Normally, I would immediately agree with you. In fact, it was the first word that popped into my head.
But Alaska might be a special case. I could be mistaken, but I believe that there is no income tax and there is no sales tax in Alaska. In fact, I think everyone in Alaska gets a check from the state and that this money comes from Oil rights or something. In this circumstance and in this setting, is it really socialist to distribute state surplus in this manner? It would seem strange to distribute surplus proportional to income in this setting.
I guess, unless I'm mistaken about the setting, I wouldn't think such a plan is actually unfair.
Well, if there are already no personal income taxes or sales taxes...what about corporate taxes? If there are no state taxes left to cut (praise be!), then perhaps I jumped the gun. Given only the options of (1) the government spending the money via the usual expansion of programs, or (2) the government dispersing it directly to all individuals, the latter is superior IMO. Government has a tendency to refuse to get smaller, even when revenues dry up.
It’s not a question of fair. Nor has it anything to do with proportionality. These are not relevant factors. The State owns the oil, to keep murmuring at a low level the State distributes some of the royalty that otherwise goes into the Permanent Fund. The Permanent Fund is to operate the State when oil revenue eventually fails which makes for an attractive nuisance in the meantime. The distribution is called the Dividend, was invented by a Socialist Governor, and is demanded by the residents of the State because they like it.