The Internal Revenue Service reminds Alaska residents that the permanent fund dividend most will see Oct. 4 in their bank accounts is subject to federal tax.
The Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend must be reported on federal income tax returns. However, many child dependents will not have to file.
As long as a child’s total 2012 income, including permanent fund dividend and Native corporations dividends, stays below $1,900 they will avoid an IRS “kiddie tax,” according to a Sept. 21 IRS release.
“Dependent children whose only income is the 2012 PFD will not be required to file a tax return this year,” according to the release.
The IRS recommends Alaskans set aside a portion of the permanent fund dividend to cover federal taxes. Taxpayers can also make an estimated payment in advance.
For more information visit www.irs.gov and search using key words in quotes "Around the Nation Alaska" or call (800) 829-1040.
• Contact reporter Russell Stigall at 523-2276 or at russell.stigall@juneauempire.com.
Comments (23)
Add commentThe govt giveth and the govt
The govt giveth and the govt taketh away...
I'm glad I live in a State where
we even get a dividend. I don't mind paying my share of taxes, what I don't like is having money taken out of my dividend so that people on welfare don't have to give up their dividend! My taxes support these people all year 'round and then part of my dividend goes to them so they get to keep their welfare money. When people collect welfare, they should turn over their dividends back to the State to help continue supporting them.
Dutchlady...
you obviously do mind paying taxes; why don't you just imagine that every tax dollar that you pay goes to one of the services that YOU need. maybe you would be happier?
@ dutchlady
I am with you. We have our tax dollars taken only to redistribute them to free loaders.
With that said I do realize there are people that truly do need some help and I am okay with that. But everyday we see able bodied and capable people free loading. As I know I am going to get hammered for not providing examples I will do so in advance of the liberal barrage a coming.
Public housing tenants seem to smoke and drink a lot.
These same people seem to have the latest cell phones with what seems like unlimited communication packages.
Big screen TVs and home all day for many is the norm.
Those free loaders are not poor. What most of them are is lazy. They appear well feed and show little motivation to do for themselves what others can do for them.
Heading for cover; incoming...
AKjustice
You must be psychic to have this insight into the private lives of so many millions of people across the country. Why aren't you working for the police? You could solve essentially every crime.
You must be rich, though--your kind of telepathy and clairvoyance must surely benefit your business sense! And if you're rich, you must surely pay your fair share. After all, you wouldn't whine about paying for benefits for the less fortunate when you, yourself, do not pay for all the benefits YOU receive, would you?
PFD and IRS
The PFD is very inefficient from an economic standpoint in that the IRS is by far the largest recipient, and there is no evidence whatsoever that federal money coming back to Alaska is in any way dependent upon the PFD going to DC. As a matter of fact, the hold-harmless payments made by the Permanent Fund over and above the PFD received by the majority of Alaskans actually saves the federal government money in that indigents receive that additional Permanent Fund allocation who would otherwise have to receive more federal transfer dollars. The federal government is the largest winner in the PFD game. I wonder if Obama knows that?
@ persnik For your
@ persnik
For your edification:
I am in business,
Likely pay more in taxes than you make in a year,
Personally have witnessed what I said in my earlier post,
You don't need to be telepathic to recognize waste; just observant,
I am not rich but I would love to be,
Mind sets like yours are a drain on the productive,
And finally, feel privileged, I rarely respond to lefties.
In coming; running for cover...
akjustice
What percentage of your tax contributions do you figure gets redistributed to "freeloaders" who pay no income taxes? Just curious.
As far a paying taxes, I think that since it's a 'dividend', I should only pay 15% on it like Mitt Romney pays on his dividends (actually considerably less, based on the tiny snippets of returns he's revealed). Instead, I have to pay the income tax rate.
Keep this in mind...
Just remember, AKjustice, you aren't responsible for any success you might have; our government is!
We're all freeloaders as far as the gov't is concerned. Well, except for large political contributors and other "influencers", of course.
@AKjustice: so you're telling
@AKjustice: so you're telling me that you're not psychic? You just randomly visit low-income housing projects and stalk the individuals who live there to better understand their living and spending habits? You must not require sleep, then. Are you a cyborg? That would explain how you're able to keep tabs on so many people while running a business. After all, I'm sure you wouldn't base your opinion of millions of people on momentary interactions with a small number of people who you already have a biased perception of. That would be irresponsible, and since you seem to advocate for personal responsibility so much, you'd be a hypocrite extraordinaire if you did this.
(and as an aside, if you pay more in taxes than I make in a year, you are, indeed, rich, so stop pretending to be a victim)
Who let PP out again? It had
Who let PP out again? It had been quiet lately. Don't you guys know that it's not safe for him to be out without supervision? Put him back in the cage and give him his meds. Remember, its for his own good!
The article is misleading
The third paragraph, in my opinion, gives the reader the impression if a child's 2012 income is below $1900 they will owe no tax. This is incorrect. They will just owe no "kiddie tax," which is the additional tax due at the parents tax rate if the child's investment income is over $1900.
Since the 2012 PFD is below $950, if all a child has for income is the PFD, they indeed will not have to file a tax return for 2012. However, if they have more than $72 of other investment income (interest, dividends, etc) they WILL owe regular tax and will have to file a 1040 or the parents will have to file Form 8814 to report the child's income.
Rove is right
The Empire needs to consider printing a correction. A reader could well understand that a child's PFD is not taxable when in fact all income is taxable.
One time the Democrats considered requiring that people who grow vegetables for personal consumption declare and pay a tax on the value of those vegetables but there was too little support in Congress. It's that mentality that leads to Democrats calling a tax reduction an expenditure. In truth, some of the Republicans that Alaskans send to Congress drink that same brew.
Right thinking
glacierdog and karl_rove are on track.
Thanks for the heads up kpawsuh, had no idea Persnip was on meds; just can't talk to people that are on drugs.
@gdogs...
You are a liar.
"The bill has its flaws, to be sure, but one of the most egregious claims is simply not true. This claim warns that your backyard vegetable garden will be regulated by the FDA."
From a Tea Party web site... http://charlestonteaparty.org/is-congress-about-to-outlaw-your-vegetable...
dam freeloaders
sticking their grubby paws in my wallet and pulling out pennies. I can't afford to spend pennies on these people. I need the pennies to fill my piggy bank and shake it every night before bed to help relax the nerves...
bus them to the desert
internal exile! make them wear stripes, shave their heads, give them "$" signs to wear so their freeloading crimes are apparent to everyone...
wait a minute, are we talking about the louts or the rich? I forget; nevermind.
Playerhater38, listen.
I said I don't mind paying taxes, but I'm tired of paying for free loaders. Yes, everyone needs help now and then and I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with are generations of welfare families. They've learned how to fill out the paperwork, hide their money and play the game and are playing it very well and they have passed this skill onto their children. We hit hard times too; my husband and I took turns eating lunch and dinner so that our kids never went hungry. Times were very difficult, but we took care of our own and we got through it. Our kids have a deep appreciation for everything they work for. Welfare is for those who need a hand up, it shouldn't be a hand out for life.
@ dutchlady
Well said dutchlady!
We live in the greatest nation on Earth. We have the best in our country. We are an exceptional people and the proof is in the fact that millions try to get here every year to work at the American dream.
Our poor in this country are rich by many other countries standards. We are not going to help them to become prosperous or successful by feeding them and allowing them to be warehoused in government subsidized tenements and not requiring them to have some skin in the game. what I mean by this is that they too must become self sufficient. That come with sacrifice, planning and lots of effort.
The lefties think that by continuing to pay for more babies born out of wedlock and extending the never ending benefits that we are helping the poor when, as dutchlady has pointed out we are just creating a cycle of dependency with generation after generation on the dole.
I see grandmother, daughter and granddaughter, all adults living in public housing. All have learned not to make too much so they qualify for all the benefits.
Gotta run for cover... Incoming...
and again, akj
What portion of your income taxes do you figure goes to the poor? A rough percentage will do.
So now the percentage/amount is the focus and not the principle?
It's not he percentage that is important Lat and you know that. Your attempt to mud drag and cloud the issue failed.
It is the principle that shall rise above and be upheld up by our exceptional-ism.
Your question reminds me of a sordid joke about a fellow that asked a woman if see would sleep with him for a million dollars. She said, "yes." He then asked her if she would sleep with him for half a million. Again she said, "yes." He next asked her if she would sleep with him for just $100. Her response was "no, what do you think I am?" His response was, "Well, we have established that, now we are just haggling over the price."
You seem to fail to grasp the concept of what you earn is yours. Yes all of it. However, we are a Republic, a Nation of laws, and so, as a result, we have taxes to pay. That's the law!
But never forget, we also have a 1st amendment right to our opinions. And it is my opinion that too many free loaders are on the government tit. We tax payers are sick and tired of it and we are going to see that it ends.
I am all for taking care of handy cap, disabled, and even providing a safety net of sorts. But when it come to people that are able bodied, have money for alcohol, cigarettes, drugs, new phones, big screen TVs and they live in public housing and hang around all day long, that's where I draw the line.
I really find it hard to believe you don't feel the same way. You seem intelligent, you do articulate well. How is it you have no compassion for these free loaders. Caging them into a life of entitlements is just another form of slavery. Would it not be better for all that these free loaders become producers instead of just users?
While you ponder the question know this. There are just 4 positions in an economy:
1) People that produce more than they use
2) People that produce what they use
3) People that produce less than they use
4) People that produce nothing
(A. Ralph Epperson, The Unseen Hand)
A very good read
Nice rant
But you didn't answer the question.
Mind you, I'm not disagreeing. I dislike intentional freeloaders every bit as much as you and Dutchlady do. Not defending them in the slightest.
However, I'm more worried about how many taxes I pay than I am about what poor people do with their lives. And the reality is that by far the largest percentage of our income taxes goes to the military.
Tell you what. Let's agree to cut both welfare and defense spending by 50%. That should make both of us happy. And both of us a little bit wealthier. And we'll still be spending more than double on defense than the next closest country. Deal?
Lat, I'll see your 50%
Lat, I'll see your 50% welfare cut and 50% defense cut and raise you,(or would it be cut you?) another 50% defense cut. Then we'll be happy...