"Net Worth" doesn't mean as much when your talking about an organization with the power to tax. If the debt is going to be paid for buy taxes, then owning more land, while it would increase the net worth, wouldn't be that meaningful. If the federal government gave up some of its land, but received useful tax revenue from it, it might help the fiscal situation more than owning the land does, even if the government doesn't receive a high price for the land. The federal government's main asset is its power to tax. That isn't included in the report. It probably can't be, and maybe shouldn't be, but excluding it does exclude a real asset of tremendous dollar value.
Also your original post said "The US has a negative $9 trillion Net Worth." Note, not "federal net worth", but "The US". The US is more than just the federal government. Add up all American assets and subtract debt, and you don't get a negative result.
Edit - And apparently the report doesn't include government held land, and apparently misses some other assets so it overstates its case about federal net worth, even if you don't consider the power to tax.
Edit - Re: Message 23111048
I am pissed off about government spending, but "I wan't the government to spend less" doesn't equal "I support the contension that the US has a negative net worth". |
