Alaska Permanent Fund
- Thread starter snafu
- Start date
hugo
New member
Palin Boosted Oil-Company Taxes While Alaska Had Budget Surplus
Share Business ExchangeTwitterFacebook| Email | Print | A A A By Alison Fitzgerald
Sept. 6 (Bloomberg) -- Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, who has joined the Republican national ticket as a tax-cutter, was a driving force in raising a tax on oil companies last year that will help swell the state's budget surplus.
The increase backed by the Republican vice presidential nominee will, at current prices, raise oil revenue to $11 billion this year -- almost twice what the state needs to fund its government -- state documents show. Alaska also has gotten more money from the federal government than its residents pay in taxes -- $1.75 per tax dollar in 2006, the most recent year available, according to the Tax Foundation, a Washington research group.
``Alaska is an outlier,'' Thomas Mann, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington, said in an interview. ``They have traditionally used their fossil-fuel resources to generate some wealth for the citizens of the state.''
Republican presidential nominee John McCain, who last week chose Palin as his running mate, is campaigning as a tax-cutter and opposes raising taxes on oil companies because he says they discourage investment and cut production.
``There's never a good reason to raise taxes,'' said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, a Washington group that encourages politicians to sign a no-new-taxes pledge. ``She does have a track record of cutting other taxes. We're interested in what she does going forward.''
Alaska has no state income, property or sales tax.
``It's like Dubai. It gets enormous royalties and taxes and fees of various types from oil,'' said Chris Edwards, an economist and state budget expert at the Cato Institute, a Washington group that advocates low taxes and small government.
Current Price
According to the state Legislative Finance Division, Alaska will get $11 billion in oil taxes and royalties -- $5 billion more than the $6 billion fiscal 2009 budget -- if prices average $106 a barrel, yesterday's price on the New York Mercantile Exchange. The state received $5.1 billion from oil companies in fiscal 2007, when it had a $1.2 billion surplus.
Each Alaska resident gets an annual rebate from state oil revenue, and this year Palin added $1,200 more to the $2,100 check each person received.
Palin, 44, proposed the tax increase Sept. 4, 2007, and called a special legislative session to pass it. At an Oct. 12 community meeting in Anchorage, the governor referred to oil as ``our very valuable non-renewable resource.''
``When we develop our natural resources, we will do so for the maximum benefit of Alaskans,'' she said then. Palin signed the tax increase Dec. 19.
Obama's Proposal
Edwards said Palin's oil tax is similar to the windfall profits tax proposed by Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama. McCain, 72, has criticized Obama's plan.
Share Business ExchangeTwitterFacebook| Email | Print | A A A By Alison Fitzgerald
Sept. 6 (Bloomberg) -- Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, who has joined the Republican national ticket as a tax-cutter, was a driving force in raising a tax on oil companies last year that will help swell the state's budget surplus.
The increase backed by the Republican vice presidential nominee will, at current prices, raise oil revenue to $11 billion this year -- almost twice what the state needs to fund its government -- state documents show. Alaska also has gotten more money from the federal government than its residents pay in taxes -- $1.75 per tax dollar in 2006, the most recent year available, according to the Tax Foundation, a Washington research group.
``Alaska is an outlier,'' Thomas Mann, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington, said in an interview. ``They have traditionally used their fossil-fuel resources to generate some wealth for the citizens of the state.''
Republican presidential nominee John McCain, who last week chose Palin as his running mate, is campaigning as a tax-cutter and opposes raising taxes on oil companies because he says they discourage investment and cut production.
``There's never a good reason to raise taxes,'' said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, a Washington group that encourages politicians to sign a no-new-taxes pledge. ``She does have a track record of cutting other taxes. We're interested in what she does going forward.''
Alaska has no state income, property or sales tax.
``It's like Dubai. It gets enormous royalties and taxes and fees of various types from oil,'' said Chris Edwards, an economist and state budget expert at the Cato Institute, a Washington group that advocates low taxes and small government.
Current Price
According to the state Legislative Finance Division, Alaska will get $11 billion in oil taxes and royalties -- $5 billion more than the $6 billion fiscal 2009 budget -- if prices average $106 a barrel, yesterday's price on the New York Mercantile Exchange. The state received $5.1 billion from oil companies in fiscal 2007, when it had a $1.2 billion surplus.
Each Alaska resident gets an annual rebate from state oil revenue, and this year Palin added $1,200 more to the $2,100 check each person received.
Palin, 44, proposed the tax increase Sept. 4, 2007, and called a special legislative session to pass it. At an Oct. 12 community meeting in Anchorage, the governor referred to oil as ``our very valuable non-renewable resource.''
``When we develop our natural resources, we will do so for the maximum benefit of Alaskans,'' she said then. Palin signed the tax increase Dec. 19.
Obama's Proposal
Edwards said Palin's oil tax is similar to the windfall profits tax proposed by Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama. McCain, 72, has criticized Obama's plan.
timesjoke
Active Members
I am asking in the other thread why anyone would consider Sarah increasing what companies pay for Alaska's oil as somehow strange or excessive?
Every State in America is raising taxes to the people for just about every service that Government provides. In the last few years we have seen increased gassoline taxes at the pumps, higher fees for registering our vehicles and even the fee for renewing my driver's license doubled this past September (just in time for my birthday).
So with pretty much every American paying way more money than ever before, why should companies be exempt from paying more for something like a State Resource?
I guess Hugo believes Alaska should be giving their oil away for free.
Really this is not a tax on the oil companies, it is a sale. Alaska is selling their oil for a price, the oil companies have the choice to pay that price or not.
Every State in America is raising taxes to the people for just about every service that Government provides. In the last few years we have seen increased gassoline taxes at the pumps, higher fees for registering our vehicles and even the fee for renewing my driver's license doubled this past September (just in time for my birthday).
So with pretty much every American paying way more money than ever before, why should companies be exempt from paying more for something like a State Resource?
I guess Hugo believes Alaska should be giving their oil away for free.
Really this is not a tax on the oil companies, it is a sale. Alaska is selling their oil for a price, the oil companies have the choice to pay that price or not.
snafu
New member
I guess it's a viscous circle. We collect royalty's but yet we pay the highest gas prices in the nation.
Alaskans suffer nation's highest gasoline prices | Reuters
Alaskans suffer nation's highest gasoline prices | Reuters
timesjoke
Active Members
You have to explain why something you own, and you sell, is welfare.
The people own Alaska, are you now saying that only a government can own oil? Only a big company can own oil? Who do you think owns the oil comming out of the ground Hugo?
My point is the oil belongs to the people and they are selling it to oil companies, the oil companies have the option to not buy the oil at that set price so where is the welfare Hugo?
ImWithStupid
New member
Lighten up. It's about "states rights". It isn't the Federal Government doing this. Check out the 10th Amendment. If the PEOPLE of Alaska have something for sale and want to lease out this to someone who is willing to pay for it. Let them.
Why do you hate capitalism and the free market? Nobody is forcing the oil companies to drill for the oil in Alaska. They can keep buying it from Hugo Chavez and the terrorists over seas for the same price.
timesjoke
Active Members
Hugo is like the Liberals, he makes up his mind he does not like someone then he will adjust reality to fit his need for the dislike.
I pointed out that most independants like Hugo voted for Obama for a reason, I believe Hugo did vote for Obama and that is why he feels compelled to take an unreasonable stance against Sarah Palin.
Sarah might not even run for office, she could do very well just traveling the Country making speaches and endorsing canidates. My point is she "right now" is the only real conservative who could stand a chance on the National level for high office.
Sure, there are a few local conservatives who would do well in their State and maybe a few other States, but beyond that....nothing.
Here is the deal, I get the feeling that if someone like Hugo does not get a 100% die hard conservative who is also a die hard isolationist, then he will in turn vote socialist as a kind of "punnishment" to the Republicans who are not doing what he wants them to do.
"Cutting off the nose to spite the face" is an expression used to describe a needlessly self-destructive over-reaction to a problem: "Don't cut off your nose to spite your face" is a warning against acting out of pique, or against pursuing revenge in a way that would damage oneself more than the source of one's anger.
I pointed out that most independants like Hugo voted for Obama for a reason, I believe Hugo did vote for Obama and that is why he feels compelled to take an unreasonable stance against Sarah Palin.
Sarah might not even run for office, she could do very well just traveling the Country making speaches and endorsing canidates. My point is she "right now" is the only real conservative who could stand a chance on the National level for high office.
Sure, there are a few local conservatives who would do well in their State and maybe a few other States, but beyond that....nothing.
Here is the deal, I get the feeling that if someone like Hugo does not get a 100% die hard conservative who is also a die hard isolationist, then he will in turn vote socialist as a kind of "punnishment" to the Republicans who are not doing what he wants them to do.
"Cutting off the nose to spite the face" is an expression used to describe a needlessly self-destructive over-reaction to a problem: "Don't cut off your nose to spite your face" is a warning against acting out of pique, or against pursuing revenge in a way that would damage oneself more than the source of one's anger.
hugo
New member
Socialism at the state level is still socialism.
I don't see government ownership of resources as capitalism, I am glad Alaska has found that Marxist ideology works.
Unlike you all I did not vote for a socialist for President in 2000,2004 and 2008, nor will I in 2012. There are some legitimate Republican candidates, nominate one of them.
People with principles don't vote for commies just because they happen to be Republican.
I see ya all would probably strongly support a Chavez/ Palin ticket.
View attachment 2671 I like the permanent fund
snafu
New member
well because Alaskans have been paying the highest amount in oil and gas prices at the time of that extra$1,200 dollars (that's all Sarah extended the payment for). You try heating your home in the middle of nowhere. You try to sustain a life with federal limitations whale hunting and other ways of hunting. The people of Alaska voted the sharing of resource. Thats democracy. If the people need oil and gas to survive and we have a surplus wind fall taxes what would be the difference of fixing a road or bridge as apposed to helping Alaskans survive?
hugo
New member
From a true conservative:
It's time to end the Permanent Fund dividend check in Alaska
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted on 06 January 2010 7:44am
By Dan Fagan
Publisher
The Alaska Standard
The idea of paying every man, woman, and child a dividend check each year from the average earnings of the Alaska Permanent Fund is the possibly one of the worst public policies since the inception of this country’s great republic.
(And yes smart-***, I do deposit my check every year. If you can’t get past the idea of me arguing against a policy while at the same time benefitting from it then you better stop reading now.)
Now ultra left wing pandering Democrats Hollis French and Harry Crawford want to enshrine this wealth redistribution program in the Alaska constitution.
You say Dan, you believe the Alaska Permanent Fund dividend program is wealth redistribution? If French and Crawford have their way it will be.
The reality of the situation in Alaska is our current governor and members of the Alaska legislature lack the political courage to open our state up for business again. Our current high taxes will prematurely end the life of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline meaning we will have to find a new way to fund state government.
The 34 billion dollar permanent fund comes to mind. This is of course what the founders of the fund envisioned. When oil revenue dropped off, the fund would help pick up the slack.
French and Crawford have a different idea. They say drawing money from the dividend should be dead last on the list for how to balance the budget. Even if that list includes an income tax.
Here comes the wealth redistribution part. If French and Crawford have their way, we will see a day in Alaska when the government will demand a portion of your salary in the form of an income tax so it can then give free checks to every man woman and child in the state.
Keep in mind only half of Americans pay income tax and the same would be true with a state income tax. So while the Alaska government comes in and takes a portion of our income from half of us, it then uses that same money to redistribute (there’s that word) to every man woman and child. Karl Marx, and Barack Obama would be proud.
Mr. Crawford seems to have no problem with this idea seeing he’s a socialist. He says if we don’t enshrine the dividend check poor people will suffer.
"That's the most regressive tax we could come up with, to take money from the PFD. Because it hits people at the bottom so much harder than it hits the people at the top. ... There are thousands of Alaskans that are going to be cold and hungry if we were to take away the PFD." Crawford said.
Cold and hungry? Yeah there are no programs in place other than the dividend check to help the cold and hungry in Alaska? Crawford’s statement is so silly, absurd, and outrageous he insults the intelligence of the general public.
Some will argue the money from the permanent fund belongs to us because it’s our oil and we should receive the benefits from the oil, not state government. I agree. So let’s use some of the fund to rebate taxpayers in the state.
For example, if you pay property taxes, let’s take a portion of the fund to rebate the money you paid in property taxes. After all you earned the money you paid in property taxes and if the government can afford it, it should refund the money you earned.
The problem with the French, Crawford plan is it ignores the value of earning. It promotes wealth redistribution.
When Sarah Palin handed out almost one billion dollars in free cash to Alaskans a couple of years ago I knew then and there she had no concept of the value of earning and the destructive nature of free money. Her fundamental understanding of conservative thought was weak and misguided.
Tax rebate? Yes, all day, anytime, anyplace, anywhere. Free money? Only if it is used to help the truly helpless.
It’s time we end the notion in Alaska there is a free lunch. There isn’t. Or least there shouldn’t be. Every dime you receive, someone at some point earned it. If you didn’t earn it, then someone else did. And that means the money you get that you didn’t earn doesn’t belong to you unless it was given to you directly and voluntarily by the person who earned it.
If the government forcefully took it from someone and gave it to you, it doesn't belong to you.
It's time to end the Permanent Fund dividend check in Alaska
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted on 06 January 2010 7:44am
By Dan Fagan
Publisher
The Alaska Standard
The idea of paying every man, woman, and child a dividend check each year from the average earnings of the Alaska Permanent Fund is the possibly one of the worst public policies since the inception of this country’s great republic.
(And yes smart-***, I do deposit my check every year. If you can’t get past the idea of me arguing against a policy while at the same time benefitting from it then you better stop reading now.)
Now ultra left wing pandering Democrats Hollis French and Harry Crawford want to enshrine this wealth redistribution program in the Alaska constitution.
You say Dan, you believe the Alaska Permanent Fund dividend program is wealth redistribution? If French and Crawford have their way it will be.
The reality of the situation in Alaska is our current governor and members of the Alaska legislature lack the political courage to open our state up for business again. Our current high taxes will prematurely end the life of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline meaning we will have to find a new way to fund state government.
The 34 billion dollar permanent fund comes to mind. This is of course what the founders of the fund envisioned. When oil revenue dropped off, the fund would help pick up the slack.
French and Crawford have a different idea. They say drawing money from the dividend should be dead last on the list for how to balance the budget. Even if that list includes an income tax.
Here comes the wealth redistribution part. If French and Crawford have their way, we will see a day in Alaska when the government will demand a portion of your salary in the form of an income tax so it can then give free checks to every man woman and child in the state.
Keep in mind only half of Americans pay income tax and the same would be true with a state income tax. So while the Alaska government comes in and takes a portion of our income from half of us, it then uses that same money to redistribute (there’s that word) to every man woman and child. Karl Marx, and Barack Obama would be proud.
Mr. Crawford seems to have no problem with this idea seeing he’s a socialist. He says if we don’t enshrine the dividend check poor people will suffer.
"That's the most regressive tax we could come up with, to take money from the PFD. Because it hits people at the bottom so much harder than it hits the people at the top. ... There are thousands of Alaskans that are going to be cold and hungry if we were to take away the PFD." Crawford said.
Cold and hungry? Yeah there are no programs in place other than the dividend check to help the cold and hungry in Alaska? Crawford’s statement is so silly, absurd, and outrageous he insults the intelligence of the general public.
Some will argue the money from the permanent fund belongs to us because it’s our oil and we should receive the benefits from the oil, not state government. I agree. So let’s use some of the fund to rebate taxpayers in the state.
For example, if you pay property taxes, let’s take a portion of the fund to rebate the money you paid in property taxes. After all you earned the money you paid in property taxes and if the government can afford it, it should refund the money you earned.
The problem with the French, Crawford plan is it ignores the value of earning. It promotes wealth redistribution.
When Sarah Palin handed out almost one billion dollars in free cash to Alaskans a couple of years ago I knew then and there she had no concept of the value of earning and the destructive nature of free money. Her fundamental understanding of conservative thought was weak and misguided.
Tax rebate? Yes, all day, anytime, anyplace, anywhere. Free money? Only if it is used to help the truly helpless.
It’s time we end the notion in Alaska there is a free lunch. There isn’t. Or least there shouldn’t be. Every dime you receive, someone at some point earned it. If you didn’t earn it, then someone else did. And that means the money you get that you didn’t earn doesn’t belong to you unless it was given to you directly and voluntarily by the person who earned it.
If the government forcefully took it from someone and gave it to you, it doesn't belong to you.
timesjoke
Active Members
You know hugo, if you had a thought of your own some time it would be nice, you always seem to lean on the words of other people instead of having your own voice, your like a puppet. This guy you call a conservative is actually a socialist who is asking for more 'free money' for his group and to take it away from people he feels are unworthy of their share of the oil sales.
The writer is obviously a mess, first he admits he is also cashing the checks but he wants to "preach" against the checks, if he decided to live the life he is preaching about I would give him some respect, if he is acting like a drug addict and calling drugs 'bad' as he is himself shooting up, I cannot respect that.
Anyway, let's consider the main point the writer is trying to make but runs all around that point like he is scared to actually say the words:
The people of Alaska do not own the oil
This must be his point, he keeps calling the payments "free money", that the people are getting money they do not deserve.
So who owns the oil?
At the same time the writer is saying the people of Alaska do not own the oil and should not get 'free money', the guy says people who pay taxes deserve 'free money'.
'Free money' is 'free money'. You either earned that specific dollar or you did not. The writer simply wants to change "who" gets the 'free money', not end the practice of giving away money not earned.
Either the oil belongs to the people of Alaska or it does not.
Either everyone benefits from the "sale" of the oil or they don't. I see no reason to take away ownership of the oil from 'some' people, and give their share of the oil to 'other' people who the writer feels is more deserving of 'free money' than someone else.
The writer is obviously a mess, first he admits he is also cashing the checks but he wants to "preach" against the checks, if he decided to live the life he is preaching about I would give him some respect, if he is acting like a drug addict and calling drugs 'bad' as he is himself shooting up, I cannot respect that.
Anyway, let's consider the main point the writer is trying to make but runs all around that point like he is scared to actually say the words:
The people of Alaska do not own the oil
This must be his point, he keeps calling the payments "free money", that the people are getting money they do not deserve.
So who owns the oil?
At the same time the writer is saying the people of Alaska do not own the oil and should not get 'free money', the guy says people who pay taxes deserve 'free money'.
'Free money' is 'free money'. You either earned that specific dollar or you did not. The writer simply wants to change "who" gets the 'free money', not end the practice of giving away money not earned.
Either the oil belongs to the people of Alaska or it does not.
Either everyone benefits from the "sale" of the oil or they don't. I see no reason to take away ownership of the oil from 'some' people, and give their share of the oil to 'other' people who the writer feels is more deserving of 'free money' than someone else.
ImWithStupid
New member
I'm still trying to figure out why Hugo cares what the people of Alaska do with issues that apply to Alaska.
I may be wrong, but I don't think he lives there.
I may be wrong, but I don't think he lives there.
hugo
New member
They can do what they want. I just don't want their Marxism to spread in case their former Governor seeks higher office.
Some idiot cannot figure out that when government gives back some of the money stolen from you it is not free money. I think the same idiot who believes in creationism and that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.
Forgot to add: Y'all a bunch of socialist Obama voters.
Now let us actually read what the author's main point was (I use quotes a lot because it saves time, it ain't like y'all can comprehend the written word anyways, I am not a salesman ,or a government employee, working for a living takes time.):
If you are not a socialist you favor lowering taxes for those who pay them. Not giving everyone a check whether they pay taxes or not. Of course, ya socialist Obama voters would fail to understand this.
timesjoke
Active Members
And yet you can't find even one example of a socialist move by Palin, you hide behind the false assumption that the oil is not the property of every Alaskan. It is not socialist to sell what you own.
Again, who owns the oil hugo, why is it your so scared of answering a direct question?
As far as co2 and such, even your own artical said there is a diminishing rate of return for co2 as a 'greenhouse gas', if you lack the ability to understand such basic scientific concepts, what else can I say?
It was you independents who voted for Obama, not me, everyone here who did not vote for Obama agrees the oil belongs to the people of Alaska and their payments from the sale of that oil is reasonable, you not being able to tell the difference between welfare and a sale of owned goods means you most likely cannot understand the real issues of the day, or even what a conservative really is.
And that same writer wants 'free money' taken from oil companies to be diverted into his pocket. If you think this guy is a conservative, then that explains why you independents voted for Obama.
The author is not asking for money back from what he sent in, he is asking the funds to "replace' what he would otherwise have to pay. That is him taking money he did not earn, welfare. What is the difference between taking money from the oil companies and giving it to every Alaskan resident equally or instead giving the same money only to "select few" Alaskan residents based on their wealth?
Who owns the oil hugo?
Someone will always benefit, what you and this writer seem to be saying is only those residents of Alaska who pay very high taxes should have the right to own/sell property.
I go back to the same question you cannot answer.....who owns the oil that is being sold hugo? Don't be scared, answer the question.
hugo
New member
He avoided the author's point again folks. The state owns the oil. They are using it for welfare checks instead of tax rebates. Pure socialism. We got two main socialist parties. I don't belong to either one of them. It is people who love socialism, as long as Republicans are pushing it who have got us in the mess we are today. Now y'all wish to elect GW in a skirt so she send out more money for people wh don't work. Y'all a bunch of socialists. (sorry, I go to the site RO went to when I want to debate issues without childish name-calling).
Of course, if ya ain't a socialist you would have problems with the state owning so much land in the first place. I ain't got time to explain the concept that resources tend to be better used when owned in private. It is a capitalist viewpoint socialists would not understand.
Of course, if ya ain't a socialist you would have problems with the state owning so much land in the first place. I ain't got time to explain the concept that resources tend to be better used when owned in private. It is a capitalist viewpoint socialists would not understand.
timesjoke
Active Members
I did not miss the authors point, his point is to take the resources from everyone and only let the few most wealthy members of society get paid from the sale of those resources.
Fine except you miss one very important point, that is not legal under the Alaskan constitution.
All Alaskan people equally own the oil resources and the money they receive is from "SELLING" what they own.
You may not like that fact, but there is the reason individual States were supposed to retain their own control and not have an 'all powerful' Government dictate down to the States what they can or cannot do.
RO ran off because he was completely embarrassed and ashamed of being guilty of what he tried to accuse me of. RO was a pretty smart guy, but like you, he was incapable of looking past assumptions.
You believe the people of Alaska should not be able to own the oil and as such, benefit from it's sale, so when Sarah Palin enforces that right (that already existed before she took office) somehow that makes "her" a socialist in your eyes. But you independents voted for Obama and that act does not in your eyes make you socialists.
Double standards?
Yep.
Look at Sarah's record, give some actual examples of her not supporting conservative values and limited Government other than this one thing your stuck on that is not welfare.........if you can.
Fine except you miss one very important point, that is not legal under the Alaskan constitution.
All Alaskan people equally own the oil resources and the money they receive is from "SELLING" what they own.
You may not like that fact, but there is the reason individual States were supposed to retain their own control and not have an 'all powerful' Government dictate down to the States what they can or cannot do.
RO ran off because he was completely embarrassed and ashamed of being guilty of what he tried to accuse me of. RO was a pretty smart guy, but like you, he was incapable of looking past assumptions.
You believe the people of Alaska should not be able to own the oil and as such, benefit from it's sale, so when Sarah Palin enforces that right (that already existed before she took office) somehow that makes "her" a socialist in your eyes. But you independents voted for Obama and that act does not in your eyes make you socialists.
Double standards?
Yep.
Look at Sarah's record, give some actual examples of her not supporting conservative values and limited Government other than this one thing your stuck on that is not welfare.........if you can.
hugo
New member
Err...we have debated about her taxing corporations to give every Alaskan a welfare check. That ain't conservative. A true conservative would start selling all them state owned lands.
Two people form a government. One pays a $1000 a year in taxes, the other $5000 a year. At the end of the year there is a $3000 surplus to be split between them. What do you do? A) The proportional method, give both 50% of what they paid back. The guy who paid $5000 gets $2500 the guy who paid a $1000 gets $500. B) The pure capitalist method; give the guy who paid $5000 all $3000 C) The Permanent fund commie method, give them both $1500.
Y'all, and Sarah, prefer the commie method. I don't call that conservative.
What is your answer A, B or C?
He won't answer.
Two people form a government. One pays a $1000 a year in taxes, the other $5000 a year. At the end of the year there is a $3000 surplus to be split between them. What do you do? A) The proportional method, give both 50% of what they paid back. The guy who paid $5000 gets $2500 the guy who paid a $1000 gets $500. B) The pure capitalist method; give the guy who paid $5000 all $3000 C) The Permanent fund commie method, give them both $1500.
Y'all, and Sarah, prefer the commie method. I don't call that conservative.
What is your answer A, B or C?
He won't answer.