GenSeneca's Plan

GenSeneca

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
6,245
Location
={CaLiCo}= HQ
GenSeneca's plan to go from record debt to record surplus:

The federal government has 264 million acres of land, selling off 200 million acres at a minimum of $1 million/acre would bring in at least $200,000,000,000,000... That's 200 Trillion with a T.

That's enough money to completely eliminate our national debt (currently 14 trillion) and still have enough left over to cover the $106 trillion worth of IOU's in the SS fund. This would eliminate 100% of our nations debt.

The federal government would still have $80 Trillion left over to use as principle in a real savings fund where it could accumulate interest. The interest on that principle could be used to help fund local, state, and federal governments.

Investing the principle with a 2% annual interest rate would yeild at least $1,600,000,000,000 - 1.6 Trillion dollars per year. With a 3% interest rate, 2.4 Trillion dollars per year. With the right management of government funds and tight controls on spending, the federal taxation of American citizens could be completely eliminated.

Now many of you are asking, how can we sell an acre of land for $1 million dollars? I'm looking at two types of land sales, land with usable natural resources and tax exempt land. I'll begin by explaining the latter of the two.

Tax exempt land would be similar to an indian reservation, the land itself would be exempt from all taxation (local, state and federal), the deed holder and any persons recognized by the owner of the property as a resident would also be exempt from all taxation.

A zoning restriction would prevent the land from being used to harvest/manufacture raw materials and/or goods for sale or use outside of the owners land boundries. This restriction would not extend to residential, commercial, and agricultural development of the land.

Use of any publicly owned services that are paid for through taxation, such as police, fire, EMS etc., could still be utilized by the land and/or residents, for a per use fee. Roads, bridges and otherwise publicly funded projects found on the land would be the financial responsibility of the land owner to build and/or maintain.

This leaves only land with natural resources, such as oil, shale, nat gas, mineral deposits etc., which would be auctioned off to the highest bidder beginning at $1 million per acre. Regulations on the production, extraction, and use of these natural resources would be drastically pared back to streamline the owners ability to access and utilize the resources as quickly and safely as possible. This land would NOT be tax exempt.

---------------

I look forward to hearing responses and answering questions about my proposal.
 
Werbung:
No way anyone would pay 1 million for an acre of land that's ridiculously over priced. Unless that land has a crap load of resources on that land go fish, shows what you know.
 
GenSeneca's plan to go from record debt to record surplus:

The federal government has 264 million acres of land, selling off 200 million acres at a minimum of $1 million/acre would bring in at least $200,000,000,000,000... That's 200 Trillion with a T.

That's enough money to completely eliminate our national debt (currently 14 trillion) and still have enough left over to cover the $106 trillion worth of IOU's in the SS fund. This would eliminate 100% of our nations debt.

The federal government would still have $80 Trillion left over to use as principle in a real savings fund where it could accumulate interest. The interest on that principle could be used to help fund local, state, and federal governments.

Investing the principle with a 2% annual interest rate would yeild at least $1,600,000,000,000 - 1.6 Trillion dollars per year. With a 3% interest rate, 2.4 Trillion dollars per year. With the right management of government funds and tight controls on spending, the federal taxation of American citizens could be completely eliminated.

Now many of you are asking, how can we sell an acre of land for $1 million dollars? I'm looking at two types of land sales, land with usable natural resources and tax exempt land. I'll begin by explaining the latter of the two.

Tax exempt land would be similar to an indian reservation, the land itself would be exempt from all taxation (local, state and federal), the deed holder and any persons recognized by the owner of the property as a resident would also be exempt from all taxation.

So you have to live on the actual property get the tax break? Could I buy an acre, throw up a trailer or something, and call it my primary residence and then avoid all taxes?

I still think for most people if wouldn't make much sense to spend a million dollars for an acre of worthless land.

A zoning restriction would prevent the land from being used to harvest/manufacture raw materials and/or goods for sale or use outside of the owners land boundries. This restriction would not extend to residential, commercial, and agricultural development of the land.

Use of any publicly owned services that are paid for through taxation, such as police, fire, EMS etc., could still be utilized by the land and/or residents, for a per use fee. Roads, bridges and otherwise publicly funded projects found on the land would be the financial responsibility of the land owner to build and/or maintain.

This leaves only land with natural resources, such as oil, shale, nat gas, mineral deposits etc., which would be auctioned off to the highest bidder beginning at $1 million per acre. Regulations on the production, extraction, and use of these natural resources would be drastically pared back to streamline the owners ability to access and utilize the resources as quickly and safely as possible. This land would NOT be tax exempt.

Depending on how much oil etc is in an area, is still would not make much sense to pay a million dollars an acre for it.

For example, if a company wanted to mine an area, they would have spend $100,000,000 for just a 100 acre area...which is basically nothing...not to mention the costs of the actual drilling operation etc. You might say someone else will buy it and then lease it out, but it doesn't seem to make much economical sense either.

As an example, our family has a lot of land with oil/natural gas leases..in some areas the finds are the largest in the country, but the land still could probably not be sold for $1,000,000 an acre.


I think it is an interesting concept, but I think arbitrarily pricing land at $1,000,000 an acre, when a lot of those acres are really worthless, is simply unrealistic.
 
No way anyone would pay 1 million for an acre of land that's ridiculously over priced. Unless that land has a crap load of resources on that land go fish, shows what you know.

Even with tons of resources, you probably couldn't get a million an acre.

As I mentioned, with the oil/natural gas land we have, even sitting on top of some of the largest finds in the country, the land is obviously very valuable, but getting a million an acre is not reasonable...at least in our scenarios.
 
I think it is an interesting concept, but I think arbitrarily pricing land at $1,000,000 an acre, when a lot of those acres are really worthless, is simply unrealistic.

In 2000, 3.4 acres of land in Manhattan sold for $345 million, 100 million per acre. It's a matter of seeing a potential for return on your investment.

You'd have to be a millionaire to buy even one acre of land... How much does a millionaire pay in taxes every year? Paying $1,000,000 per acre to become exempt from taxation would pay for itself.

As for worthless land, Las Vegas is built in a desert. How much money do the casinos pay in taxes every year? I'm sure they'd like the prospect of building a casino where it exempts them from all taxation, again paying for itself.

There are also some very idylic areas owned by the federal government, where you could build a resort, hotel, or cabins and being tax free, see a return on the investment.

For now I'll concede on your points about natural resources, I've not done enough research specific to federal lands with natural resources to argue against the points people have made.

Lastly I'd like to make two points:

1. My concept is unrealistic? The only proposals currently being offered to fix our debt problem are higher taxation and reductions in spending. I've dealt with higher taxation elsewhere and I've yet to hear any realistic proposals to shave $1.6 trillion (current deficit) out of our spending much less a realistic proposal to begin paying down our $14 trillion national debt. Believing we can run the government with perpetual, and compounding, deficits and debt is unrealistic. As the 106 trillion worth of IOU's in SS mature, the idea of simply raising taxes to cover them is also unrealistic.

2. Perhaps my idea will be a flop, perhaps only a few acres of land would be sold. The nation isn't worse off for trying. At least I'm trying to think outside the box of taxation and spending.
 
In 2000, 3.4 acres of land in Manhattan sold for $345 million, 100 million per acre. It's a matter of seeing a potential for return on your investment.

I agree it is about seeing a return on your investment, but we have to at least accept that land (which was probably heavily developed) in Manhattan is worth a lot more than a wooded acre in say Utah.

You'd have to be a millionaire to buy even one acre of land... How much does a millionaire pay in taxes every year? Paying $1,000,000 per acre to become exempt from taxation would pay for itself.

How much they pay in taxes depends on how their wealth and income is structured. But I do like that concept, as mentioned, provided you can claim it as your primary residence without living on it. I would pay a million to be exempt from taxes for my entire life, but an older person might decide they won't have a tax bill that large so why bother.

As for worthless land, Las Vegas is built in a desert. How much money do the casinos pay in taxes every year? I'm sure they'd like the prospect of building a casino where it exempts them from all taxation, again paying for itself.

There are also some very idylic areas owned by the federal government, where you could build a resort, hotel, or cabins and being tax free, see a return on the investment.

I think that maybe would work, but it would depend on each project on it's own. It still
becomes a costly proposition to open a resort of say 1,000 acres when you have to front a billion dollars just to buy the land. To make up for such a tax bill, you would have to be setting record profits for decades in a row, which is quite a gamble.

For now I'll concede on your points about natural resources, I've not done enough research specific to federal lands with natural resources to argue against the points people have made

Lastly I'd like to make two points

1. My concept is unrealistic? The only proposals currently being offered to fix our debt problem are higher taxation and reductions in spending. I've dealt with higher taxation elsewhere and
I've yet to hear any realistic proposals to shave $1.6 trillion (current deficit) out of our spending much less a realistic proposal to begin paying down our $14 trillion national debt. Believing we can run the government with perpetual, and compounding, deficits and debt is unrealistic. As the 106 trillion worth of IOU's in SS mature, the idea of simply raising taxes to cover them is also unrealistic.

2. Perhaps my idea will be a flop, perhaps only a few acres of land would be sold. The nation
isn't worse off for trying. At least I'm trying to think outside the box of taxation and spending.

Thinking outside the box is a good thing, and obviously we have a debt problem in our country. That said however, I think it would still make little economic sense in most scenarios for business to really thrive in such a scenario...your best bet would be with people, and then it becomes a political nightmare and spun as paying off the rich or something like that.
 
I agree it is about seeing a return on your investment, but we have to at least accept that land (which was probably heavily developed) in Manhattan is worth a lot more than a wooded acre in say Utah.
We would also have to accept that an acre of heavily developed land in Manhattan will cost a fortune every year in taxes while that wooded lot in Utah would eliminate your tax bill.

I do like that concept, as mentioned, provided you can claim it as your primary residence without living on it.
The idea was to physically live there but if your suggestion makes that worthless pile of sand in the desert worth $1 million per acre, then its an idea to consider.

I would pay a million to be exempt from taxes for my entire life, but an older person might decide they won't have a tax bill that large so why bother.
The land can be passed from one generation to another, giving that older person a reason to purchase the land. You said you would buy an acre for the benefit but that benefit doesn't end with your life, it continues to whomever holds the deed to the land.

I think that maybe would work, but it would depend on each project on it's own.
The same is true of any business venture but no other business venture would offer the benefit of eliminating taxation.

...your best bet would be with people, and then it becomes a political nightmare and spun as paying off the rich or something like that.
There are no realistic solutions to our deficit and debt problems that are not political nightmares.
 
We would also have to accept that an acre of heavily developed land in Manhattan will cost a fortune every year in taxes while that wooded lot in Utah would eliminate your tax bill.

Let me ask you this:

If a company owned one acre of that land, would it be exempt from all taxes? And does this include local taxes?

The idea was to physically live there but if your suggestion makes that worthless pile of sand in the desert worth $1 million per acre, then its an idea to consider.

I don't think many millionaires would want to leave wherever they are to move to a one acre patch somewhere. I think it would have to be where people could claim it as their primary residence, take the tax break, and not live there.

The land can be passed from one generation to another, giving that older person a reason to purchase the land. You said you would buy an acre for the benefit but that benefit doesn't end with your life, it continues to whomever holds the deed to the land.

I can hear the political arguments now. :) That said, I think this would be a fine idea...assuming I bought an acre.

But then again, if taxes are the primary reason to buy the land, what incentive is there for a company to come in and buy large areas of it to do a resort etc? It wouldn't make sense to come buy 1,000 acres at a million an acre when you can buy 1 acre at a million, and then 1,000 acres elsewhere for far less, and get the same benefit.

The same is true of any business venture but no other business venture would offer the benefit of eliminating taxation.

It would if a company bought an acre of land right? Or would you not allow that?

There are no realistic solutions to our deficit and debt problems that are not political nightmares.

True, but until we get one, our debt won't be going anywhere but up.
 
I wasn't trying to devise a way for people to simply pay $1 million for a worthless plot of land in return for a tax dodge but that seems to be what you're getting at here.

Buy the land, live on the land, pay zero taxes.

Buy the land, live elsewhere, the only tax you avoid is property tax on that acre.

I would have to consider a situation where purchasing an acre of land would exempt an individual or business from paying income or corporate taxes respectively. Such a concept does hold potential but deserves more consideration.
 
I wasn't trying to devise a way for people to simply pay $1 million for a worthless plot of land in return for a tax dodge but that seems to be what you're getting at here.

Buy the land, live on the land, pay zero taxes.

Buy the land, live elsewhere, the only tax you avoid is property tax on that acre.

I would have to consider a situation where purchasing an acre of land would exempt an individual or business from paying income or corporate taxes respectively. Such a concept does hold potential but deserves more consideration.


If you had to actually live on the land, it wouldn't be worth it for me...but if I could throw up a trailer, call it my primary residence and "live" (aka never set foot) there, then I would spring for it to avoid all taxes. (not just a property tax)

In the scenario you describe, I don't think anyone would go for it. There has to be more incentive.
 
In the scenario you describe, I don't think anyone would go for it.

I would.

Do you currently own property (real estate)? Regardless of your answer, I would argue that you do not actually own any property, you merely own an exclusive lease agreement.
 
2.0 x 10 ^14 dollars divided among 3.0x 10^8 (population of the US) = 6.67x10 ^ 6, or $6,666,667 for every person in the USA, including little children, the homeless, and the chronically unemployed.



2.0 x 10 ^14 dollars divided among 7.0x 10^9 (population of the world) = 2.29 x 10 ^ 5, or $22,290 for every man woman and child in the world.

Including the third or so who are living on $1 a day, or less.

Who's going to buy that land at a million an acre?
 

It would be a poor financial decision if you did.

Imagine for example that you made $150,000 a year. Your tax bill is going to be roughly $30,000 for the year. (obviously there are a ton of variables I am discounting, but for the sake of argument, go with me)

Now you can pay $1,000,000 and avoid that $30,000 a year tax bill (but then count on developing the land to live on etc), or you can take that $1,000,000 and put it bonds etc and get (we will say) an average return of 5% (pretty conservative estimate)...I think you clearly come out better in the long run financially investing your million somewhere else.

Holding everything constant, it would take roughly 30 years of earning $150,000 a year to have a million dollar tax bill. That is a career. And once you retire, your taxes (if you plan correctly) will fall dramatically, making the need for a tax free parcel of land even less appealing in my opinion.

I once had a plan of allowing people to "pay" their "share" of the national debt in exchange for a tax hiatus or outright tax elimination...but politically that would be impossible.

Do you currently own property (real estate)? Regardless of your answer, I would argue that you do not actually own any property, you merely own an exclusive lease agreement.

Yes, our family set up a company with all the land we have and we then own the company. It is several thousand acres spread out in different areas with oil/natural gas drilling and timber sales as well.

I see your point about not "owning" property as long as you pay property tax, you are essentially renting from the government....but financially, it doesn't seem that the concept of spending a million dollars (and then having to live up to cumbersome criteria) is worthwhile to avoid the tax bill.
 
Werbung:
Back
Top