r/cooperatives • u/Prudent_Research_623 • 20d ago
What’s wrong with the idea of starting a national resource trust?
Hey guys,I've been working on a concept called the American Resource Trust.The basic idea is that a small percentage of existing tax revenue would be invested into productive assets instead of being spent immediately. Every American citizen would own one equal, non-transferable ownership share. The trust would be independently managed, overseen by an elected board, and designed to operate for future generations.I'm not looking for praise. I'm looking for criticism.What is the biggest flaw you see in this concept?
6
u/yrjokallinen 19d ago
Nothing wrong with it. Seems like you are describing a sovereign wealth fund with member nominated board of trustees. Numerous sovereign wealth fund exists and while none of them afaik have member nominated boards, it wouldn't be anything unfathomable; for example, many pension funds have member nominated boards. So your idea would be a combination of two things that have proven to work in massive scale.
The mandatory membership would mean it wouldn't be a cooperative though.
1
u/Prudent_Research_623 19d ago
Similar to the sovereign wealth fund only different in that it is literally to be owned by each individual American taxpayer. One taxpayer one share and designed to pay out annual dividend when available
2
u/Imaginative-Recon-21 20d ago
“imm not looking for praise” is a wild qualifier…
More questions than answers:
1. Where is this existing revenue coming from? Presumably, it would mean another expenditure would need to lose some of its revenue source if this is just using existing tax dollars without raising taxes.
2. In order to create this, it would require what some may see as mandatory investment. Why not provide this as part of the tax refund and have it more immediately impact spending?
3 What determined the value of a share?
4. What impacts share value over time?
5. Everyone owns one share of what exactly?
6. If everyone is given one share, what happens to the value of a single share as more shared are created over time?
7. How does one access the value of their share? What are limitations on use and taxation on use/access?
8. Who elects the board?
9. What happens when a shareholder dies?
2
u/benibish 16d ago
The trust would ideally have a screened fund option right? I do generally like the idea and would like to see you try it. However I don't like the idea of more of my tax dollars going to companies like Palantir and Flock.
1
u/Prudent_Research_623 15d ago
That's a good question. My current thinking is that the elected Board of Trustees and the professional management team would be responsible for determining which assets belong in the Trust. The goal would be to make investment decisions based on the long-term interests of all owners rather than trying to manage hundreds of millions of individual investment preferences.
My original vision was for the Trust to focus on productive assets and national resources such as energy, minerals, infrastructure, and other long-term revenue-generating assets. At this stage, I don't see the Trust primarily investing in private companies like Palantir or Flock, although future leadership may have different views depending on circumstances.
As for individual owners selecting investments, my current answer would be no. However, I could see future Boards seeking input from owners through annual reports, surveys, educational materials, or other feedback mechanisms to better understand owner priorities before making major investment decisions.
2
u/collinmacfhearghuis 16d ago
Structurally, your idea is sound, but what are you intending to do with the fund? What is the vehicle? Your choice matters. Some vehicles are not securities, while others are.
1
u/Prudent_Research_623 16d ago
Thanks for the question
My initial thought was pretty simple.
What if we could take small percentage of the federal income taxes already being collected each and I invest it into something instead of being spent immediately every year trying to fix things and never getting anywhere.
My thought was that over time the growth of those investments could help offset future tax burdens on American taxpayers.
As I continued developing the idea, I realized it could potentially do much more than that. If managed properly over the long term, it could help future generations, create a national reserve of productive assets, and potentially provide annual dividend payments to eligible taxpayers.In terms of assets,
I originally envisioned the Trust owning productive natural-resource-related assets such as energy production, mineral resources, pipelines, infrastructure, and other revenue-generating investments.
Over time, the portfolio could diversify into other productive industries.
My current thinking is that the Trust itself would be the vehicle. The Trust would own the assets on behalf of its citizen owners.Governance would be provided by a Board of Trustees elected according to the Trust's charter. The Board would then hire qualified executives and management professionals to oversee daily operations and investment decisions.
I'm still refining the concept and don't claim to have all the answers. That's why I'm here. If you see flaws in the idea, weaknesses in the structure, legal issues, economic concerns, or better ways to approach it, I would genuinely appreciate the feedback. I'm trying to learn from people with more knowledge and experience than I have.
2
u/collinmacfhearghuis 16d ago
Well, you're not far from U.S. Social Security or Alaska's Permanent Fund Dividend, but really, your idea is even closer to what the Bureau of Land Management or the Minerals Management Service does. The BLM and MMS own land on behalf of US citizens. BLM revenue reduces their operating expenses, while MMS revenue goes toward trust funds for land conservation and other trust accounts.
So, ownership isn't what makes your model unique; the distribution mechanism is, and perhaps cooperative governance. You could probably start communicating with Congressional Representatives about your idea, and it won't appear foreign to them. However, I would recommend looking at lower levels of government, such as a county, municipality, or neighborhood associations. Their budgets and capacities are much smaller, so a public-private/co-op partnership that manages a trust would likely be received warmly.
2
u/Prudent_Research_623 15d ago
That's helpful feedback. One thing I'm learning through these discussions is that portions of the concept already exist in different forms, such as the Alaska Permanent Fund and other public asset management systems.
I think what makes my concept different is the combination of citizen ownership, an elected Board of Trustees, independent governance, and a long-term dividend and growth model operating on behalf of all citizens.
I also appreciate your point about cooperative governance and distribution. That's something I may need to emphasize more because I've noticed people often focus on the funding mechanism and taxes rather than the ownership and governance aspects of the idea.
2
u/collinmacfhearghuis 14d ago
I recommend looking at comparable models in Italy. They have a concept called a "Social Co-op" that's often used in public/private partnerships.
2
u/Prudent_Research_623 14d ago
Thanks, I'll definitely look into that. One thing I've learned from all this feedback is that I need to spend more time studying existing models instead of assuming I'm building something completely new. If there are similarities between social co-ops in Italy and what I'm trying to accomplish, I'd like to understand what worked, what didn't, and what lessons can be applied here.
1
u/collinmacfhearghuis 14d ago
The Emilia-Romagna region of Italy has more co-ops than any other region in the world. 60% of their population participates in a co-op. I am sure you will find something comparable to what you're researching.
2
u/humbleintelligence 14d ago
Why would the American government be interested in investing in your trust instead of seeking rentier returns via blackrock or its like?
Not that it wouldn’t benefit citizens but it wouldn’t benefit the banks that run your country via campaign donations.
Unfortunately that is what’s most wrong with your idea. Technically possible but practically impossible.
2
u/Prudent_Research_623 14d ago
That's a fair concern, and honestly one of the reasons I'm here asking questions. I don't claim to be an expert in stocks, trusts, government policy, or economics. I'm trying to identify flaws in the idea and figure out whether they can be addressed.My vision isn't for the government to invest in the Trust. The Trust would be funded by a small percentage of income taxes already paid by taxpayers. The idea is to create a citizen-owned institution that uses taxpayer-contributed capital to build productive assets and generate long-term value for the people contributing to the system.Over time, the goal would be to grow the Trust through reinvestment, build reserves, strengthen America's long-term financial position, and potentially provide annual dividends to eligible taxpayers.I agree that a structure like this wouldn't primarily benefit the banks, large financial institutions, or people who already have significant power and influence. That's actually part of the point. I'm exploring whether a portion of taxpayer money could be used to create long-term benefits for taxpayers themselves rather than being consumed entirely through annual spending.I realize there are major obstacles, including politics, legislation, governance, and corruption risks. That's why I'm asking for criticism and feedback instead of pretending I already have all the answers.
2
u/TheReverendCard 13d ago
Why do you keep posting the same thing all over Reddit despite everyone keep telling you you're basically reinventing what we already have, rather than imagining how we could get there from what we already own?
1
u/Prudent_Research_623 13d ago
I may not be explaining the differences clearly enough.
I'm aware there are similarities to things like the Alaska Permanent Fund, Norway's Sovereign Wealth Fund, Social Security, and other public funds. In fact, part of the reason I'm posting in different communities is to understand those similarities and differences better.
Where I believe my concept differs is in ownership and governance.
My vision is a citizen-owned trust governed by an elected Board of Trustees and managed independently rather than being operated directly by the government.
If I'm missing something and what I'm describing already exists in essentially the same form, I'd genuinely like to understand where.
That's one of the reasons I'm asking questions.I'm not posting because I think I have all the answers. I'm posting because I think a lot of Americans are struggling, the national debt continues to grow, and many people feel like they're working harder while getting less in return.
I'm trying to explore whether there is a better long-term approach that could benefit both American citizens and the country itself.
If you think the answer is to build on something that already exists rather than create something new, I'd honestly be interested in hearing more about what that would look like.
1
u/TheReverendCard 13d ago
You're essentially using different names and terms to describe what we already have in place. The government *is* owned by the people and is represented by the people. You literally hire the people who appoint the current managers and make the rules.
1
u/Prudent_Research_623 13d ago
I think we may simply have a different view of how well the current system is working.
In theory, I agree that government is supposed to be by the people and for the people.
My concern is that as government has grown, many Americans feel increasingly disconnected from the decision-making process and frustrated with how tax dollars are spent.
That's really what led me to start exploring this idea. I'm not a politician, I'm not running for office, and I'm not a wealthy businessman.
I'm just someone looking for a way to create long-term benefits for American citizens using a small portion of tax revenue that has already been collected.
The goal is to create a citizen-owned trust that builds assets, generates value, creates reserves, and potentially provides dividends to participating taxpayers while remaining independent from political control.
I understand people may disagree with the idea, and that's fine. That's actually why I'm posting it. I'm trying to understand the weaknesses, identify the challenges, and see whether the concept can be improved.
4
u/Key-Organization3158 20d ago
That you have to involuntarily take money from people to start it.
Everything you outlined can be done through cooperative community action. Adding layers of bureaucracy is just more possible corruption.
1
u/Prudent_Research_623 19d ago
It will not involuntary take money from taxpayers. It is designed to take a small annual percentage of already paid taxes. Nothing new coming out of their pocket tax payers pockets. It is to be designed to be independent ran from citizen elected board completely separate from the government
1
u/Prudent_Research_623 19d ago
First thank you for the questions this is exactly what I am looking for.
- The revenue will come from a small percentage of already taxed funds. Nothing out of anyones pockets.
- Yes in some degree it is a mandatory investment made annually from already collected taxes
- The value of a share is determined by the value of the resources trust.
4 what impacts the value over time. The market and anything that impacts it. War high gas prices. Ect. But it will be an American resources trust. So the better the American market is doing the better the trust will be doing.
5 the value of a single share will increase or decrease depending on the how well the trust is doing - I think every taxpayer should have access to how the fund is doing however one will not have access to it. I initial thought when creating this was to reduce taxes for American taxpayers and pay them a dividend check annually depending on how the fund is doing. Since I have Regan to see how enormous this could be for future generations.
- I believe the board would have to be elected by the people. All members would be evaluated annually by an independent company and term limits set.
- When a shareholder dies so does their share. No transferring no heirs.
I hope this answers the current question.
1
u/nurse_brett 17d ago
Taxes come out of people's pockets. If you're not paying for it from increased taxes, then it's coming from other programs that that tax revenue should fund or it is coming in the form of higher deficits which is just another way of saying that taxes have to be increased eventually to fund it.
1
u/Prudent_Research_623 16d ago
I think government spending would need to be reduced rather than increasing taxes.
The Trust was never intended to be funded through new taxes. From my perspective, the federal government has operated with deficits for most of my lifetime regardless of tax levels or spending programs.
The question I'm trying to explore is whether investing a small portion of existing revenue into productive assets could create greater long-term value than spending 100% of it immediately.
I agree that if the Trust simply increased deficits without creating sufficient returns, it wouldn't make much sense. That's one of the economic questions
1
u/nurse_brett 16d ago
Coming out of taxpayers' pockets is the consequence of money being fungible and opportunity costs. It may be more politically practical to start with existing tax revenue and diverting it away from other earmarked uses, but it's still fundamentally coming out of people's pockets. You're just proposing a different use for funds that have already been taken out of their pockets. If you took the same spending away from other programs without putting it into a fund then the money could either be returned to the tax payer through a rebate or in the form of reducing the deficit.
1
u/CauliflowerDue88 16d ago
The biggest issue with this in America is that we already dont collect enough taxes to cover spending. Anything else we spend money on, no matter what it is, will just add more to the national debt. If America ever runs a surplus long enough to pay down some of the debt then we can start talking about some sort of national trust.
1
u/nurse_brett 17d ago
If someone owns a share but they can't transfer it. What is the value of the share to a citizen? Can they sell it? What problem are you trying to solve?
Broadly, there are two types of critique to explore:
1) Typically, a sovereign wealth fund is created when a country is running surpluses and would rather invest the excess instead of refunding the tax payers. For example, this made sense in the context of Norway after oil was discovered in the North Sea. It was a way to steward a temporary windfall to fund its social programs. That is not the context the US is in. We have no surpluses to invest into your fund. Because taking money out of tax revenue means increasing the deficit, your fund is being funded by issuing treasury bonds at 5.5%. Instead, taking tax revenue and paying down the debt has a guaranteed rate of return that reduces future tax liabilities.
2) In countries that have sovereign wealth funds, the fund becomes an issue during elections. What would the fund be invested in? Because that could put pressure on politicians to play favorites to certain American corporations in order to keep the fund growing according to political pressures. This creates a new opportunity for corruption. Perhaps you can find a way around that.
1
u/Prudent_Research_623 16d ago
Thanks for the thoughtful feedback. You're raising some of the same concerns I've been trying to work through.
As for the ownership share, the value isn't in being able to sell it. The share would be non-transferable by design. The value comes from ownership rights, participation in the Trust, voting for the Board of Trustees, and potential dividend eligibility and possible tax reductions
The goal is to prevent ownership from eventually becoming concentrated among wealthy individuals, corporations, or families.
The problem I'm trying to solve started with a simple observation: Americans contribute enormous amounts through taxes every year, yet many people feel they receive little long-term ownership benefit from those contributions.
I'm exploring whether a small percentage of existing federal income tax revenue could be invested into productive assets that create long-term value for current and future generations.
On the deficit issue, I understand the concern. From my perspective as a taxpayer, the federal government has been running deficits for most of my lifetime and continues to do so regardless of which party is in power.
My thought is that investing a small portion of existing tax revenue into productive assets may create more long-term value than spending 100% of it immediately.
I also agree that political influence and corruption would be major risks. That's one reason I've focused on independent governance, an elected Board of Trustees, transparency requirements, professional management, and keeping politicians out of day-to-day investment decisions.
I don't claim to have all the answers, which is exactly why I'm asking questions and looking for criticism. If you see weaknesses in the economics, governance, ownership model, or legal structure, I'd genuinely appreciate hearing them.
1
u/nurse_brett 16d ago
I think that since the trust is not a law making body, it would be part of the executive branch. Constitutionally, we're moving in a direction of taking Article 2 quite literally by saying that the entire executive power is invested in the President, so I don't think you could make this trust free of Presidential interference without a constitutional amendment. See Humphrey's Executor v. United States (1935) and Trump v. Slaughter (2026).
1
u/Prudent_Research_623 15d ago
I may not be explaining the concept clearly enough. The federal government is not intended to create, own, or operate the Trust. The vision is for the Trust to be owned by American citizens and governed by an elected Board of Trustees. That Board would then hire qualified executives and professionals to manage the Trust independently from the government.
One of the biggest challenges I see right now isn't governance, it's the process and legality of getting a small percentage of existing tax revenue directed into the Trust while maintaining its independence. I'm not a lawyer, politician, economist, or tax professional, which is one of the reasons I'm here asking questions and looking for criticism.
If I'm misunderstanding the constitutional issue you're raising, I'd genuinely appreciate more explanation. Are you saying that any organization receiving federally authorized funding would ultimately fall under Executive Branch authority, regardless of how its governance structure is designed?
2
u/nurse_brett 15d ago
I think the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is a good case study. It was created by congress to be independent of the executive branch. In 2020, the Supreme Court found that the President had the authority to fire and replace the director at will. Though the court also affirmed in 2024 that the agency was constitutional and could continue to exist, it no longer has the complete independence afforded by congress. Currently, Trump v. Slaughter (2026) has a special carve out for the Federal Reserve because an independent central bank of some sort existed near the founding of the country, but I'd argue the carve out isn't the most principled position. With the exception of the Federal Reserve, there won't really be truly independent agencies that have executive functions. And yes, the Federal Reserve is grouped under the executive branch because it is an agency, created by congress, that operates according to the charter set by congress, and does executive things (namely the enactment of the charter established by congress). Only the Federal Reserve gets to truly operate independently of the rest of the executive branch. The Postal Office is an executive branch agency, too, even though it's just a service that is partially funded by congress but is also run somewhat like a business. I think it would be possible for a private trust to receive funding from congress and operate independently of the executive, but I don't think they can be a trust created by congress and held to statutory requirements about how it operates without being categorized as an agency within the executive branch. But you should definitely seek a second opinion from an actual constitutional law expert.
1
u/Prudent_Research_623 15d ago
This is actually one of the more helpful comments I've received. If I'm understanding correctly, you're saying there may be a big difference between a trust created by Congress and a private trust that receives funding authorized by Congress.My vision has always been for the Trust to remain independent from direct government management, so that distinction is important.It sounds like one of the biggest questions I need answered is how a citizen-owned private trust could legally receive publicly authorized funding while maintaining its independence.I appreciate you taking the time to explain that. It's definitely given me something to think about.
2
u/nurse_brett 15d ago
I'm gratified to hear that. It warms my heart that there are still people that are working on policy with the goal of actually improving how society functions. If nothing else, retain that spirit!
1
u/Prudent_Research_623 14d ago
Thank you. I genuinely appreciate that. Whether this specific idea works or not, I'm trying to think about ways we can leave future generations better off than we found things. The feedback I've received here has already improved my thinking quite a bit.
0
8
u/Sickmonkey365 20d ago
Start small amigo