Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
To clarify one point, Alaska has no state ordained or mandated sales tax. They leave it up to the individual areas to decide if they want to charge a sales tax of up to 7%. 108 cities/burroughs in Alaska do charge sales tax.
I've been through these discussions with you in other threads, posting stuff you don't critically evaluate yourself and then expecting others to do your work. Recall the thread where you were giving credit to Obama for introducting to the Senate multiple bills that had already been completed by the House of Representatives?
Once again, your original posting doesn't substantiate anything having to do with Palin being a tax problem for folks at all, actually it proves the opposite of your claim (which you would have known had YOU actually read your own referenced articles):
Alaska residents each get a yearly check for about $2,000 from oil revenues, plus an additional $1,200 pushed through by Palin last year to take advantage of rising oil prices.
See, she takes the additional happenstance revenue and gives it to the folks to spend as they see fit, instead of keeping the money herself, just what one would like to see a true leader.
Your assessment of whether I critically evaluated the information is irrelevant.
The thread doesn't have to substantiate whether the Governor is a tax problem to the folks in Alaska. I did read the referenced articles. As we can see from your earlier posts, and your current response, you didn't. As for the thread discussing Senator Obama I'm afraid I can't respond to that in this thread, it's off topic, out of context and I'm certain you will have raised that issue there and been properly addressed. Another of your usual tactics, trying to circumvent a thread to a topic more of your liking, tuckering, I believe it's called.
Perhaps in the future it would be beneficial to read the thread topic and refute either the facts disclosed, or offer a rebuttal that points out a benefit in spite of the facts listed.
Your assessment of whether I critically evaluated the information is irrelevant.
The thread doesn't have to substantiate whether the Governor is a tax problem to the folks in Alaska. I did read the referenced articles. As we can see from your earlier posts, and your current response, you didn't. As for the thread discussing Senator Obama I'm afraid I can't respond to that in this thread, it's off topic, out of context and I'm certain you will have raised that issue there and been properly addressed. Another of your usual tactics, trying to circumvent a thread to a topic more of your liking, tuckering, I believe it's called.
Perhaps in the future it would be beneficial to read the thread topic and refute either the facts disclosed, or offer a rebuttal that points out a benefit in spite of the facts listed.
Nah Walid, as I stated you didn't critically evaluate your own posted articles (again). But the BEST part about these exchanges is all of the folks who get to read these things but never post their own observations at all.
They get to critically evaluate the credibility of the threads, and I welcome their evaluations.
Nah Walid, as I stated you didn't critically evaluate your own posted articles (again). But the BEST part about these exchanges is all of the folks who get to read these things but never post their own observations at all.
They get to critically evaluate the credibility of the threads, and I welcome their evaluations.
I agree! I think this type of thread does more harm then good to the OP intentions. I agree both sides are posting threads anywhere from slightly misleading to very misleading. This one surpasses that. It's a bonifide lie. It does not work and turns people against the intentions of the OP's attempt to gain support for his canidate.
Trying to make Alaska look like the highest taxed place on the earth when in fact it is the very lowest by FAR, is just laughable!
You started this thread with the notion that because Alaskan's make decent wages and therefore pay more federal incomes taxes that somehow this is a bad mark for Palin. You know it! That is a total 100% lie! It is not even misleading, it is just a lie, smear. Palin has nothing to do with FEDERAL INCOME TAXES!
The fact is, Alaskans pay less taxes then anywhere and Palin reduced it even further. You don't get an 88% approval rating, taxing people. She lowered all government expenses and taxes and people LOVE HER FOR IT. 97% of all Alaskan's get far more back from the goverment then they ever pay into it!
Did I? Strange how this is how you interpreted the Data listed. If the data is incorrect you are welcome to refute it, I'm certain we would welcome an examination of what the actual figures are. I don't recall mentioning wages.
I did ask if the lower 48 was read for 2.5 times the national average, this is what the author of the article asserts, as well as spending over double the National average. Is this incorrect? Is there a benefit to lower or "none" (as you've stated and another poster has corrected or added additional data) State Taxes that the rest of the Country could or should take advantage of? You feel that the system is great.
"97% of all Alaskan's get far more back from the goverment then they ever pay into it!"
Did I? Strange how this is how you interpreted the Data listed. If the data is incorrect you are welcome to refute it, I'm certain we would welcome an examination of what the actual figures are. I don't recall mentioning wages.
I did ask if the lower 48 was read for 2.5 times the national average, this is what the author of the article asserts, as well as spending over double the National average. Is this incorrect? Is there a benefit to lower or "none" (as you've stated and another poster has corrected or added additional data) State Taxes that the rest of the Country could or should take advantage of? You feel that the system is great.
"97% of all Alaskan's get far more back from the goverment then they ever pay into it!"
Interesting. Why? Is this fair?
The governors of the states have no say in this at all Walid, it is generally based on things such as funding distribution formulas and federal representative actions (like the earmarks McCain opposes and Obama supports). Linking this to Palin shows ignorance of intergovernmental funding processes.
You really should read the full articles before using them to support your argument, sometimes the headlines just aren't sufficient explanatory to judge whether the actual article content supports your assumptions.
Did I? Strange how this is how you interpreted the Data listed. If the data is incorrect you are welcome to refute it, I'm certain we would welcome an examination of what the actual figures are. I don't recall mentioning wages.
I did ask if the lower 48 was read for 2.5 times the national average, this is what the author of the article asserts, as well as spending over double the National average. Is this incorrect? Is there a benefit to lower or "none" (as you've stated and another poster has corrected or added additional data) State Taxes that the rest of the Country could or should take advantage of? You feel that the system is great.
"97% of all Alaskan's get far more back from the goverment then they ever pay into it!"
Interesting. Why? Is this fair?
Read your headline, nuff said, it is the biggest lie on this entire forum! Argument over. You have lost all credibility on this forum.
Nah Walid, as I stated you didn't critically evaluate your own posted articles (again). But the BEST part about these exchanges is all of the folks who get to read these things but never post their own observations at all.
They get to critically evaluate the credibility of the threads, and I welcome their evaluations.
I'm certain you do.
As I've stated. You didn't read before you posted, and your response is what it typically is.
The governors of the states have no say in this at all Walid, it is generally based on things such as funding distribution formulas and federal representative actions (like the earmarks McCain opposes and Obama supports). Linking this to Palin shows ignorance of intergovernmental funding processes.
You really should read the full articles before using them to support your argument, sometimes the headlines just aren't sufficient explanatory to judge whether the actual article content supports your assumptions.
"97% of all Alaskan's get far more back from the goverment then they ever pay into it!"
Interesting. Why? Is this fair?
Did I assert that the Governors did? You should read what I wrote and the corresponding question, not what you wish I wrote.
"97% of all Alaskan's get far more back from the goverment then they ever pay into it!"
Interesting. Why? Is this fair?
Did I assert that the Governors did? You should read what I wrote and the corresponding question, not what you wish I wrote.
You absolutely did, take a look at your thread title again.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
