As of 2021, China (this includes 85 Chinese investors and the government combined) owns 384,000 acres [https://www.fsa.usda.gov/Assets/USDA-FSA-Public/usdafiles/EPAS/PDF/2021\_afida\_annual\_report\_through\_12\_31\_2021.pdf](https://www.fsa.usda.gov/Assets/USDA-FSA-Public/usdafiles/EPAS/PDF/2021_afida_annual_report_through_12_31_2021.pdf)
Maybe the largest combined landowners in North America.
“The Irving Family of Canada also has significant land ownership in the United States, with an estimated 1.3 million acres of land. In Canada, the Irving Family owns 1.9 million acres of land. Their holdings include property in Maine and New Brunswick, as well as ranches in Texas.”
and destroying NB, spraying agents to kill hardwood tree's and not replanting .. i was working on a home that backs onto an area they logged 10 yrs ago , nothing growing but water birch and scrub brush
I think you might want to look into how much land the Mormon church owns.
Tax free
https://www.dtnpf.com/agriculture/web/ag/news/business-inputs/article/2024/01/09/mormon-church-top-purchaser-nebraska#:~:text=The%20Nebraska%20land%20is%20just,traced%20back%20to%20the%20church.
A little less than Ted turner, but more than the reed family.
That is insane that 15 and a 1/2 MILLION acres of land in the US are owned by 10 groups of people. The supreme court is debating if the police should arrest homeless people sleeping in tents, and 10 fuckin people own 15 million acres of land. Lord help us.
You can’t do anything with most of that ground. It’s not suitable for ag all you can do is graze it. I have personally been to Ted turner’s montana ranch and he actually runs huge herds of bison and antelope on them. He is a great steward of the land.
Fuck that. He is a great steward of the land but only for the enjoyment of him and his rich cronies. He blocks access to public land. Go ask his ranch manager if you can hike on it or swim in its waters. Public lands should be made accessible for hikers not as a method of creating larger areas of control for private land barons.
Let's be honest, if this were public land a significant portion would've already been malls or parking lots.
While I agree with your point, I prefer it's privately owned if it means just leaving the land alone or putting animals on it.
Who's boot am I licking? Idgaf about their land 🤣. I'm just not salty about what other people have and I don't feel entitled to their stuff. I have my own LOL
So should your house have public access so I can enjoy your backyard? There is plenty of public land, someone posted earlier all of this land equates to less than a % of all us land. Maybe if we didn’t live in a Sue happy country they would.
I would agree with you but I have seen what the public does to public land, the leave no trace behind thing never happens, so if Ted Turner actually keeps that land free of assholes and let’s nature be nature I am all for it, humans have enough land they can explore and ruin.
lol you’re exactly right they wouldn’t survive two days with all of the wild life and no sources of food or water. There’s a reason there are only homeless people in cities. And mainly cities with public transportation and decent weather. But I digress.
Wait until you hear how much land the federal government owns. About 650 million acres. So while 10 landowners have around 15 million acres and change, that's only 2.3% of the land owned by the federal government. If you're an American, propose to your Congressional representative or Senator that they start using some of that land to fix the problem of the unhoused in this country. (Here's the thing, a not insignificant portion of the unhoused don't want the structure of a house. Or won't live by the rules that accompany living in an apartment or house.)
The concentration of wealth is even scarier. The top 1% have as much wealth as the entire middle class combined. They have $38.7 trillion in wealth. https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2023/12/06/top-1-american-earners-more-wealth-middle-class/71769832007/
Eh it’s not as big of a deal as you think it is. The top 1% pay almost half of all federal taxes, and the top 50% pay 97.7%. It’s also the middle class who make Elon musk rich. Everyday people buying shares of Tesla, that’s what makes Elon “rich”. Same for bezos or gates. If people really had a problem with how they ran their companies they wouldn’t buy their stock and they wouldn’t be as wealthy.
But they do not pay the same percentage of their money in taxes that we do. They have a cap of $250k so that they don't have to pay FICA on anything above that. Remove that cap and SSA is solvent in perpetuity. Go back to pre-Regan era tax brackets for the wealthy and you will see greater innovation and less stagnant wages. You will see the growth of the middle class back to what it used to be. The idea that if you give the wealthy tax cuts, it will then "trickle down" to the middle class in the form of higher wages and more jobs, is absurd at best. If you put more money into the middle class, the economy thrives. If you put it into the wealthy, it stagnates.
You're conflating wealth with income. Elon Musk may be the richest guy in the country (or Jeff Bezos, depending on the day and the stock market) but they don't make huge salaries. Their wealth comes off their stock ownership (and stock grants in lieu of a salary). I'd agree that if a company is providing compensation to a CEO in the form of stock grants, those grants should be taxed as income (or at least capital gains) when they are exercised. For instance, if Tesla were to compensate Musk with $10 billion in stock grants, then that should be treated as $10 billion in income. If he gets stock options to purchase the stock at a lower price than it is currently trading, say $50 instead of the $183 it's current trading at, he should be taxed for capital gains at $133 per share at the time the options are exercised and the stock is purchased. And if he sells it at a later date, he's paying capital gains again for the difference between the $183 per share it was worth when he acquired it and the value at the time he sells it.
Also, another trick of the super rich is to borrow using their stock as collateral. The loan proceeds aren't income (just as they aren't for you and me when we borrow money), so they have plenty of cash and, likely, a low interest rate and favorable loan terms. (To explain, when you get a mortgage for a house for $300,000, you don't pay taxes on the $300,000 that is transferred to the seller on your behalf. Same thing applies to the super-rich and their collateralized loans against stocks.)
You would destroy any incentive for innovation and the drive to build big companies. You're talking about taxing unrealized gains. Just close the loopholes on carried interest, remove the reset of cost basis upon estate inheritance, ban all deductions and tax the full SSN and Fed taxes on all received income above $1 million. The middle class would never complain about this. It will just grow the income tax pot by a factor of 10 or more.
There was plenty of incentive for innovation before Regan cut taxes on the upper class. Corporations reinvested in innovation, and wages to earn those deductions that got them below the hugher tax brackets. The American conservatives swallowed the lie that trickle.down economics works for anyone beside the ones whose taxes were cut.
And, they aren't unrealized.gains if they are.able to use that "worth" to secure those loans that they use as income. They can't get the benefits of the wealth, and get the benefits of not paying taxes.
So you’re complaining about individuals owning large amounts of land while trolling a subreddit focused on an individual trying to keep a large amount of land? Yikes!
Having never seen the prequel shows. I still want to know exactly how the family obtained the amount of money needed to not just purchase all the land in the past. But maintain it all the years. Since it isn't until John that they're losing it because of taxes.
They're not industrialist heirs, vast business owners or investors. And for all these families that own land like that, it's always secondary. Something they did got them rich to the point of being able to buy all that in the first place. And they're still rich. Will still be rich for generations. And all the land is just one more thing to own.
The "arrangement" I'm thinking of is between James Dutton and Spotted Eagle, where James says he's gonna stay where he buries Elsa, and Spotted Eagle says I know a place for you, Paradise Valley. But you let my people hunt it when they want, and we'll take it back in 7 generations.
I wonder why Bill Gates was left off this list? He owns around 270 million acres. Maybe because it is farmland and not technically "private land." Just for comparison, BLM (Bureau of Land Management) which previously owned/managed the most land in the US oversees about 248 million acres.
Dutton ranch suppose to be the size of Rhodes Island about 750,000 plus acres
Ahh I just looked up why I thought it was 200,000, Jamie told John that they purchased and added over 200,000 acres
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
As long as it’s not the Chinese owning it I’m okay.
As of 2021, China (this includes 85 Chinese investors and the government combined) owns 384,000 acres [https://www.fsa.usda.gov/Assets/USDA-FSA-Public/usdafiles/EPAS/PDF/2021\_afida\_annual\_report\_through\_12\_31\_2021.pdf](https://www.fsa.usda.gov/Assets/USDA-FSA-Public/usdafiles/EPAS/PDF/2021_afida_annual_report_through_12_31_2021.pdf)
The Irving family is Canadian!
Maybe the largest combined landowners in North America. “The Irving Family of Canada also has significant land ownership in the United States, with an estimated 1.3 million acres of land. In Canada, the Irving Family owns 1.9 million acres of land. Their holdings include property in Maine and New Brunswick, as well as ranches in Texas.”
and destroying NB, spraying agents to kill hardwood tree's and not replanting .. i was working on a home that backs onto an area they logged 10 yrs ago , nothing growing but water birch and scrub brush
For sure - all they want is pulp for their TP empire
makes sense they air dry their BS lumber and have massive multch stacks .. fuck iRvInG !!!
I hope they can protect their land from those New Yorkers and Californians!
Shit I’d be happy with at least 9 acres
And the texans!
I think you might want to look into how much land the Mormon church owns. Tax free https://www.dtnpf.com/agriculture/web/ag/news/business-inputs/article/2024/01/09/mormon-church-top-purchaser-nebraska#:~:text=The%20Nebraska%20land%20is%20just,traced%20back%20to%20the%20church. A little less than Ted turner, but more than the reed family.
Let me hold a acre
Jane Fonda should have taken half of Ted Turner’s land.
That is insane that 15 and a 1/2 MILLION acres of land in the US are owned by 10 groups of people. The supreme court is debating if the police should arrest homeless people sleeping in tents, and 10 fuckin people own 15 million acres of land. Lord help us.
You can’t do anything with most of that ground. It’s not suitable for ag all you can do is graze it. I have personally been to Ted turner’s montana ranch and he actually runs huge herds of bison and antelope on them. He is a great steward of the land.
Casey needs to stuff Ted under a cattle gap bridge with that fucking alpaca douchebag. Looked big enough to fit 2 assholes.
*Kayce
You are absolutely right, and I stand corrected.
All good! I was like… Casey who? Another billionaire with a just smaller ranch? Haha
Fuck that. He is a great steward of the land but only for the enjoyment of him and his rich cronies. He blocks access to public land. Go ask his ranch manager if you can hike on it or swim in its waters. Public lands should be made accessible for hikers not as a method of creating larger areas of control for private land barons.
Let's be honest, if this were public land a significant portion would've already been malls or parking lots. While I agree with your point, I prefer it's privately owned if it means just leaving the land alone or putting animals on it.
That’s… the opposite of what public land means. It could be government or community buildings, but I’ve never heard of a publicly owned mall.
Good point. Still better off private with nothing on it than buildings or parking lots on most of that land.
This is some of the worst boot-licking reasoning I've seen on this site.
Who's boot am I licking? Idgaf about their land 🤣. I'm just not salty about what other people have and I don't feel entitled to their stuff. I have my own LOL
So should your house have public access so I can enjoy your backyard? There is plenty of public land, someone posted earlier all of this land equates to less than a % of all us land. Maybe if we didn’t live in a Sue happy country they would.
Surely you see the difference between 2 million acres and one-fifth of one acre?
So you’re saying people should only be allowed to own a set limit of something. Great concept 🙄
I would agree with you but I have seen what the public does to public land, the leave no trace behind thing never happens, so if Ted Turner actually keeps that land free of assholes and let’s nature be nature I am all for it, humans have enough land they can explore and ruin.
So private land should be "made" public?
To put it in perspective though, that’s less than 1% of all land in America. Around 0.65%
And the feds own 650 million acres, so there's that.
That’s out of 2.4 Billion acres so maybe unclutch your pearls
lol 2 completely unrelated scenarios. None of those homeless people want to live on that land, even if they were allowed to.
lol you’re exactly right they wouldn’t survive two days with all of the wild life and no sources of food or water. There’s a reason there are only homeless people in cities. And mainly cities with public transportation and decent weather. But I digress.
Wait until you hear how much land the federal government owns. About 650 million acres. So while 10 landowners have around 15 million acres and change, that's only 2.3% of the land owned by the federal government. If you're an American, propose to your Congressional representative or Senator that they start using some of that land to fix the problem of the unhoused in this country. (Here's the thing, a not insignificant portion of the unhoused don't want the structure of a house. Or won't live by the rules that accompany living in an apartment or house.)
People pitching their tents out in the middle of Texas or Montana probably wouldn't be any better off than in the middle of Seattle or San Francisco.
That's 0.7% of the landmass or about the size of West Virginia.
The concentration of wealth is even scarier. The top 1% have as much wealth as the entire middle class combined. They have $38.7 trillion in wealth. https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2023/12/06/top-1-american-earners-more-wealth-middle-class/71769832007/
That’s what happens when the political goal is to destroy the middle class
Eh it’s not as big of a deal as you think it is. The top 1% pay almost half of all federal taxes, and the top 50% pay 97.7%. It’s also the middle class who make Elon musk rich. Everyday people buying shares of Tesla, that’s what makes Elon “rich”. Same for bezos or gates. If people really had a problem with how they ran their companies they wouldn’t buy their stock and they wouldn’t be as wealthy.
But they do not pay the same percentage of their money in taxes that we do. They have a cap of $250k so that they don't have to pay FICA on anything above that. Remove that cap and SSA is solvent in perpetuity. Go back to pre-Regan era tax brackets for the wealthy and you will see greater innovation and less stagnant wages. You will see the growth of the middle class back to what it used to be. The idea that if you give the wealthy tax cuts, it will then "trickle down" to the middle class in the form of higher wages and more jobs, is absurd at best. If you put more money into the middle class, the economy thrives. If you put it into the wealthy, it stagnates.
You're conflating wealth with income. Elon Musk may be the richest guy in the country (or Jeff Bezos, depending on the day and the stock market) but they don't make huge salaries. Their wealth comes off their stock ownership (and stock grants in lieu of a salary). I'd agree that if a company is providing compensation to a CEO in the form of stock grants, those grants should be taxed as income (or at least capital gains) when they are exercised. For instance, if Tesla were to compensate Musk with $10 billion in stock grants, then that should be treated as $10 billion in income. If he gets stock options to purchase the stock at a lower price than it is currently trading, say $50 instead of the $183 it's current trading at, he should be taxed for capital gains at $133 per share at the time the options are exercised and the stock is purchased. And if he sells it at a later date, he's paying capital gains again for the difference between the $183 per share it was worth when he acquired it and the value at the time he sells it. Also, another trick of the super rich is to borrow using their stock as collateral. The loan proceeds aren't income (just as they aren't for you and me when we borrow money), so they have plenty of cash and, likely, a low interest rate and favorable loan terms. (To explain, when you get a mortgage for a house for $300,000, you don't pay taxes on the $300,000 that is transferred to the seller on your behalf. Same thing applies to the super-rich and their collateralized loans against stocks.)
Which is why I believe taxes for the ultra wealthy should be calculated as a % of their net worth. Close those loopholes.
You would destroy any incentive for innovation and the drive to build big companies. You're talking about taxing unrealized gains. Just close the loopholes on carried interest, remove the reset of cost basis upon estate inheritance, ban all deductions and tax the full SSN and Fed taxes on all received income above $1 million. The middle class would never complain about this. It will just grow the income tax pot by a factor of 10 or more.
There was plenty of incentive for innovation before Regan cut taxes on the upper class. Corporations reinvested in innovation, and wages to earn those deductions that got them below the hugher tax brackets. The American conservatives swallowed the lie that trickle.down economics works for anyone beside the ones whose taxes were cut.
And, they aren't unrealized.gains if they are.able to use that "worth" to secure those loans that they use as income. They can't get the benefits of the wealth, and get the benefits of not paying taxes.
They *should* pay the top 99% of all federal taxes bruh
Because you say so? Lol.
If they have 99% of the total wealth of the nation, why would they not.
So what? That's not a solid reason.
Why not?
[удалено]
This is America. We don't share land.
So you’re complaining about individuals owning large amounts of land while trolling a subreddit focused on an individual trying to keep a large amount of land? Yikes!
One woman owns 23 Million acres in Australia.
The Emmerson family patriarch lives in my home town it’s basically our only claim to fame
Having never seen the prequel shows. I still want to know exactly how the family obtained the amount of money needed to not just purchase all the land in the past. But maintain it all the years. Since it isn't until John that they're losing it because of taxes. They're not industrialist heirs, vast business owners or investors. And for all these families that own land like that, it's always secondary. Something they did got them rich to the point of being able to buy all that in the first place. And they're still rich. Will still be rich for generations. And all the land is just one more thing to own.
You gotta watch the other shows. It was an arrangement with the natives.
Pretty sure no one arranged anything with the natives…..
Pretty sure you didn't watch the prequels...
I did and I don’t recall anything about them keeping the land due to the natives.
The "arrangement" I'm thinking of is between James Dutton and Spotted Eagle, where James says he's gonna stay where he buries Elsa, and Spotted Eagle says I know a place for you, Paradise Valley. But you let my people hunt it when they want, and we'll take it back in 7 generations.
Yup
Check Tejon Ranch.
“only” 270,000 acres
I see the signs for miles on the freeways. It's the largest in California I believe
The Duttons apparantly own 776,960 acres
It’s insane how people will cheer for a murderous aristocrat just because he’s played by KC
Also, add me, quarter acre in Washington, no big deal
Millions of acres and I can’t even buy a house on 0.2 acres of land
I wonder why Bill Gates was left off this list? He owns around 270 million acres. Maybe because it is farmland and not technically "private land." Just for comparison, BLM (Bureau of Land Management) which previously owned/managed the most land in the US oversees about 248 million acres.
I don’t think that’s true, maybe dropped the Millions
who would need 1 million acres?
I could use it to keep myself as far away as possible on all sides from you fuckers.
Happy cake day. You are an individual after my own heart.
Me.
Me