Would have been $2052 normally.

Still $1022 more than a resident of any other state gets.

Look at the taxes I don't have to pay on it.

And the lawsuits to stop the math start in 3.... 2.... 1.....

And my Canadian wife gets a PFD, while I, a lifelong Alaskan, does not.  Yes, let's reform the eligibility rules.

I'm curious too.

Bottom line is because "I accepted employment out of the state." That is a categorical eligibility requirement.  I go to work, she stays home.  Never mind I commuted back home from Canada for 4 years.  Never mind I have no other financial attachments outside of the state other than mutual funds and a paycheck.  Never mind our home is in Alaska, and we want to stay at that house until we get gurneyed out.  I don't even pay rent anywhere else.  I spent more time at home with my job in Canada than in Alaska.  Never mind there is no work in the state for me once I have gone too far down this career path.

I've argued all this with the PFD folks.  The eligibility rules fit on one page.

I feel your pain.  I lived and worked in AK since 1975.  Retired in Jan. this year and moved to TN.  Filled out our applications in Jan and told them we would not be living in AK any longer.  Denied both of us.  We appealed but got denied again.  Rules is rules I guess.

I didn't get to apply because I was literally in OSUT the entire window to apply. Wife will get hers though

I'm interested to hear the response to this as well.

for those who don't "Speakie - Alaska-nese"...   PFD = ?

Obviously some Free Money of some sort from the State but what and why?

BIGGER_HAMMER

Permanent Fund Dividend.  My simple understanding of it...since Alaska decided to "exploit" its natural resources, they decided to give some back to the residents.  So the revenues generated from oil are put into a fund, it generates returns, dividends from that are given to residents (assuming you qualify).
For example, to initially qualify, you have to be here for a full calendar year (Jan 1 - Dec 31).  I moved here May 2016, so I won't be eligible until 2018, since my first full calendar year will be 2017.  There are other qualifications too:

• I was a resident of Alaska during all of calendar year 2015;



• On the date I apply for the 2016 Permanent Fund Dividend, I have the intent to remain an Alaska resident indefinitely;



• I have not claimed residency in any other state or country or
  obtained a benefit       as a result of a claim of residency in
  another state or country at any time       since December 31, 2014;



• I was not:
  
  
  
  
  
  
  • Sentenced as a result of a felony conviction during 2015;
  
  
  
  • Incarcerated at any time during 2015 as the result of a felony conviction; or
  
  
  
  • Incarcerated at any time during 2015 as the result of a
    misdemeanor       conviction in Alaska if convicted of a prior
    felony or two or more prior       misdemeanors since January 1,
    1997
  
  
  
  
  



• If absent from Alaska for more than 180 days, I was absent on an allowable absence; and



• I was physically present in Alaska for at least 72 consecutive hours at some time during 2014 or 2015

 

Once people start feeling entitled to free money its hard to break the habit. I would much rather lose the dividend all together and lower the eventual tax rate that is going to pass vs pay more taxes and have free money to off set what I pay in taxes.

I agree, get rid of the PFD and fix the tax rates.  I also would like to see ONLY people who are actively contributing to the state, as in generating income/revenue to the state get "rewarded" with a PFD.. A PFD is NOT a lifejacket in this case. And people need to stop treating it as such.  Just my opinion.



On a side note. My wife got denied this year because her IP address wasn't on the list of accepted in Alaska.  She used her PC on base to do it. She retired from the army here and we have lived here for 13 years. She had to PAY a 25.00 fee to have them investigate it.. Talk about bullshit.



 

I don't need the PFD, although I do appreciate it.  If I thought the government would use it wisely I would say have at it.  However past performance shows that they won't and they will waste it and then want more.  Doesn't matter which party or who is in office they are all the same.

Absolutely agree. If I knew some good was going to come of it please let's just get rid of it outright, but no matter who's in office money is wasted on BS. Has it been declared what its going to be used? Probably some stupid project like the Muldoon overpass on the Glenn highway rebuild. I mean was that a serious issue?

State is going broke; get rid of the PFD payments and set the fund up a protected source of revenue for the state.  Make it so they can't get at the principal and can only draw on the interest earned.  

Otherwise, get used to paying taxes at the same time as watching PFD checks go out to people who (a) don't pay taxes and/or (b) don't live/work exclusively in Alaska but maintain Alaska residency.

Do you pay state taxes?

Yes. As much as any other state resident / home owner. I do not collect a PFD.

It's quite simple - cut spending or increase revenue. The people have elected representatives who will not cut spending. Either pipe in the PFD as a source of revenue or open up your check book and get ready to start paying state income tax.

State IS going broke. But I may be a pessimist on this topic.

While we have some savings, it will be two or maybe three years of spending our savings and then the state will have three or four billion dollars a year to pull out of our collective asses.

Let's figure $3,000,000,000 divided by 700,000 people.

Do you have $4300 a year that you would like to give to the state? I don't. Plus, it won't be that, because any tax will be 'progressive' which really means that half the wage earners will pay nothing (or nearly so), and children (included in the 700,000) don't generally pay taxes. So let's say $12,000 per actual state income tax payer; do you have THAT? Think about that for a minute.




Go ahead, pull it out of your ...... bank account.

My prediction is that it will be more like $16,000/year. But I may be a pessimist on this topic.

Now let's add that Walker wants to implement great ideas like the rocket-surgeon brilliance of selling pension bonds (after the legislature created the pension problem years ago by reducing payments into the pension system). They want to bet that the state pension investors can beat the market. These are the same investors that said they didn't need additional pension payments, because they ..... wait for it ..... knew how to beat the market.

And we all remember that Walker has NOT paid tax credits for what it is, three years now?, that the state is legally obligated to pay. But that's only a one-time payment of a billion or so. Chump change.

Finally, Walker wants to 'invest' in a state-owned gas pipeline to enable coerce the producers to produce, transport and sell gas at rates that will cause the state to default on the pipeline financing and require most or all of the Permanent Fund principal to repay the defaulted financing.

Walker, Croft, and what's his name were right back years ago when they said that the majors had no intention of producing Alaska gas, but they didn't know that it was because so much gas was coming online so cheaply that Alaska gas would never be profitable. Unless something like protracted war or massive global instability happens upon the scene and changes the worldwide gas market, if Walker's gas pipeline gets built it will likely cost us the Permanent Fund.

Exxon and EVERY other major producer is unwilling to gamble THEIR money on a gas pipeline, so why is Walker EAGER to bet OUR money on that same pipeline?  I would dearly love to have a gas pipeline and have the state make scads of money off gas, but I am unwilling to bet our $50,000,000,000 on that possibility. But I may be a pessimist on this topic.

Alaskas, I agree mostly, but in a more pessimistic way.

You are looking at this from a static veiwpoint, but the loss of the PFD and instituting income taxes will have a cascading effect on job losses and population losses.  Across the board, incomes will drop due to the lack of a PFD and addtional taxes, and losses among high wage groups like oil feild services and government employees.

The costs to the productive tax base of an ever shrinking tax base will further drive down population and incomes through taxation or loss of services.  

Meanwhile, the legislature's hands are somewhat tied due to statutory spending, dedicated income streams that must be spent on certain programs like the ever popular "educatoin," and federal government mandates.  How much could realistically be cut from our budget without a tax eater's revolt or a state/federal judge reinstating the spending on some flimsy pretext?  Before you say judicial overreach, we crossed that bridge a long time ago with bussing and many things like Obamacare.

I'm tired of saying it, but the state is on a long economic decline.  We missed the boat to fix things 10 years ago.  It is baked into the numbers, and there is not much anyone can do about it.  The only thing those who really know differ on, like industry forecasters, and talk about it, is how fast our economy (and standard of living) will decline.

That is good to know, I'll make sure to put in my application from home next year. Work is all routed through Houston IP addresses.


As for the budget and taxes, an income tax is probably the best idea.

While alaskas is a bit  pessimistic and Elwood_Blues is optimistic, I'm more in the middle.

A state income tax won't cause a mass exodus of oilfield workers from Alaska. Why? b/c a large percentage of them are commuters, and are already paying a state income tax on their earnings anyway. (Yes I know Texas doesn't either, but less Texans is never a problem ) Most won't mind if Alaska takes their cut, before their home state takes their cut b/c their take home pay will stay the same.

Additionally, every state politician that I meet or write too, I very strongly let them know that I will not be voting to re-elect any incumbent as they are the problem. They haven't done any meaningful spending cuts, while private business has b/c that's what is needed to stay in business.

I am pessimistic because the Legislature has proven they have neither the brains nor the backbone to fix the problem.

I am more pessimistic because we Alaskans have all sucked off the free shit shit teat for decades, and are unwilling to listen, do simple math, and give up free shit.

We never understood how bad the economy was in the Lower 48 starting in 2008-9, but now that oil is in the toilet we will learn just how bad it was (and worse, as declining production means we are doubly under water).

The legislature made all this worse by giving tax credits for stupid shit, when the only thing that should get credits is new oil in the pipeline. That is where Alaska makes money: oil in the pipeline. Not gas, not exploration, but oil in the pipeline. Issue permits, encourage exploration, reward new production. Enforce rational environmental standards, and bypass the Feds whenever we can. If our illustrious Congressional delegation wants to show they can get anything done (no, I don't think Lisa or Dan have done much for Alaska) then they should pass development review and permitting to the State (and remove it from control of people who have stated they want to block development).

But I could be wrong.

The first thing I would prefer is to use the PFD. That way everyone has (or should have) an interest in how the money is spent. Unless the state has a surplus, no PFDs are handed out.

Everyone should have skin in the game so that everyone cares.

I agree although I prefer a sales tax to a income tax since just about half of Alaskans pay federal income tax the rest pay nothing. A sales tax would share the burden to everyone.
Pat

Both are needed and spending has been cut we have felt it on the criminal justice side of the fence. Now its time to raise revenue.
Pat

Yeah your not the only one..
Worked In North Dakota a bit.. No other house, Property. Been a Resident for 32years.
DENIED.
NOT TODAY. !

Sales tax drives purchases online, and disproportionally raises small local businesses costs. Managing a sales tax raises the cost of starting s new business, raises the costs of running a business, and raises the accounting and auditing costs of small local businesses.

I'm not sure why everyone seems to think that just because someone doesn't pay federal income tax that they can't pay state income tax. Is it written into Federal Code that if you don't pay Federal income tax that State income tax then doesn't apply to you? Um, no.

Everyone should have skin in the game. Everyone should pay something. Everyone should care how much money is bring spent, and on what.

I agree, that a sales tax would share the burden to everyone.

My preference for the income tax though, is while only half of Alaskans pay federal income tax, a state income tax would also apply to who take their income out of the state.

This would tax commuting oil field workers, seasonal guides, commercial fishermen, and seasonal tourist workers. 

Also, since I've never received a PFD, I don't think of it and assume it's going away.

True but a sales tax would gain income from tourists. Not sure which would gain more money for the state a sales tax encompassing everyone in the state including visitors or a income tax on what turns out to be essentially only half the state.

If  a person doesn't make enough to pay for Federal income tax they likely wouldn't make enough to have to pay a state income tax, hence no skin in the game.