Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhen are we going to invade communist Alaska?
?1389639537Sarah Palin can see Russia ... INSIDE HER HOUSE!
You might've missed it last week, but a writer named Jesse Meyerson at Rolling Stone wrote a jocular piece on reversing the gross income inequality we suffer from in this country today. He proposed five reforms:
1. Guaranteed work for everybody (such as the WPA during the Great Depression).
2. Universal basic income. That's exactly what that sounds likefree government money for everyone. It would be overt redistribution of wealth.
3. Taxing land, as opposed to taxing work, businesses and goods.
4. Collective ownership. Not by seizing warehouses and whatnot. But by buying the shares of publicly traded companies. That's called a Sovereign Wealth Fund.
5. More public state-owned banks. If it's good enough for conservative North Dakota, why not everyone else?
Read down the list, and you can see why conservatives would freak out. They already see communists under every bed. Getting them this close to what appears to be a modern-day variant can only induce severe palpitations.
But as Meyerson himself noted, two of these (two of the three most controversial, in fact) are already practiced by Alaska. Sarah Palin's Alaska.
There's this thing called the Alaska Permanent Fund, enshrined in the state Constitution. It's essentially free money to Alaska residents, paying out varying amounts depending on the returns of the fund. In 2008, it was over $3,000 per person. Last year, it was $900. And the source of the money? A sovereign wealth fund (#4 above)an investment fund funded by oil revenues.
I won't pretend to fully embrace every single one of these items, at least not without further details, but the right-wing reaction has been hysterically hysterical. You'd think Janet Yellen was proposing this from her perch at the Fed. And ultimately, much of this has already been embraced by conservatives (see Alaska), or would advance conservative goals such as simplifying the tax code and eliminating corporate taxes.
So are conservative freedom fighters ready to do battle in Alaska to rid itself of such communistic vestiges as "redistribution of wealth" and "free money for residents" and "government-owned investment fund"? Will they march on North Dakota's people-owned bank? I'd pay into a sovereign wealth fund to see that happen!
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/01/13/1269343/-When-are-we-going-to-invade-communist-Alaska?detail=facebook#
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
4 replies, 711 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (7)
ReplyReply to this post
4 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
When are we going to invade communist Alaska? (Original Post)
ashling
Jan 2014
OP
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)1. ,
,
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)2. Taxing land is guaranteed to have Republicans up in arms.
Take a look at a county-by-county electoral map some time. The correlation between population density and voting patterns is extremely strong; a tax on land would shift a lot of the tax burden from Democrats to Republicans.
ashling
(25,771 posts)3. Henry George
the Single Tax
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)4. I'm afraid I'm not convinced.
If Alice and Bob have the same amount of wealth, and Alice buys land and Bob buys other stuff, I don't think Alice should have to pay more tax.
If I were designing a tax system, I'd weight it heavily towards inheritance tax, on the grounds that that's a) definitely one of the fairest forms of taxation, and b) I suspect (although I'm not certain) one of the forms with the least negative effects on economic growth.