A protester holds a sign before the start of a rally held in support of the Alaska university system on Wednesday, Feb. 13, 2019, in Juneau, Alaska. (AP Photo/Becky Bohrer)
Most Alaskans, perhaps even most Americans, have a knee-jerk reaction to taxes. They affect citizens in a sensitive area — their pocketbook. Perhaps a little analysis and thought could change this normal negative reaction.
It is clear, even to the stingiest among us, that Anchorage and Alaska need more income. Our severely underfunded public schools, decreasing population — called “outmigration” these days — underfunded police force, deteriorating streets and highways, underfunded city and state park budgets, and on and on, are not going to fix themselves. We have to pay for it.
Public schools are the best example. Do you want your first grader in a classroom with 25-plus students or your intermediate composition student in a class with 35-plus students? What if the teacher needs four to five paragraphs per week per student from two such classes? Who suffers? The teacher and 70 students. It’s not rocket science — if you minimize taxes, you minimize services.
I was an English teacher in Anchorage and had students coming into my classroom at lunch for help. Why? They were ambitious. Far more students who wanted and needed help were too shy, too busy or less motivated. With smaller class sizes, those students would have gotten the help in class.
Advertisement
Some Alaskans resent paying taxes that help other people’s children. They often say, “But I don’t have any kids in school!” The same attitude is heard when folks say, “The streets in our neighborhood are fine.” Taxes are not designed to help specific taxpayers; they are, or should be, designed to help the entire community. And we are a community.
As well, lots of people get real excited by sales taxes, especially those who have enough income to buy lots of stuff. They argue that, on balance, sales taxes are unfair — they are regressive. That means that individuals with less income pay a higher percent of their income than individuals with a higher income, and this is true. It is minimized by exempting some expenses — medical care, groceries and the like.
A recent opinion piece published in the Anchorage Daily News explained the disadvantages of a regressive tax. In doing so, the author made an excellent argument for using a different kind of tax.
The solution is to use an income tax. With an income tax, the regulations of the tax can prevent it from being regressive by requiring higher tax rates as individual incomes increase. Alaska is one of only eight or nine states with no state income tax. For those folks all worked up about regressive sales taxes, this is the solution.
Any tax that most folks will accept depends on people seeing themselves as part of the same community. That’s not always obvious these days — but it doesn’t change the bottom line: We still have to pay our way.
Advertisement
Tom Nelson has lived in Anchorage more than 50 years. He is a retired school teacher, cross country ski coach, track coach, commercial fisherman and wilderness guide.
• • •
The Anchorage Daily News welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)adn.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser. Read our full guidelines for letters and commentaries here.
JUNEAU, Alaska (KTUU) – The Supreme Court of Alaska will be taking up the case of the State of Alaska, Division of Elections v. Daniel J. Sullivan, Jr.
The oral arguments will be held Monday at 10 a.m. via Zoom, according to an order and opening notice.
The document also specifies that a decision is expected to be made before noon on Tuesday.
According to documents from the Division of Elections, the state must start printing ballots at noon on the same day.
Advertisement
This comes after an Anchorage Superior Court Judge ordered Dan J. Sullivan on to the ballot Friday.
See a spelling or grammar error? Report it to web@ktuu.com
A new home under construction in Potter Valley in Anchorage. (Loren Holmes / ADN)
This June, two very different offers reach Alaska families, and both amount to the same thing: $10,000. The difference is everything.
Bill Walker, running for governor, would hand every eligible Alaskan a one-time $10,000 check and then end the Permanent Fund dividend for good. Ask one question: Where does his $10,000 come from?
It comes from the Permanent Fund, the people’s own money and the savings Alaskans built for their children. Walker would spend that endowment once to pay Alaskans to give up the yearly dividend forever.
Think about what that does. It cancels the annual check that gives a family a reason to keep an Alaska address and replaces it with a single payout. You hand people their own savings, call it a gift and cut the tie that held them here in the same motion. It is the oldest mistake in governing money: raid what you have saved to buy a moment’s applause and call the spending generosity.
Advertisement
A plan that spends the people’s savings to send the people away is not bold. It is foolish.
Now consider the other $10,000. Through Alaska Housing Finance Corp., the state offers families up to $10,000 to build a new, energy-efficient home. AHFC raids nothing. It earns its own way. Over the years, it has returned more than $2 billion to the state treasury, and it spends some of that income the way any good business does: to win a customer.
Here, the customer is an Alaskan who wants to own a home, put down roots and stay.
That is the oldest sound move in business: Invest a little of what you earn to bring in someone who stays. The homeowner remains, the community gains a family and the corporation keeps earning. The money spent comes back. A plan that puts earnings to work to bring people home is not charity. It is clever.
Same amount. Opposite source. Opposite wisdom. One spends savings; the other spends earnings. One pays Alaskans to leave; the other pays them to stay. One empties the state; the other fills it.
Advertisement
This Homeownership Month, the choice is the size of a single check, and the whole question is where the check comes from and what it asks of you. Ten thousand dollars of your own fund, to wave you goodbye. Or $10,000, earned and reinvested, to help you stay and build.
Evan Swensen is the publisher of Publication Consultants in Anchorage and the author of “What’s the Money For: A Permanent Fund Mortgage Proposal.”
• • •
The Anchorage Daily News welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)adn.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser. Read our full guidelines for letters and commentaries here.
