Permanent Fund Dividend cuts are not a tax

In a recent Anchorage Daily News commentary, I disagreed with other pieces that argued that PFD cuts should be considered a tax, since the reduction in cash realized is the same outcome as paying a tax.

First, I pointed out that you can take any of the other 49 states. They all have an established stream of revenue that pays for public services. Any one of them could decide to take a portion of that stream, and instead of funding public services, just start sending out checks to everyone. Any of the states could do that, and none of them do. No one in any of those states suggests that not issuing those checks amounts to a tax. No one does because it would be laughable.

Second, I pointed out, that reductions in public services from reduced expenditures, and the ensuing reduction in public welfare, is a very real cost to all citizens.  A reduced dividend is no more of a metaphorical tax increase than the reduced services to pay for the dividend are.

In a recent piece in this publication, Brad Keithley suggested this was a “straw man” argument because it was responding to a different argument than the one I was purporting to address.

This is not true. Keithley was suggesting raising taxes to pay for dividends, rather than splitting the current revenue stream. But this is really no different than what I was arguing.

All of the other 49 states have broad-based taxes, either an income or sales tax. Twenty-eight of them have progressive personal income taxes. They are already there; they have raised their taxes to pay for services. And, again, no one is suggesting they butcher the revenue stream to pay dividends. No one is suggesting they raise taxes more in order to send everyone a check. They all could and none of them do.

And these places are no different than Alaska. While Alaska has a stream of money from Permanent Fund earnings, these other places have streams from a broader diversified economic base.

I am all for a progressive personal income tax in Alaska. But to couple that with dividends would be unreasonable. Taxes would have to be higher to pay for dividends. And non-resident workers shouldn’t have to pay income taxes that go toward dividends they cannot receive. (Of course, non-residents should pay for public services, just like residents should.) These workers provide useful contributions to the economy, and generally do not take jobs from Alaskans. Seafood processing has low-paying seasonal jobs in remote work sites, tourism is seasonal, and petroleum and health care often require specialized technical skills not found among Alaska workers.

Even the progressive states understand there is not a tax base large enough and willing enough to raise taxes in order to pay dividends to everyone and fully fund public services.

Moreover, for the past 40 years, Alaska has been unsuccessfully attempting to diversify its economy. It is difficult to imagine a more dismal message to send to outside investors than your taxes here are going to be higher in order to finance a massive undiscriminating government handout.

There are two important things to note regarding the 2016 ISER study often cited by Keithley. First, the title: “Short-Run Economic Impacts of Alaska Fiscal Options.” Emphasis on “Short-Run.” The study was commissioned by the Department of Revenue to look at options for closing the budget gap in the near-term. Thus, for instance, any long-run loss of income resulting from education spending diverted to dividends was not looked at.

Second, not un-related to the first, is the conclusion of the report. The very last sentence reads:

Choices Alaskans make about closing the budget deficit would affect Alaska’s economy and society in many important ways beyond the short-term economic impacts we estimated for this study. We should base our fiscal choices not only on their short-term effects but also on what they might mean for Alaska’s economy and society over time.

Roger Marks is an economist in private practice in Anchorage. Between 1983-2008, he was a senior economist with the Alaska Department of Revenue Tax Division.

Subscribe
Notify of

10 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Leo
6 months ago

I grew up in Alaska before there was a PFD. I feel that as a resident in Alaska for 50 plus years that everyone should receive a good payment from the PFD.

Erik Wassell
6 months ago

Tax or not, what is undeniable is that PFD cuts are a way to make life harder for most Alaskans so the top 20% can continue to get a free ride.

Akwhitty
6 months ago
Reply to  Erik Wassell

Thanks to the recipient laws regarding jaywalking I believe we PFD payment will be increased. Thanks assembly.

Steve-O
6 months ago

So much that is so wrong, to keep it short let’slook at this one sentence “And these places are no different than Alaska.” All of those places are, in fact, different than Alaska. They do not have the same permanent fund that we have here and they do not have the same statutory language that provides for a dividend based upon that fund.

Pretending that we do not have a permanent fund or statutory language that provides a dividend from that fund sure helps balance a bloated budget, but it also ignores reality.

Geoffrey Eble
6 months ago

This author’s opinion is almost beneath the level of intellectual veracity as to be taken even half seriously! Comparing lower 48 states raising state income taxes to theoretically pay dividends to the situation in Alaska is ludicrous. For starters, they already have mostly modified flat taxes with a progressive tweak to pay for state services. Which is as it should be. People pay state taxes according to their ability to pay. Alaska currently pays for state services by seizing a portion of the PFD in the exact same amount from rich and poor alike. The second issue is the author… Read more »

David Boyle
5 months ago
Reply to  Geoffrey Eble

The State of Colorado does rebate part of its collected taxes to taxpayers. It is bound to do so by the TABOR amendment to its constitution. So, the author is incorrect in his first paragraph.

Fed up
6 months ago

It’s not a tax, it’s theft. The statutes are clear in how the earnings are to be divided. The government acts like all the money is theirs to begin with and that is costing them to pay us. It’s completely dishonest, but I guess we should know better than to think or legislators are going to be honest people.

Greg
6 months ago

The author should move back to cali, where they like taxes. Political powers can’t balance there budget so they take what’s yours and mine.

Star Theodore
5 months ago

The dividend is from the sale of crude oil, not from a state budget.
No one is gonna pay income taxes to fund the PFD. Duh!
OPM=OTHER PEOPLES MONEY. That is what you are suggesting. That we get taxed on our income, just to turn around and give it to other people.
I would rather spend my own money, that I earned.

David Boyle
5 months ago

The State of Colorado, bound by the TABOR amendment to its constitution, must send out rebate checks to taxpayers when it has collected more than the TABOR amendment allows. So, one state does send out checks to its taxpayers!