This is a tax tutorial for gubernatorial candidates, for legislators who will report to work next year and for the Alaska public.
Think of it as homework, with more than eight months to complete the assignment that is not due until the November election. The homework is intended to inform, not settle the debate over a state sales tax or state income tax — or neither, which is the preferred option for many Alaskans.
But for those Alaskans willing to consider a tax as a personal responsibility to help fund schools, roads, public safety, child care, state troopers, prisons, foster care and everything else necessary for healthy and productive lives, someday they will need to decide on a state income tax or a state sales tax after they accept the checkbook reality that oil and Permanent Fund earnings are not enough.
This homework assignment is intended to get people thinking with facts, not emotions. Electing the right candidates will be the first test.
Advertisement
Alaskans have until the next election because nothing will change this year. It will take a new political alignment led by a reality-based governor to organize support in the Legislature and among the public.
But next year, maybe, with the right elected leadership, Alaskans can debate a state sales tax or personal income tax. Plus, of course, corporate taxes and oil production taxes, but those are for another school day.
One of the biggest arguments in favor of a state sales tax is that visitors would pay it. Yes, they would, but not as much as many Alaskans think.
Air travel is exempt from sales taxes. So are cruise ship tickets. That’s federal law, which means much of what tourists spend on their Alaska vacation is beyond the reach of a state sales tax.
Cutting further into potential revenues, state and federal law exempts flightseeing tours from sales tax, which is a particularly costly exemption when you think about how much visitors spend on airplane and helicopter tours.
Advertisement
That leaves sales tax supporters collecting from tourists on T-shirts, gifts for grandchildren, artwork, postcards, hotels, Airbnb, car rentals and restaurant meals. Still a substantial take for taxes, but far short of total tourism spending.
An argument against a state sales tax is that more than 100 cities and boroughs already depend on local sales taxes to pay for schools and other public services. Try to imagine what a state tax piled on top of a local tax would do to kill shopping in Homer, already at 7.85%, or Kodiak, Wrangell and Cordova, all at 7%, and all the other municipalities.
Supporters of an income tax say it would share the responsibility burden with nonresidents who earn income in Alaska and then return home to spend their money.
Almost one in four workers in Alaska in 2024 were nonresidents, as reported by the state Department of Labor in January. That doesn’t include federal employees, active-duty military or self-employed people.
Nonresidents earned roughly $3.8 billion, or about 17% of every dollar covered in the report.
Advertisement
However, many of those nonresident workers are lower-wage and seasonal, employed in the seafood processing and tourism industries, unlikely to pay much in income taxes. But a tax could be structured so that they pay something, which is fair.
Meanwhile, higher-wage workers in oil and gas, mining, construction and airlines (freight and passenger service) would pay taxes on their income earned in Alaska, which also is fair.
It comes down to what would direct more of the tax burden to nonresidents: a tax on income or on visitor spending. Wages or wasabi-crusted salmon dinners.
Larry Persily is a longtime Alaska journalist, with breaks for federal, state and municipal public policy work in Alaska and Washington, D.C. He lives in Anchorage and is publisher of the Wrangell Sentinel weekly newspaper.
• • •
Advertisement
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.
WHEREAS, all Alaskans have the right to safety and justice, and the rates of missing and murdered Indigenous persons (MMIP) represent a crisis that is actively being addressed; and
WHEREAS, Alaska Native women are overrepresented in the domestic violence victim population by 250 percent, and although Alaska Natives comprise 19 percent of Alaska’s population, they represent 47 percent of the State’s reported rape victims; and
WHEREAS, the call for a greater response to the MMIP led to increased communication between tribal communities and State agencies in an effort to better understand the scope of the issue; and
WHEREAS, the State of Alaska now has four MMIP investigators, two tribal liaisons, and dedicates significant resources to address these cases and work with the family members of missing and murdered persons; and
Advertisement
WHEREAS, in 2024 I signed legislation that further moves Alaska’s response forward with mandatory entry of missing persons into the National Missing and Unidentified Persons System, and requires that the State employ MMIP investigators, and requires that all current and future Alaska law enforcement officers attend cultural diversity training with an emphasis on MMIP; and
WHEREAS, the State of Alaska is committed to continuing its efforts to work with Alaska Tribes in combatting this crisis and offering support to communities and families.
NOW THEREFORE, I, Mike Dunleavy, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF ALASKA, do hereby proclaim May 5, 2026, as:
Missing and Murdered Indigenous People Awareness Day
in Alaska and encourage all Alaskans to recognize the elevated rates of missing and murdered Indigenous persons and support law enforcement, victim advocacy, and the efforts of Alaska Native Tribes to work with State, local, and other entities working together toward solutions.
The White House has issued a letter of support for Gov. Dunleavy’s Alaska LNG tax reform bills, noting the national significance of the Alaska LNG project and the importance of tax policy that improves feasibility and attracts private investment.
The letter, from Director of White House Intergovernmental Affairs Alex Meyer, underscores federal recognition of Alaska’s efforts to modernize its tax framework for liquefied natural gas (LNG) development and highlights the importance of these reforms to advancing American energy security and economic growth.
In the letter Meyer said, “Given the scale and complexity of AKLNG, a stable and competitive policy environment is critical to the project’s success. Clear and predictable tax policy will improve feasibility, attract private investment, and help secure final commitments. This approach promotes job creation, expanded economic activity, and durable public revenue.”
“Alaska has long been a cornerstone of America’s energy future, and this support from the White House affirms the importance of getting our LNG tax policy right,” said Governor Dunleavy. “HB 381 and SB 280 provide a clear, predictable, and competitive structure that will help unlock Alaska’s vast natural gas resources, create jobs, and deliver long-term benefits for our state and the nation.”
Advertisement
The volumetric LNG tax bills establish a straightforward tax system based on the volume of gas produced, offering greater certainty to investors and developers andensuring Alaskans benefit from a secure, low-cost supply of energy.
Governor Dunleavy emphasized that alignment between state and federal leadership is critical to advancing major energy infrastructure projects like Alaska LNG.
“We appreciate the Administration’s recognition of the role Alaska can play in strengthening domestic energy production and supporting our allies abroad,” Dunleavy added.
The Governor continues to work with members of the Alaska Legislature, industry stakeholders, and federal partners to move these bills forward and position Alaska as a global leader in LNG development.
An Alaska woman is accusing the Alaska Department of Public Safety, two Alaska State Troopers and the A&E Television Network of compromising her privacy and safety as a confidential informant after they filmed an arrest without her consent.
The woman, identified in the filings as Jane Doe, says that she received death threats after she was a confidential informant whose information led to an arrest that was filmed and later aired on the Alaska State Troopers reality show.
The woman’s attorney, Jeff Barber, declined to comment on the case and said that he plans to file a motion to make the case confidential for her safety.
Advertisement
In court filings, Barber argued that the defendants had a duty to protect the confidential informant from harm. Barber wrote, “the defendants were motivated by fame, fortune or financial gain,” and they exploited Jane Doe’s “life and safety for profit and/or personal gain.”
The television show followed troopers in the Matanuska-Susitna Valley, Fairbanks, Western Alaska and Valdez in 2025. A&E Television Network aired nine episodes of the show between January and March 2026.
The lawsuit names Alaska State Troopers Scott McAfee and Lucas Altepeter, the Alaska Department of Public Safety, the show’s executive producer Anna Rodzinski and her company Anusia Films LLC, and A&E Television Networks LLC as defendants.
Jane Doe is suing each defendant for $100,000.
According to a complaint filed in state court on April 23, Jane Doe assisted the Alaska State Troopers as a confidential informant in 2025 and was later threatened by a person who suspected her of being a confidential informant. She assisted troopers for a second time in 2025 and a film crew filmed troopers arresting the person who suspected Doe.
Advertisement
Jane Doe told McAfee, a trooper, that she objected to A&E filming the arrest, and court documents say troopers relayed Doe’s objection to the film crew. According to the filing, the film crew filmed the arrest anyway. This caused Jane Doe “severe emotional distress and harm.”
In the lawsuit, Jane Doe’s attorneys claim that the crew filmed the episode in a way that could reveal Jane Doe’s identity and involvement. After the episode aired, Jane Doe received hostile communications and death threats.
Jane Doe suffered “medical expense, pain, anxiety, suffering, severe emotional distress, inconvenience, security and privacy expenses,” Barber wrote in the filing.
The case alleges that McAfee and Altepeter’s negligence and recklessness breached their duty and created danger to Jane Doe.
Barber accused the defendants of violating Jane Doe’s right to privacy and right to due process, and their actions inflicted intentional emotional distress.
Advertisement
Austin McDaniel, communications director for the Department of Public Safety, told the Alaska Beacon by email Wednesday that DPS had not been formally served with the lawsuit yet and will respond in court.
“We take the safety of all Alaskans extremely seriously and reject any suggestion that DPS personnel would knowingly endanger anyone’s life,” McDaniel stated.
Alaska Beacon is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Alaska Beacon maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Claire Stremple for questions: info@alaskabeacon.com.