Posted on 08/30/2008 9:10:30 PM PDT by RushingWater
Unlike Colorado, or any other state for that matter, money from oil is almost the only source of income in Alaska. That’s what funds the governmnet to build roads, police, etc. There is no income tax. It’s tricky because the state needs to figure out how to get maximum value for it’s resources because some time in the future the supply will begin to dwindle (or the enviros will shut it down before). The state actually has a whole savings account set up for that time. A lot of the money from this years surplus went there.
Also, independents have benefited from the changes...
http://www.adn.com/oil/story/449256.html
LOL, what else from an Ivy League?
You appear to be severely confused about the concept of ownership. The people of Alaskan own the mineral rights. The oil companies negotiate with the people of Alaska for the privilege of extracting and marketing the oil.
Then we can assume you will be voting for Obama.
Pre Kelo.
btt
What kind of foolish logic is that? (unless you are in Texas or Oklahoma where I think only Dems and Repubs are on the Presidential ballot).... I would understand their vote to be for a Conservative party, not either of the two major parties (leftist and center/left) this year?
You have it backwards. Passing a law does not create ownership. If it did, you could pass laws creating ownership of any private property. Other countries have passed laws declaring public ownership of private property. Ownership is created through private transactions involving willing buyers and sellers. If the residents of Alaska actually owned the mineral rights, each resident could sell his share. You are confusing public control (sometimes called nationalization) with ownership.
The Alaska constitution has created public control of a valuable asset (mineral rights). I understand the populist appeal in Alaska. Who would not favor free money especially if you can get the rest of the country to send you royalty checks? If you can establish yourself as an owner without any risk or investment, it is a great thing. Unfortunately, the practice subverts private property rights and markets. Alaskans are banking on remaining small enough so that their energy tax does not impact energy production.
Everyone defending Alaska's public control of mineral rights should support the same assertion that the rats intend to make. The rats have clearly stated that they want to reopen the debate about taxation of mineral rights (fossil fuel exploration). The rats unlike the residents of Alaska do not want energy exploration. The rats will assert control to stop energy exploration. The royalties will be distributed to a few favored rat constiuencies.
The state of Alaska does not need to fund its operations through an energy tax. Operations could be funded in other ways such as income, sales, and property taxes. The state of Alaska has chosen to pass an energy tax that will largely be paid by the rest of the country. Colorado could do the same thing. It could declare ownership of oil shale and require oil shale developers to pay royalties to state residents. This scheme is essentially just a tax on energy usage paid mostly by residents of other states.
The state of Alaska has set a terrible precedent for the rest of the country. This practice will become well known now that Palin is the VP candidate. This practice will spread to many other states. Many state budgets are in bad shape because of over spending. No politician can resist the allure of passing a tax that will be paid by non residents. The rats may compromise on oil exploration with this idea in mind.
The result of this policy nationwide is less energy development and higher energy prices. This practice rewards non owners with the profits of private developers. This practice will discourage private developers when the country needs new energy sources.
I think you think that the Democrats are smarter than they really are.
Maybe you can convince the city of Denver to relinquish the claims it grabbed about a hundred years ago on water sources far beyond its city limits, on both sides of the continental divide. Denver gets money for Colorado River water from other states, on a river that never passes within a hundred miles of the city.
Worry about your own back yard first.
Good point. Western water rights are a contentious issue. I commend McCain for raising the issue. The water rights were determined using bad data. Colorado is shafting a number of other states on water usage. There are no private developers of water rights so the issue is a little different. I do not have any problem is reopening this issue even though my water rates would probably rise.
Not they, him bill1952, Read his comment on the thread, then get back to me.I didn't think I need a sarcasm tag there, but.....
Appreciate all the insight. Just for the record, I am now enthusiastic for the McCain/Palin ticket because of Palin. Watch that Mort guy - he was like a mouthpiece for the DC establishment that has just got to hate everything that Palin positively brings. It was like there was almost something personal going on there.
I think Alaska is a different situation than other states in that the sole value of a majority of the land isn’t for settlement but just for mineral rights. Any US citizen could go to Alaska today and begin participating in the oil fund benefit. Would you vote for the Alaska constitution to be changed to transfer the “oil” from the citizens to the state?
One of the reasons government is too big is because big business and big government have a common interest there in using government to keep out competition. I don’t know that I buy your assessment
This is one of those issues where public good and private enterprise run into a conflict. Question: Whose oil is it, the oil companies' or the people of the state of alaska.
If incomes are up an demand is up you wouldn't squeel if a landlord raised rents. Well, by increasing the taxes on oil production that is exactly what the State of Alaska is doing.
What if the minerals were discovered on public property? Should the public give it away, or act just like a private citizen would do - lease or sell the rights in return for some reasonable fraction of the revenue stream?
And just whose land was it?
Actually, I take back all of my previous posts to you. Regardless of your screen name, you are apparently a clueless idiot.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.