... taking more from 80% of #AKfams than the first approach.
As a measure of regressivity, at current deficit levels, the second approach (POMV 50/50) takes 3x more from the Low20% than the Top1%; the third approach (POMV 25/75) takes 24x more, and the fourth approach takes 36x more.
6/end
* Abandoning a rules-based PFD and using the "leftover" PFD approach (which reduces the PFD over the period to 27% of the POMV draw).
As the charts demonstrate, the first approach spreads the burden proportionately among all #AKfams. The second, third & fourth are increasingly regressive ...
5/6
... taking more from 80% of #AKfams than the first approach.
As a measure of regressivity, at current deficit levels, the second approach (POMV 50/50) takes 4x more from the Low20% than the Top1%; the third approach (POMV 25/75) takes 24x more, and the fourth approach takes 36x more.
6/end
* Abandoning a rules-based PFD and using the "leftover" PFD approach (which reduces the PFD over the period to 30% of the POMV draw).
As the charts demonstrate, the first approach spreads the burden proportionately among all #AKfams. The second, third & fourth are increasingly regressive ...
5/6
The same is true in Alaska as well. And, in Alaska, the #akleg has made it even worse over the past decade, by largely taxing only MIDDLE & lower-income #AKfams to close the gaps in state budgets.
Claim: Taxes would pay for PFDs.
Fact: Statutory PFDs are fully paid from PF earnings. Cuts to those levels are taxes that FALL HARDEST ON MIDDLE & lower-income #AKfams. Sales/income taxes would replace those with a more balanced approach. #akleg buff.ly/SEz9Rui
... taking more from 80% of #AKfams than the first approach.
As a measure of regressivity, at current deficit levels, the second approach (POMV 50/50) takes 4x more from the Low20% than the Top1%; the third approach (POMV 25/75) takes 24x more, and the fourth approach takes 36x more.
6/end
* Abandoning a rules-based PFD and using the "leftover" PFD approach (which reduces the PFD over the period to 30% of the POMV draw).
As the charts demonstrate, the first approach spreads the burden proportionately among all #AKfams. The second, third & fourth are increasingly regressive ...
5/6
Let's be clear. Those pushing to use PFD cuts to fund govt are advocating to ECONOMICALLY HARM 80% OF #AKFAMS (take more from their pockets than any other revenue option). #akleg #useless
Monthly, we review indices of Alaska income. Overall, growth in personal consumption expenditures since 2017 has outpaced growth in personal income. Using regressive PFD cuts over the period to fund govt has had an even greater adverse impact on middle-income #AKfams. #akleg
... taking more from 80% of #AKfams than the first approach.
As a measure of regressivity, at current deficit levels, the second approach (POMV 50/50) takes 3x more from the Low20% than the Top1%; the third approach (POMV 25/75) takes 24x more, and the fourth approach takes 36x more.
6/end
* Abandoning a rules-based PFD and using the "leftover" PFD approach (which reduces the PFD over the period to 24% of the POMV draw).
As the charts demonstrate, the first approach spreads the burden proportionately among all #AKfams. The second, third & fourth are increasingly regressive ...
5/6
How bad is Alaska fiscal policy? This bad. And generally speaking, no one in the #akleg - not even those who claim to prioritize middle & lower income #AKfams - is doing anything to fix it. buff.ly/7zmQXS9
At the session's outset, the #akleg was presented with a range of options that would SIGNIFICANTLY reduce the fiscal burden on #AKfams, particularly outmigrating middle & lower-income #AKfams. We are STUNNED that neither Fin Comm is pursuing any of them. buff.ly/hQHcRet
... taking more from 80% of #AKfams than the first approach.
As a measure of regressivity, at current deficit levels, the second approach (POMV 50/50) takes 3x more from the Low20% than the Top1%; the third approach (POMV 25/75) takes 22x more, and the fourth approach takes 36x more.
6/end
* Abandoning a rules-based PFD and using the "leftover" PFD approach (which reduces the PFD over the period to 22% of the POMV draw).
As the charts demonstrate, the first approach spreads the burden proportionately among all #AKfams. The second, third & fourth are increasingly regressive ...
5/6
PFD cuts are about one thing only: protecting the Top20%, #NonRez & #OilCos from the costs of #akleg spending.
Rather than spreading the impact broadly, PFD cuts instead focus the burden almost entirely on middle- & lower-income #AKfams. buff.ly/Y8K07jZ
When PFD's are cut, the "free money" doesn't disappear. The benefit just transfers to the bank accounts of #NonRez, #OilCos & upper-income #AKfams.
Who pays for that? Middle- & lower-income #AKfams. #akleg
buff.ly/Y8K07jZ
... taking more from 80% of #AKfams than the first approach.
As a measure of regressivity, at current deficit levels, the second approach (POMV 50/50) takes 2x more from the Low20% than the Top1%; the third approach (POMV 25/75) takes 14x more, and the fourth approach takes 36x more.
6/end
* Abandoning a rules-based PFD and using the "leftover" PFD approach (which reduces the PFD over the period to 17% of the POMV draw).
As the charts demonstrate, the first approach spreads the burden proportionately among all #AKfams. The second, third & fourth are increasingly regressive ...
5/6
Some argue that the #akleg should divert money designated for PFD distributions to other "important" uses. If those uses are important, then ALL #AKfams & #NonRez should contribute, rather than taking the money almost entirely from middle- & lower-income #AKfams through PFD cuts.
... taking more from 80% of #AKfams than the first approach.
As a measure of regressivity, at current deficit levels, the second approach (POMV 50/50) takes 2x more from the Low20% than the Top1%; the third approach (POMV 25/75) takes 14x more, and the fourth approach takes 36x more.
6/end
* Abandoning a rules-based PFD and using the "leftover" PFD approach (which reduces the PFD over the period to 17% of the POMV draw).
As the charts demonstrate, the first approach spreads the burden proportionately among all #AKfams. The second, third & fourth are increasingly regressive ...
5/6
ALL of the #akleg POMV draw is "free money." The PFD largely benefits middle & lower-income #AKfams; the portion used to fund govt (substitute for taxes) largely benefits #NonRez, #OilCos & #UpperIncome. PFDcuts simply shift more "free money" to the latter.
This Wk's Top 3 P'cast| HFIN badly fails #AKfams, why their reaction to the Gov's fiscal plan proves even 'progressives' don't care about #AKfams & what the new data on non-residents in the work force says about the #AKleg. buff.ly/JUlf8Yn
This Wk's Top 3 P'cast| HFIN badly fails #AKfams, why their reaction to the Gov's fiscal plan proves even 'progressives' don't care about #AKfams & what the new data on non-residents in the work force says about the #AKleg. buff.ly/JUlf8Yn
... taking more from 80% of #AKfams than the first approach.
As a measure of regressivity, at current deficit levels, the second approach (POMV 50/50) takes 2x more from the Low20% than the Top1%; the third approach (POMV 25/75) takes 13x more, and the fourth approach takes 36x more.
6/end
* Abandoning a rules-based PFD and using the "leftover" PFD approach (which reduces the PFD over the period to 16% of the POMV draw).
As the charts demonstrate, the first approach spreads the burden proportionately among all #AKfams. The second, third & fourth are increasingly regressive ...
5/6
