afford SCHOOLBOOKS, thanks to rePukes.

[TahitiNut]

17. Well, be fair. We DO import garbage from Canada and New Jersey.

As far as I'm concerned, those dumps will make suitable burial grounds for the fascist imbeciles in this state.

[BlooInBloo]

16. Um, so?

[ShaneGR]

18. There's a reason why its possible in Alaska, but not in other states...

#1- For its size Alaska has a TINY population.

#2- Alaska is gigantic with an abundance of natural resources.

I can't think of any other state with that much land, that much income generating revenue, with that small of a population.

[Bandit]

19. This fund started in early eighties with nine billion dollars

The nine billion came from oil royalties however the fund now is over 32 billion which has come from investment revenues. The longest journey begins with one small step. I can imagine that every single state could find nine billion dollars someplace. If privatizing SS so everyone can invest is a good idea for the individual why not the state?

[MissB]

21. I certainly wouldn't condemn Alaska for the Permanent Fund.

It was a smart investment. Back when I lived in Alaska (from '83 to '87), the amount I received each year was about $1k, iirc. It was higher at one point in time.

The Permanent Fund checks draw people up to Alaska. That isn't a bad thing, really. It probably keeps a few families up there as well. But it sure as shit wasn't worth an extra $1k a year to live in a state where spring smells like dogshit. That whole lack of daylight during non-working hours in the wintertime sucked too.