• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Alaskans To Receive Record $2,072 Payout From Oil Saving Account

bg85 said:
yeah I'd say "we" owned it when it was a territory, but when it became a state it became just like Virginia or Oklahoma or anywhere else - like as far as I know the federal government does not own Kansas.
Click to expand...

It did. The homestead act took care of that though.

The land has always been US owned in states that became territories. I'm just not sure where Alaska is getting the revenue, unless they are taxing the production.

AFAIK, the US actually owns the oil and gets royalties directly to the treasury for it.
 
Daym I wish my royalty check was 2k +. Mine was under under three bills. But even still I'm glad to get it.
 
Threegoofs said:
I'm just not sure where Alaska is getting the revenue, unless they are taxing the production.
Click to expand...

When Alaska became a state the federal government didn't think that Alaska's small population could sufficiently support a state government on an income tax model so as part of the Alaska Statehood Act, Congress granted the state a 90% share on the sale of mineral rights sold for the exploration, development, and exploitation of federal land (which amounts to about 60% of the Alaskan landmass).

Additionally, Congress granted Alaska ownership of about 120 million acres of what was, at the time, federal land along with all subsurface mineral rights on that land. This state land accounts for about 30% of the Alaska landmass.

The remaining 10% of the land on Alaska is privately owned.

So Alaska receives 90% of the fees charged for mineral rights on federal land as well as 100% of the rights on state land.

In addition Alaska derives income from royalties on the sale of oil and minerals extracted from state land, production taxes, corporate income taxes, and fines and penalties charged for regulatory violations.

All told they're looking at about $5 billion in revenue this year just from oil and mineral operations.

In the interest of full disclosure, that isn't something I just rattled off from memory. I got that information from about a half dozen sources across the Internetz, primarily academic papers and government webpages. I'm not going to be bothered to cite all those sources so if anyone takes issue with them feel free to do so and go find your own numbers.
 
soot said:
When Alaska became a state the federal government didn't think that Alaska's small population could sufficiently support a state government on an income tax model so as part of the Alaska Statehood Act, Congress granted the state a 90% share on the sale of mineral rights sold for the exploration, development, and exploitation of federal land (which amounts to about 60% of the Alaskan landmass).

Additionally, Congress granted Alaska ownership of about 120 million acres of what was, at the time, federal land along with all subsurface mineral rights on that land. This state land accounts for about 30% of the Alaska landmass.

The remaining 10% of the land on Alaska is privately owned.

So Alaska receives 90% of the fees charged for mineral rights on federal land as well as 100% of the rights on state land.

In addition Alaska derives income from royalties on the sale of oil and minerals extracted from state land, production taxes, corporate income taxes, and fines and penalties charged for regulatory violations.

All told they're looking at about $5 billion in revenue this year just from oil and mineral operations.

In the interest of full disclosure, that isn't something I just rattled off from memory. I got that information from about a half dozen sources across the Internetz, primarily academic papers and government webpages. I'm not going to be bothered to cite all those sources so if anyone takes issue with them feel free to do so and go find your own numbers.
Click to expand...

Ah. So it IS welfare. The US just gave them the blank check up front.
 
blaxshep said:
Would that include all the purchases we made federally or just Alaska?
Click to expand...

It should definitely include all the defense spending we do up there, since the only reason we'd ever want to defend that wasteland is the oil.
 
Deuce said:
It should definitely include all the defense spending we do up there, since the only reason we'd ever want to defend that wasteland is the oil.
Click to expand...

That pretty much applies to every ME country we spend billions on as well.
 
blaxshep said:
That pretty much applies to every ME country we spend billions on as well.
Click to expand...

For that to work we'd have to annex those nations, otherwise the oil doesn't technically belong to us.
 
Deuce said:
I feel like this might cause some angst.
Click to expand...

Maybe at first but once the liberals roll out the welfare to all the citizens we annex, it will probably pan out in our favor.
 
beerftw said:
That is great but in alaska 2k would buy very little, due to the extremely high cost of living there. It would be like paying texans 100 dollars each.
Click to expand...

While I do agree, the cost of living in Alaska is generally higher than the average, I'm not sure how accurate that comparison is. For example, the cost of living index in Corpus Christi, TX is 192 while Anchorage, AK is 187.
 
Geoist said:
While I do agree, the cost of living in Alaska is generally higher than the average, I'm not sure how accurate that comparison is. For example, the cost of living index in Corpus Christi, TX is 192 while Anchorage, AK is 187.
Click to expand...

Never compared a single city, i just knew quite a few people who took jobs up there in remote areas, who moved back to the lower 48 because their 200k a year jobs were not enough. Alot of alaska has rediculous prices just because how hard it is to ship in goods, and alot of the reason the contractors were getting so much money was because how high the cost of living is in alot of areas.

And it seems if you google cost of living in Alaska, all of them use anchorage, and seem to leave out the rest of the state, meaning if you are not in a major city in that state, you do not get counted. This is probably because alaska is so large yet most of it is lightly populated.
 
reinoe said:
Alaska is a state that promotes welfare and getting rich by having lots of kids.
Click to expand...

Example:

The biggest farce of all is that Tea Party touter, Governor Sarah Palin, slapped an excess profits tax on the state’s oil companies in 2008, the year she ran for vice-President alongside John McCain, so that every person in Alaska received a dividend of $3269 that year. That was a pretty good haul for a family of four: $13,076. For Palin’s family – husband Todd, sons Track and Trig and daughters Bristol, Willow and Piper – it came to an even better haul – $22,883!

link...​
 
beerftw said:
Never compared a single city,
Click to expand...

I know. I was giving an example to show it can vary even within states. Either way, I can bet most Alaskans prefer that money going back to the citizens over Big Oil coffers.
 
Geoist said:
I know. I was giving an example to show it can vary even within states. Either way, I can bet most Alaskans prefer that money going back to the citizens over Big Oil coffers.
Click to expand...

I mean yes whether you live in green in the summer alaska or need to stock 2 years food because trucks snowmobiles and dog sleds cant deliver due to bad weather and epic snowstorms alaska, I doubt anyone would turn down free money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom