The makeup of who participates in providing Alaska's government revenue, supporting our public institutions and our way of life hasn't changed in many years.
Quite a while ago I derived an interesting formula by recollecting who organized high school dances and cleaned up afterward. Each time it was essentially the same people.
Using a base 10 to represent all of the West Anchorage High School class, there were three who actively engaged in planning the dance. Four offered some help if they were supervised and encouraged, and three did absolutely nothing.
That formula applied when I attempted to live in a commune-type situation. Again, using a base 10, two or three people paid most of the rent, bought the bulk of the groceries and did most of the housecleaning. About four or five offered a bit of support, but not on a consistent basis. And usually, one or two did absolutely nothing.
The formula held true in community projects. And coming upon a construction project with 10 people onsite, you will generally see about two standing around doing nothing.
In my opinion this formula applies roughly to the state of Alaska's population of 730,000. Using a base 10, there are about four people (which in this state are represented mostly by oil companies who pay the lion's share of the taxes), as well as those who vote and contribute to the state in other ways. It seems like about three contribute to a lesser extent, but on a regular basis. One is incapable of contributing because of mental or physical health issues; and two choose to do absolutely nothing.
Despite all of the hand-wringing and teeth-gnashing over Alaska's $4 billion budget shortfall, it should be evident by now that this state will always be a place where a few carry the load of the many, almost exactly as noted in my formula.
Given our relatively small population, with a significant portion who don't work and will never pay taxes, a proposed 6 percent income tax would be grossly unfair to those who do work. But such a tax is probably inevitable. In my opinion the income tax model works much better in more populous states, such as Oregon, Washington and California.
Because there is no sales tax in Anchorage, steadily rising property taxes are obviously unfair to property owners. A state sales tax would capture much more revenue than a state personal income tax, and spread the burden more broadly -- to at least seven in my base of 10. Some items, such as food, could be indexed to make the tax less burdensome for people in rural Alaska.
But good -- even excellent -- ideas come and go in this space, and nothing ever seems to change. With our small population, distance from the Lower 48 that makes new industry difficult, a nondiversified economy and lack of jobs in rural Alaska, the formula I described will continue for the foreseeable future -- and get even worse when the oil runs out.
Of my 70-plus years in Alaska, I worked more than 50 and have always considered it a privilege to live here. I will try to remain in the 49th state as my taxes rise and the overall cost of living goes up. But still, I would hope that we can eventually get more people employed, spread the burden more fairly and get more people involved in the dance.
Frank E. Baker is a freelance writer and columnist for the Alaska Star, a Morris Communications, Inc. newspaper.
The views expressed here are the writer's own and are not necessarily endorsed by Alaska Dispatch News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary@alaskadispatch.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@alaskadispatch.com or click here to submit via any web browser.