Direct annual cash payments to residents
funded by a small tax on tourist spending.
Millions of Americans live in communities overwhelmed by visitors. They absorb the traffic, the crowding, the rising rents — while profits flow to hotel chains, Airbnb hosts in other cities, and absentee cabin developers. The Tourist Dividend changes that. Modeled on Alaska's 40-year Permanent Fund, it's a simple idea: if tourists extract value from your community, your community deserves a cut.
In America's most-visited communities, an uncomfortable truth has taken root: the people who actually live there are bearing the costs of tourism while profits flow to absentee owners, hotel chains, and platforms like Airbnb.
Existing lodging taxes are collected everywhere — but statutes require that money fund more tourism marketing. More ads to attract more visitors to communities already overwhelmed. Residents see nothing direct.
The mechanism is simple. It uses existing tax infrastructure and draws on 40 years of proven precedent from Alaska's Permanent Fund Dividend.
Hocking County isn't the highest-yield location we studied — but it's the right place to start. It sits in what we call the Goldilocks Zone: meaningful dividend potential, minimal industry opposition, clear legal pathway, and an Appalachian narrative that resonates nationally.
Since 1982, every Alaska resident has received an annual check from the Alaska Permanent Fund — money derived from the state's shared natural resource (oil). It has been one of the most popular government programs in American history.
Republicans created it. Democrats expanded it. Every Alaskan loves it. Research shows it reduces poverty, improves child health outcomes, and keeps young people from leaving the state.
The Tourist Dividend applies the same principle: a community's natural landscape and cultural heritage are shared resources. When tourists extract value from your hills, your coast, your national park — you deserve a share.
We analyzed 26 counties in 12 states, scoring each on dividend potential, working-class narrative strength, legal feasibility, and opposition risk.