this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2026
108 points (99.1% liked)
Technology
86331 readers
3241 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
When Big Oil came to fuck Alaska they did this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund it ain't much, but it's better than 0.
That was done by the State of Alaska, not the Federal government.
I imagine that even if something like this was established, I imagine that a huge chunk of each dollar would disappear into the bureaucracy.
Also, given the financial issues, it may not be the cash cow everyone thinks.
As it does in Alaska, though some views of the situation say that that's reducing taxes while simultaneously providing valuable services...
Personally, I don't mind Bernie's plan: annex 51% of the company stock by imminent domain or whatever you want to call it, if it implodes there's no real loss, but if it's profitable then the business wizards of our government can tap the excess wealth to return to the people who provided the training for the models the buisness is based on. UBI is the politically flashy way to return the profits, but reducing taxes can have a similar effect for taxpayers - but my question is: which taxpayers need the breaks?