What's New

Fiscal Policy: The Tax Policies On The Table

The Hidden Cost of Alaska’s Oil Tax Dependence: Fiscal Volatility Threatens Economic Growth

Research shows petroleum taxation creates economic instability that stifles business investment, even as direct impacts appear minimal. 

ANCHORAGE (2/12/26) — Alaska policymakers have long grappled with a deceptively simple question: How should the state raise revenue to close its persistent budget deficit? New research from the Institute of Social and Economic Research suggests the answer is far more complex than the raw numbers suggest, particularly when it comes to taxing the state’s cornerstone petroleum industry.

WATCH THE PRESENTATION or Download PDF of Slides

While petroleum taxes may appear to offer minimal direct economic impact compared to other revenue options, the study reveals a troubling paradox: oil-based revenue creates dangerous fiscal uncertainty that undermines business confidence and economic growth. In 2014/2025, when oil prices collapsed, Alaska experienced fiscal uncertainty in 2016 equivalent to the 95th percentile nationally — translating to an estimated 2 to 3 percent decline in real GDP growth solely due to revenue volatility.

The Volatility Problem

The research, presented in January 2026 as an update to a landmark 2016 ISER study, examined 11 different fiscal policy options, from income and sales taxes to state workforce reductions and petroleum production taxes. Each option was scaled to reduce Alaska’s deficit by $100 million, allowing for direct comparison of their economic effects.

On the surface, petroleum taxes appear the most benign. The study found that a $100 million increase in oil taxation would result in approximately 44 job losses in the short term and about 40 in the long term — figures comparable to other revenue-raising options. Personal income would decline by roughly $7 million per $100 million raised, with economic output contracting by $46 million over five years.

But these static impacts mask a larger problem: fiscal unpredictability. Brett Watson, the study’s lead researcher, emphasized during the presentation that Alaska’s heavy reliance on petroleum revenue creates an unstable business climate that deters the very investments needed for economic growth.

“Across all states, the relationship suggests that a one standard deviation increase in uncertainty leads to a 1.8 percent decline in real GDP growth,” the research found.

National data underscore just how hazardous Alaska’s revenue mix is by comparison. Data compiled by the Pew Charitable Trusts tracking year-over-year percent changes in major tax revenue sources across all 50 states over the 15-year period ending in fiscal year 2022 illustrates the dramatic differences in stability between revenue types. Severance taxes — the category that dominates Alaska’s general fund — are by far the most volatile, swinging wildly through both expansions and downturns. Corporate income taxes are the second most volatile, though with a somewhat narrower bandwidth. Personal income taxes fall in the middle, while sales taxes emerge as the most stable of the major revenue sources. 

Watson described the pattern plainly during the presentation: “States that have severance taxes tend to see the most volatility in that revenue. States that have corporate income taxes see somewhat less volatility, but there’s volatility in that corporate income tax. Property taxes tend to be the least volatile… while sales taxes are the most stable of these different sources of revenue.” Excluding Permanent Fund earnings, Alaska’s revenue is the most volatile in the country — and, Watson noted, “it’s not even close.” The next most volatile state is North Dakota, which also finances a substantial share of its budget through severance taxes.

“Uncertainty in Alaska’s fiscal environment could be tangibly costly for the economy,” the researchers noted, pointing to evidence that uncertainty broadly leads to lower business investment. One study found that even a 30-day budget delay increases borrowing costs by 10 basis points on state bonds — a direct financial penalty for fiscal instability.

Moreover, the ISER study found that Alaska’s fiscal environment became markedly more uncertain after the 2014/2015 oil price decline. Real per capita unrestricted general fund spending declined 2.8 percent annually from 2017 to 2026, following an average growth of 8.9 percent from 2007 to 2015. This dramatic swing created a cascade of uncertainty throughout the state economy.

During the question-and-answer session, Tyson Gallagher, Governor Mike Dunleavy’s chief of staff, offered a stark illustration of how fiscal uncertainty undermines economic development efforts — even when Alaska enjoys significant tax advantages.

The administration has been working to attract data centers to invest in Alaska, pitching the state’s abundant energy resources, cool climate for server cooling, and lack of state taxes. But, the pitches fall flat.

“We were pitching all the great things about Alaska, and talking about California having to pay taxes,” Gallagher recounted. The prospective investor acknowledged Alaska’s advantages but delivered a sobering response: “Maybe you’re right. But we know what their taxes are going to be, so we can prepare for that. Yours, you have none, which is awesome. But we don’t know what they’re going to be next year, and we don’t want the volatility.”

The company chose California despite its higher tax burden because it offered something Alaska couldn’t: predictability. For a major infrastructure investment like a data center — which requires hundreds of millions of dollars in upfront capital and commitments spanning decades — knowing the rules of the game matters more than the current tax rate.

“Reducing volatility increases stability,” Gallagher said. “It’s good for the business sector, it’s good for anybody that’s looking to invest money.”

The example underscores a central tradeoff of Alaska’s fiscal situation: the state’s reluctance to establish a stable revenue structure may be costing it more economic opportunities than any tax regime would. Companies can plan around taxes; they struggle to plan around uncertainty.

The Alaska Disconnect

Beyond the immediate costs of fiscal uncertainty, Alaska faces a deeper structural problem that economists have dubbed “the Alaska disconnect” — a fundamental mismatch between the state’s revenue sources and its economic activity.

Unlike most states, where tax revenue rises and falls with the local economy through sales taxes, income taxes, or property taxes, Alaska’s government funding comes primarily from two sources that operate independently of the state’s economic health: petroleum taxes and royalties, and the Permanent Fund’s investment earnings.

“Our current sources of revenue in petroleum and the permanent fund Percent of Market Value aren’t explicitly tied to state economic activity,” Watson explained during his presentation. This creates a troubling dynamic: as Alaska’s economy grows or shrinks, state revenue doesn’t necessarily follow the same trajectory.

The petroleum industry, while still crucial, represents a shrinking share of Alaska’s private sector economic activity. As the state’s economy has diversified — with growth in tourism, healthcare, professional services, and other sectors — oil production has declined and represents a smaller portion of overall economic output.

“As our economy grows, as our economy shrinks, because petroleum is representing a smaller and smaller share of our state’s private sector economic activity, the fluctuations in oil prices are increasingly divorced from what the rest of our economy is doing,” Watson said.

The consequences can be perverse. If Alaska’s economy is growing — perhaps the tourism industry is booming, population is increasing, and new businesses are opening — but oil prices happen to be falling, state revenue declines. The government has less money to spend precisely when a growing economy might demand more services: more roads to maintain, more children to educate, more infrastructure to support new development.

“Wouldn’t it be a lovely problem for the Anchorage School District to have to see student population’s rising,” Watson noted. “But if oil prices are falling, that means less revenue potentially that the state has available to it for things like education, healthcare, infrastructure.”

The Permanent Fund’s investment earnings, while providing crucial revenue diversification, don’t solve this fundamental problem. The fund’s returns depend on global financial markets, not Alaska’s economy. A recession in Alaska doesn’t reduce the fund’s market value, and an Alaska boom doesn’t necessarily increase it.

“Despite the fact that the POMV has provided a new and diverse source of revenue, growth in that revenue is not explicitly coupled to the broader economic activity in the state,” Watson explained.

This disconnect creates planning challenges for both government and the private sector. State services become unreliable not because of Alaska’s economic performance, but because of forces largely beyond anyone’s control — global oil markets and stock market returns. Meanwhile, businesses struggle to anticipate whether the state will have resources to maintain infrastructure, fund education, or support economic development.

Most broad-based taxes — whether sales, income, or property taxes — would automatically create a tighter link between Alaska’s economy and state revenue. When the economy grows, tax revenue grows. When it contracts, revenue falls, but so does the need for services. This natural coupling doesn’t eliminate fiscal challenges, but it creates a more rational relationship between the state’s capacity to raise revenue and its citizens’ capacity to pay.

The Options on the Table

The ISER team evaluated three categories of fiscal tools:

State spending changes: These would have the largest economic impact. Reducing the state workforce by 1,300 positions would cost 974 jobs per $100 million in savings when accounting for ripple effects through the economy. A broad $100 million spending cut would eliminate 1,076 jobs. A “clean” capital budget cut — one that doesn’t affect federal matching funds — would cost 697 jobs.

Household taxes: A middle ground, with impacts ranging from 290 to 375 jobs per $100 million raised. These include reducing the Permanent Fund Dividend (375 jobs lost), implementing a broad sales tax with fewer exemptions (313 jobs), a narrower sales tax (290 jobs), a flat income tax (309 jobs), a progressive income tax (291 jobs), and a statewide property tax (365 jobs).

Business taxes: The smallest short-term impacts, but with potentially severe long-term consequences. Increasing oil industry taxes would cost just 44 jobs per $100 million in the short run, while broader corporate tax increases would cost 141 jobs.

Who Would Pay?

One of the study’s most significant findings concerns who bears the burden of different fiscal options. Alaskans would shoulder between 68% and 86% of the cost, depending on the policy chosen, with the remainder falling on non-residents, visitors, and the federal government.

Sales taxes with more exclusions shift the smallest burden to Alaskans — just 73% —its because they capture both visitor and non-resident worker spending. For a sales tax that raised $100 million in revenue, the wealthiest ten percent of households would pay about $255 to $317 per person and the poorest about $22 to $50 per person, depending on whether it was the 3% tax including food and shelter or the 4% tax excluding food and shelter. Those dollar amounts represent about 0.2 to 0.3 percent of the per-capita disposable income of the wealthiest households, but 0.4 percent to 1 percent of the poorest. Excluding resident-common purchases does however further decrease resident burden. 

Reducing the PFD by $159 per person (across 628,000 recipients) and diverting the revenue to the state government would raise $100 million. But only the poorest households would actually lose the full amount. Most households would get a portion of the lost income back in reduced federal income taxes, but poorest households have low income tax liability. The higher the household’s per-capita income, the more the federal taxes would be reduced and the PFD loss offset. Per-person disposable income of the richest ten percent of households would fall on average $103. The dollar losses for the poorest households amount to 2.8 percent of their per-person disposable income—compared with 0.06 percent for the wealthiest households.

By contrast, a progressive income tax would cost high earners 0.5% of their income while barely touching those at the bottom. A federal income tax surcharge that raised $100 million would cost the wealthiest households about $787 per person.

Alternative Paths Forward

The research suggests that more stable revenue sources, while potentially having larger direct economic impacts, could ultimately prove less damaging by providing fiscal predictability. Options like property taxes or broad-based sales taxes generate more consistent revenue streams that allow businesses to plan confidently for the future.

Intriguingly, the study found that combining revenue-raising measures with strategic spending could create budget-neutral policies that actually stimulate economic growth. The researchers modeled coupling a less distortionary revenue source, such as property taxes, with expansionary fiscal policy like capital project investment. This approach could provide both fiscal stability and economic stimulus — addressing two challenges simultaneously.

Potential Combinations

The study also explored variations and combinations that might soften the blow:

Seasonal sales taxes could reduce the impact on Alaska families by 2 to 5 percentage points compared to flat-rate sales taxes. For a broad-based sales tax, Alaska families would see their disposable income fall by 76 cents per dollar raised, compared to 74 cents with a seasonal variation.

Income tax with PFD credit would allow Alaskans to apply their dividend against tax liability, reducing federal taxes on PFD income while maintaining taxes on non-residents.

Employment-based corporate tax incentives could direct tax relief to labor-intensive industries, potentially mitigating job losses.

Combined approaches — such as coupling a property tax with capital spending increases — could even produce net employment gains in the medium term by using less economically distortionary revenue sources to fund growth-oriented investments.

The Cost of Doing Nothing

Perhaps most troubling, the researchers warn that maintaining the status quo carries its own risks. Fiscal uncertainty acts as a deterrent to investment, and Alaska’s unique disconnect — where government revenue comes primarily from petroleum and investment earnings rather than economic activity within the state — creates structural problems.

Lower-than-expected oil prices could force sudden, reactive policy changes. The state’s bond rating and borrowing costs remain vulnerable. And each year of inaction means another year when infrastructure ages, services erode, and economic opportunities slip away.

“Fiscal uncertainty is a deterrent to investment,” Watson emphasized. “We estimate 2-3% of state GDP since 2016” has been lost to budget paralysis.

No Easy Answers

The researchers were careful to emphasize that their analysis does not endorse any particular fiscal policy. “No particular policy is without tradeoffs,” the study concluded. “This work provides an opportunity to consider tax and spending options with differing levels of economic distortion and growth implications for Alaska’s economy.”

But the central message is clear: Alaska’s continued dependence on petroleum revenue carries a hidden cost that extends beyond simple job losses or GDP declines. By tethering the state’s fiscal health to wildly fluctuating oil prices, policymakers create an environment of chronic uncertainty that undermines the business confidence essential for economic growth.

As Alaska faces another round of budget debates, the ISER research provides a crucial reminder: the most economically efficient revenue source isn’t necessarily the one with the smallest immediate impact. In an economy built on planning and investment, stability itself has profound economic value — even if it doesn’t show up in standard impact calculations.

For a state wrestling with its fiscal future, that may be the most important finding of all.

###

Note: This summary is a recap of the information presented. It is not an official record, transcript, or position statement. The content reflects only the views and statements made by the individual presenters and participants at the time of the forum. It should not be interpreted as representing the official views, opinions, policies, or positions of Commonwealth North, its leadership, board members, staff, or affiliates.

This analysis is based on research conducted by the Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER) at the University of Alaska Anchorage, presented in January 2026. The study was commissioned by the Alaska Governor’s Office but reflects the independent conclusions of the research team. The findings represent economic impacts only and do not constitute policy recommendations. The full ISER study, including detailed methodology, data sources, and an interactive tool for modeling policy combinations, is available at iseralaska.org.