Palin's not 'fit' to criticize "spreading the wealth"

United States
October 27, 2008 9:42pm CST
"Just last month, in an interview with Philip Gourevitch of the New Yorker, Palin explained the windfall profits tax that she imposed on the oil industry in Alaska as a mechanism for ensuring that Alaskans "share in the wealth" generated by oil companies. [...] In fact, Alaska's Clear and Equitable Share (ACES) program, which manages the redistribution of oil wealth in Alaska, brings in so much money that the state needs no income or sales tax. In addition, this year ACES will provide every Alaskan with a check for an estimated $3,200." -- http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/27/palin-shares-wealth/ Perhaps Palin could explain the (indisputably STARK, no doubt) difference between "sharing" and "spreading"?
4 people like this
6 responses
@Guardian208 (1095)
• United States
28 Oct 08
Interesting discussion ClarusVisum. While I don't know enough about this program, from what I've found on sources other than the one you quoted (Bloomberg and Alaska's website for example)it is not something that I would support. At least not in its current form. But I do find a "stark" difference between what is happening in Alaska and what Obama has proposed. The oil tax in Alaska allows the state to benefit financially from the resources of the state. Just like if you found oil in your back yard. You would probably not be prepared or even able to benefit from that oil without the help of an oil company. But you would negotiate for the oil company to have the rights to access "your" oil. You would do that either with a buy out or a revenue share. In this case, the tax ensures that the state benefits financial from its own resource. In the case of Obama's plan, nothing that Joe the Plumper does or has belongs to the Federal government or any of its citizens. Joe's expertise and his experience are his alone. He chose that career path. He invested his wealth in his education. He invested his time for his experience. Why should someone who has not made those sacrifices and investments benefit from his hard work? The answer for me is simple. Joe should pay a fair tax to help support the infrastructure that allows him the opportunity to do those things. But NOT to redistribute his wealth to others. One other point that everyone is missing. We are misusing the term "windfall profits tax". Virtually no one is using it properly. Even our politicians. A windfall profits tax, is not the tax that would apply to companies that make excessive income. Windfall profits are profits that a company makes that were unexpected, NOT the regular profits from doing business. As a bit of trivial the term originates from our colonial times. There were limits on how much wood a person or business could harvest for sale. But if there was a wind storm that blew a tree or trees over, the owner had the right to harvest those trees for profit. Those profits were taxed at a higher tax rate. Thus "Windfall Profits".
3 people like this
• United States
28 Oct 08
Guardian, thanks for your very clear discussion. You said what I was TRYING to say, but I didn't do such an excellent job as you did. Very interesting about the windfall from colonial times -- I love hearing about how our words and phrases came about.
2 people like this
• United States
29 Oct 08
Thank you for your kind words. It is interesting where some of our words come from. Unfortunately our politicians, from both sides of the aisle, misuse them.
@spalladino (17926)
• United States
28 Oct 08
I know I'm tired but isn't that strikingly similar to WELFARE? Does that make Alaska a true welfare state? So, let me see if I have this straight. It's bad to increase taxes according to Palin and McCain...but it is okay to increase taxes on big oil companies who operate in your state. Income tax refunds are bad but welfare checks to Alaskans are good. I doubt you'll get any responses from McCain supporters...it'll be pretty hard to spin this one.
• United States
28 Oct 08
"I doubt you'll get any responses from McCain supporters...it'll be pretty hard to spin this one." It sure is great fun to see them try, though. Let's see what happens.
2 people like this
• United States
28 Oct 08
ha! i did lol! except i guess she couldnt spin it either..instead i was lectured AGAIN, because she just knows EVERYTHING. ::sigh::
1 person likes this
@Barbietre (1440)
• United States
28 Oct 08
Well they will just try to spin this one also. Just like the so called bridge to nowhere. I have been to Ketchikan and they do need a bridge to get to the airport and to expand their town. But since Palin brags how she deafeated this bridge she makes herself look good, but who knows where the money they took away from the bridge really went.
2 people like this
• United States
28 Oct 08
Ha! I'd think liberals would like this idea! Hey, this is NOT about the same thing as what Obama is about. The oil in Alaska belongs to the ALASKANS. They don't think it is right for oil companies coming largely from somewhere else, drilling their land and keeping all the profits. She is giving the Alaskans a portion of the money made from their land. Obama is talking about taking more money from individual people as well as companies that make a certain amount and then giving it to people who in many cases didn't even pay any taxes. It's NOT the same.
• United States
28 Oct 08
"The oil in Alaska belongs to the ALASKANS." How SOCIALIST of you to imply that the oil companies' rightful assets/wealth should be REDISTRIBUTED to the Alaskan people. Shouldn't they have to drill it themselves to get a cut? Just looking for a little consistency in the logic.
3 people like this
• United States
28 Oct 08
Well, that IS a one way they could do it. But the oil companies would not like to be told to get out and let Alaskans drill it. You know, we already have a progressive tax system in this country. McCain did NOT say he wanted to change that. All he said was lets not raise any taxes. I'm sorry but your comparison is NOT the same. The Alaska situation is more like when a movie is made in a particular city. They want to come in and be allowed to make their movie on public property. Sometimes they want to even use private homes/businesses in their movie. SO they make deals with the city and any private citizens involved: hey, allow us to take over this street and that building for the next 5 days or whatever, and in return we will do thus and such. It is a mutual situation. What Obama is proposing is not. Also, it is not so much his idea that he is putting in his plan right now that is the problem. It's the references in his book to socialism and how he is "drawn" to it. It's the whole thing taken in totality that makes people say socialism. NOT just raising the taxes on the rich. It's also the fact that he cannot put his plan into action just by raising taxes on the rich.
• Australia
28 Oct 08
Beautifully done, Clarus V. They really donm't have the faintest idea what the term 'socialist' means. Lash
2 people like this
@kenzie45230 (3561)
• United States
28 Oct 08
You do understand that the Alaskan plan was not Palin's, but has been in place for years, right?
1 person likes this
• United States
28 Oct 08
The point is that she didn't think it was something that needed to be changed, but when it comes to a political opponent, suddenly she's OUTRAGED. Classic example of IOKIYAR.
2 people like this
• United States
29 Oct 08
iokiyar?
• United States
28 Oct 08
well that about clinches it! im moving to Alaska! gorgeous scenery, not too many ppl, NO income tax, No sales tax and a free check of $3200 a year! thats like striking gold nowadays! someone above me says the the oil belongs to the ALASKANS...shouldnt that be the oil belongs to the American People? Alaska IS part of the union..no wait, i like that idea better..im definitely going to alaska..im gonna be the next oil baron!
1 person likes this
• United States
28 Oct 08
jeezu kennyrose..cant you ever take a joke? everything about this whole election has gotten serious to the point of crazy now. i was merely trying to inject some levity...which you could use. we ALL know who you're voting for and why, and we all know how you so completely hate anything to do with democrats, liberals (etc...) and the most horrid of beings..Barrack Obama.
1 person likes this
• United States
29 Oct 08
Interesting idea CinderInMySoul, Who does that oil belong to? I have been trying to find an example of a resource belonging to the state versus the federal government. If you an think of any share them with me. My only thought on this is that the role of the federal government was not designed to supersede the state governments.
1 person likes this