Dispute over Legislature's Anchorage offices could end in court

Actually, according to profit reports at the end of 2015, Exxon Mobil and Chevron were #2 and #5 respectively in the top 5 most profitable corporations in the world.

In June of this year, Exxon Mobil was the #9 most profitable corporation of all Fortune 500 corporations.

So, his point isn't completely right, but it's hardly able to be dismissed as wrong.

Should have said among the most profitable, then. I'm sure you enjoy tour smart phone made by $2.00/hr non-american, non-tax paying labor. Same with most of the clothes you wear. Yet those corporations bring in their products, tariff free, and we can afford them. Not saying we should have tariffs, just that it's a little more complicated than that and government subsidies come in many forms.

What about colleges that put gender studies people into lifetime debt because government subsidized loans drive up the price of tuition.

I often see people on these posts that are all for the state investing in the gasline or taking over oil production, outright, and keeping all of the profit. How is that any different than giving tax credits as a defacto "partner'' and making many times that amount back in royalties and other taxes.

The current tax structure has encouraged exploration and production. Maximum benefit of the people does not necessarily mean maximum money for the state to dole out.

That's "your" smartphone. Not a typist.

.

Actually, you're both only looking at figures for one year.

...when you look past any one year's total, and take a longer perspective,

….yes, they are.

Over reasonably longer periods of time, they are the most profitable corporations in the world.

.

…and you're right, a bumper sticker wouldn't hurt to remind people that the most profitable corporations in the world shouldn't be receiving welfare payments paid with public monies.

.

I was not aware that Apple had attempted to open a factory here in Alaska, nor Levis, nor Hanes. As their base here is minimal to non-existant, these corporations don't factor into the state budget.

The focus of this was discussing the effect on the state budget. Therefore, we need to look only at companies that do business with the state, or have looked at doing direct business with the state. In this case JPZ is correct in that we as a state give away a massive amount of potential revenue to oil companies under the false notion that exploration would stop if we didn't. Oil companies need oil to function, we have the oil, and they will continue to seek it where they can, no matter how tough it might be.

You guys are the ones that keep bringing up the worldwide profits into the conversation. When oil was over $100.00/ barrel, the oil companies did, in fact, go elsewhere for their oil. Alaska was about the only place where new development was flat and production was falling.

I think we're referencing two different points, but your answer clarifies why we're off.

Corporations that are shockingly profitable (like Exxon and Chevron) on a global scale, should not be financed on the backs of taxpayers to sustain their massive production operations here in Alaska. We are directly a major contributor to their profits via the extraction of our oil. The argument is they're making money on us at least twice: we pay them to extract it, and they get paid when they sell it (sometimes 3 times when they sell it back to Alaskans as gasoline or heating oil).

This contrasts with Apple, Levis, etc mentioned because they aren't receiving subsidies from the state government to conduct their operations here. They operate like other for-profits in that they sell their products. If Apple opened a factory in Alaska, I would protest state government giving them unreasonably high tax breaks just like with the oil companies.

True Enough. I know they (PA) spent a lot of money to upgrade the property but that is adding to their base value. So did the State obligate itself for tenant improvements of $37 million? No obviously something much less. It was a spiral out of control. The gamble did not pay off. PA wants $32 million. I know that half of that is bullshit.

No Foster, Pfeffer & Co. went into the deal with the firm assurance of Representative Hawker that everything was okay dokey.

When will Mike Hawker be indicted over this?

And a legislator's word is worth what?

Hawker first, but not only Hawker. There were several others on the "committee" that signed off on the scam. They all need to be held personally accountable and then banned forever from holding any elected office.

"Except in this instance, the State is technically bankrupt, at least until the legislature finds a way to tap the principal of the PF to pay our bills."

my2cents,

This argument might be valid if there were other contracts or leases or bond issues that were defaulted under the "subject to appropriation" clause. As a casual observer it appears to me that the decision was based on dissatisfaction with the lease deal, not a lack of funding.

Ya, it will also make it necessary for those offering up $10 million building to not charge $30 million. That clause worked as intended. The people got word of the scam and protested loud enough for it to fall through. The only thing missing to date, are the indictments. And I am guessing those too would alter the negotiations on future contracts with the state. That is, in the unlikely event some should be handed down.

.

Uh, Don

Dissatisfaction? Is dissatisfaction a synonym for 'being found to be illegally entered intol'?

I think that you're correct about their motivation, but I believe that circumstances forced their hand. Were there no drop in oil prices, all of this could have stayed a non-controversy. Suddenly Alaska's financial health became an issue to almost everyone. Oops!

The problem is the only alternative is Democrats so realistically, there is not alternative.

Republicans have been bad as state officials and they're bad for the White House and congress.