Canadian sailors buying american boats
- Thread starter Roger1250
- Start date
- Status
Now, if Canada became our 51st state....
we wouldn't be having this discussion. Only kidding and just having fun, abe
we wouldn't be having this discussion. Only kidding and just having fun, abe
Roger- FYI
Here is an artical you might be iterested in from another forum that just up. ......................................................................_/) Byrd Amendments incites Boat Tax From “Soundings - Trade Only Today (11/26/2004) Canada threatens 100-percent boat surtax The National Marine Manufacturers Association says urgent action is needed to stop a 100-percent surtax from being imposed on American-made recreational boats imported into Canada. The surtax would apply to imported products from the United States, including pleasure vessels such as yachts, sailboats, powerboats, inflatables and canoes. NMMA is asking its members to contact their dealers in Canada and urge them to register their opposition. “This surtax would be devastating to U.S. boat manufacturers that export vessels to Canada,” said NMMA president Thom Dammrich in a statement. “It would double the price of all American boats sold over the border, eliminating our competitiveness in the Canadian market.” The Canadian government Tuesday announced that it might impose the surtax in retaliation for the Byrd Amendment, a law that allows duties collected from antidumping and countervailing to be given to U.S. firms that petition for tax relief. Canada said it intends to levy tariffs on many other imported U.S. goods in addition to boats. The Byrd Amendment, named for U.S. Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., was challenged by a number of countries in the World Trade Organization. The WTO has ruled that the amendment violates trade agreements, and that member countries can retaliate against the United States. Canada has said it favors repeal of the Byrd Amendment over the imposition of tariffs, but until that happens, government officials there said they must explore the retaliatory measures allowed by the WTO. The WTO found in January 2003 that the Byrd Amendment was inconsistent with its rules and gave the United States until December of that year to come into compliance. When Congress failed to act by January of this year, WTO members began to file for permission to retaliate. “NMMA will be aggressively pursuing a repeal of the Byrd Amendment in the 109th Congress, and will be meeting with key congressional staff next week,” said Monita Fontaine, NMMA vice president of government relations, in a statement. “The amendment must be repealed immediately in order to prevent not only Canada but other WTO countries from seeking to impose tariffs on the boating industry.” The Canadian government is soliciting comments on the proposed tariffs until Dec. 20. Visit NMMA @: www.nmma.org/government/issueadvoca...x.asp?catid=234 Backgrounder: On October 28, 2000, President Bill Clinton signed the "Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001". The "Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000" (Byrd Amendment) was part of that Act. Under the Byrd Amendment (which amended the Tariff Act of 1930, the principal U.S. trade remedy statute), anti-dumping and countervailing duties are given to U.S. producers who supported those trade remedy actions. These duties were previously deposited in the U.S. Treasury. This means that U.S. companies that bring trade remedy cases to U.S. authorities stand to benefit not only from the imposition of anti-dumping and countervailing duties on competing imports, but also from direct payments from the U.S. government when those duties are disbursed. In September 2001, eleven WTO Members, including Canada, challenged the Byrd Amendment at the WTO. The ten other co-complainants are: the European Union, Australia, Brazil, Chile, India, Indonesia, Japan, Mexico, Korea, and Thailand. In September 2002, the WTO Panel determined that these payments are not consistent with U.S. obligations under WTO Agreements governing Anti-Dumping and Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. The Panel determined that the payments constitute an additional measure against injurious dumping and subsidization not contemplated in either agreement. The case was then appealed by the U.S. and in January 2003, a WTO Appellate Body report, upholding the key panel findings against the Byrd Amendment, was adopted by the WTO’s Dispute Settlement Body (DSB). A WTO Arbitrator subsequently gave the U.S. 11 months (until December 27, 2003) to bring its measure into compliance. The U.S. failed to meet this deadline. WTO rules require that, in the event of non-compliance by a member following dispute settlement procedures, complainants seeking to preserve their retaliation rights, must seek retaliation authorization from the DSB within thirty days of the implementation deadline -- in this case, by January 26, 2004. Accordingly, at a special meeting on January 26, 2004, the DSB considered the requests for retaliation authorization made by Canada and the European Union, Brazil, Chile, India, Japan, Mexico, and South Korea. Canada requested that the level of retaliation be linked to the dollar amount disbursed under the Byrd Amendment to would ensure that Canada’s retaliation rights would be protected in the event of any large future disbursements. Canada proposed as possible retaliatory options, a surtax on imports from the U.S. and the suspension of the injury test in Canadian anti-dumping and countervailing duty investigations involving imports from the U.S.. Under WTO rules, anti-dumping and countervailing duties may only be imposed if dumped or subsidised imports are causing or threatening to cause injury to domestic producers. Canada’s request proposed the suspension of that requirement on imports from the U.S. as a possible option for retaliation. The U.S. objected to all the complainants’ requests and the determination of the level of retaliation was referred to arbitration. On March 2, 2004, the non-partisan U.S. Congressional Budget released a report which condemned the Byrd Amendment on several grounds. The report highlights that trade retaliation was among the consequences if the Byrd Amendment was not repealed. The Report also states that the Byrd Amendment encourages trade remedy cases, subsidizes the outputs of some firms at the expense of others and discourages settlement of cases by U.S. firms that brought those trade remedy actions. The report can be found here. On August 31, 2004, the WTO Arbitrator ruled that Canada could retaliate against the United States up to 72% of the annual level of U.S. anti-dumping and countervailing duties collected on Canadian goods disbursed to U.S. producers under the Byrd Amendment. This level is based on an economic model developed by the WTO to measure the trade effect of the Byrd Amendment on U.S. trading partners. This level was also provided to the seven other WTO Members involved in the arbitration (Brazil, Chile, European Union, India, Japan, Mexico, and South Korea). On November 10, 2004, Canada joined the Brazil, the European Union, India, Japan, Mexico, and South Korea in submitting its final retaliation authorization request, reflecting the WTO Arbitrator’s decision. That request will be considered at the November 24th meeting of the Dispute Settlement Body. It will be automatically be accepted unless all Members, including Canada, rejects the request. According to U.S. Customs, Byrd disbursements to U.S. producers amounted to US$ 231 million in 2001, US$ 330 million in 2002, and US$ 240 million in 2003. Disbursements linked directly to duties paid on Canadian goods amounted to US$ 5.2 million in 2001, US$ 2.5 million in 2002, and US$ 9.5 million for 2003. Estimated 2004 disbursements linked to duties paid on Canadian goods is approximately US$ 14 million. Canadian softwood lumber producers have paid over US$3 billion in cash deposits to date. Small amounts of softwood lumber duties for which no administrative review was requested were disbursed in 2003. Approximately US$ 1 billion could begin to be disbursed annually starting in late 2007. This is due to the ongoing process of administrative reviews and NAFTA litigation. Now this proposed Surtax ... __________________ Gord May GordMay@Boatpro.zzn.com ~~_/)_~~ (Gord & Maggie - "Southbound") "If you didn't have time to do it right in the first place, when will you get the time to fix it"
Here is an artical you might be iterested in from another forum that just up. ......................................................................_/) Byrd Amendments incites Boat Tax From “Soundings - Trade Only Today (11/26/2004) Canada threatens 100-percent boat surtax The National Marine Manufacturers Association says urgent action is needed to stop a 100-percent surtax from being imposed on American-made recreational boats imported into Canada. The surtax would apply to imported products from the United States, including pleasure vessels such as yachts, sailboats, powerboats, inflatables and canoes. NMMA is asking its members to contact their dealers in Canada and urge them to register their opposition. “This surtax would be devastating to U.S. boat manufacturers that export vessels to Canada,” said NMMA president Thom Dammrich in a statement. “It would double the price of all American boats sold over the border, eliminating our competitiveness in the Canadian market.” The Canadian government Tuesday announced that it might impose the surtax in retaliation for the Byrd Amendment, a law that allows duties collected from antidumping and countervailing to be given to U.S. firms that petition for tax relief. Canada said it intends to levy tariffs on many other imported U.S. goods in addition to boats. The Byrd Amendment, named for U.S. Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., was challenged by a number of countries in the World Trade Organization. The WTO has ruled that the amendment violates trade agreements, and that member countries can retaliate against the United States. Canada has said it favors repeal of the Byrd Amendment over the imposition of tariffs, but until that happens, government officials there said they must explore the retaliatory measures allowed by the WTO. The WTO found in January 2003 that the Byrd Amendment was inconsistent with its rules and gave the United States until December of that year to come into compliance. When Congress failed to act by January of this year, WTO members began to file for permission to retaliate. “NMMA will be aggressively pursuing a repeal of the Byrd Amendment in the 109th Congress, and will be meeting with key congressional staff next week,” said Monita Fontaine, NMMA vice president of government relations, in a statement. “The amendment must be repealed immediately in order to prevent not only Canada but other WTO countries from seeking to impose tariffs on the boating industry.” The Canadian government is soliciting comments on the proposed tariffs until Dec. 20. Visit NMMA @: www.nmma.org/government/issueadvoca...x.asp?catid=234 Backgrounder: On October 28, 2000, President Bill Clinton signed the "Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001". The "Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000" (Byrd Amendment) was part of that Act. Under the Byrd Amendment (which amended the Tariff Act of 1930, the principal U.S. trade remedy statute), anti-dumping and countervailing duties are given to U.S. producers who supported those trade remedy actions. These duties were previously deposited in the U.S. Treasury. This means that U.S. companies that bring trade remedy cases to U.S. authorities stand to benefit not only from the imposition of anti-dumping and countervailing duties on competing imports, but also from direct payments from the U.S. government when those duties are disbursed. In September 2001, eleven WTO Members, including Canada, challenged the Byrd Amendment at the WTO. The ten other co-complainants are: the European Union, Australia, Brazil, Chile, India, Indonesia, Japan, Mexico, Korea, and Thailand. In September 2002, the WTO Panel determined that these payments are not consistent with U.S. obligations under WTO Agreements governing Anti-Dumping and Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. The Panel determined that the payments constitute an additional measure against injurious dumping and subsidization not contemplated in either agreement. The case was then appealed by the U.S. and in January 2003, a WTO Appellate Body report, upholding the key panel findings against the Byrd Amendment, was adopted by the WTO’s Dispute Settlement Body (DSB). A WTO Arbitrator subsequently gave the U.S. 11 months (until December 27, 2003) to bring its measure into compliance. The U.S. failed to meet this deadline. WTO rules require that, in the event of non-compliance by a member following dispute settlement procedures, complainants seeking to preserve their retaliation rights, must seek retaliation authorization from the DSB within thirty days of the implementation deadline -- in this case, by January 26, 2004. Accordingly, at a special meeting on January 26, 2004, the DSB considered the requests for retaliation authorization made by Canada and the European Union, Brazil, Chile, India, Japan, Mexico, and South Korea. Canada requested that the level of retaliation be linked to the dollar amount disbursed under the Byrd Amendment to would ensure that Canada’s retaliation rights would be protected in the event of any large future disbursements. Canada proposed as possible retaliatory options, a surtax on imports from the U.S. and the suspension of the injury test in Canadian anti-dumping and countervailing duty investigations involving imports from the U.S.. Under WTO rules, anti-dumping and countervailing duties may only be imposed if dumped or subsidised imports are causing or threatening to cause injury to domestic producers. Canada’s request proposed the suspension of that requirement on imports from the U.S. as a possible option for retaliation. The U.S. objected to all the complainants’ requests and the determination of the level of retaliation was referred to arbitration. On March 2, 2004, the non-partisan U.S. Congressional Budget released a report which condemned the Byrd Amendment on several grounds. The report highlights that trade retaliation was among the consequences if the Byrd Amendment was not repealed. The Report also states that the Byrd Amendment encourages trade remedy cases, subsidizes the outputs of some firms at the expense of others and discourages settlement of cases by U.S. firms that brought those trade remedy actions. The report can be found here. On August 31, 2004, the WTO Arbitrator ruled that Canada could retaliate against the United States up to 72% of the annual level of U.S. anti-dumping and countervailing duties collected on Canadian goods disbursed to U.S. producers under the Byrd Amendment. This level is based on an economic model developed by the WTO to measure the trade effect of the Byrd Amendment on U.S. trading partners. This level was also provided to the seven other WTO Members involved in the arbitration (Brazil, Chile, European Union, India, Japan, Mexico, and South Korea). On November 10, 2004, Canada joined the Brazil, the European Union, India, Japan, Mexico, and South Korea in submitting its final retaliation authorization request, reflecting the WTO Arbitrator’s decision. That request will be considered at the November 24th meeting of the Dispute Settlement Body. It will be automatically be accepted unless all Members, including Canada, rejects the request. According to U.S. Customs, Byrd disbursements to U.S. producers amounted to US$ 231 million in 2001, US$ 330 million in 2002, and US$ 240 million in 2003. Disbursements linked directly to duties paid on Canadian goods amounted to US$ 5.2 million in 2001, US$ 2.5 million in 2002, and US$ 9.5 million for 2003. Estimated 2004 disbursements linked to duties paid on Canadian goods is approximately US$ 14 million. Canadian softwood lumber producers have paid over US$3 billion in cash deposits to date. Small amounts of softwood lumber duties for which no administrative review was requested were disbursed in 2003. Approximately US$ 1 billion could begin to be disbursed annually starting in late 2007. This is due to the ongoing process of administrative reviews and NAFTA litigation. Now this proposed Surtax ... __________________ Gord May GordMay@Boatpro.zzn.com ~~_/)_~~ (Gord & Maggie - "Southbound") "If you didn't have time to do it right in the first place, when will you get the time to fix it"
Taxes:
I for one, feel that the government (in general) finds as many ways as it can to put it grubby hannds in my pocket and pull out as much tax money as it can without regard to my objections. If the government where to be run "...by the people...", noone would object to paying his/her fair share. But that idealogical idea is like the tooth fairy, nice to talk about but has nothing to do with reality. As a result, I feel it is my obligation to myself to keep the hands of big brother off the money that I WORKED for as much as possible. As I recall, a few people had a 'tea party' a couple hundred years ago for the EXACT same reason.
I for one, feel that the government (in general) finds as many ways as it can to put it grubby hannds in my pocket and pull out as much tax money as it can without regard to my objections. If the government where to be run "...by the people...", noone would object to paying his/her fair share. But that idealogical idea is like the tooth fairy, nice to talk about but has nothing to do with reality. As a result, I feel it is my obligation to myself to keep the hands of big brother off the money that I WORKED for as much as possible. As I recall, a few people had a 'tea party' a couple hundred years ago for the EXACT same reason.
I sympathize with you, Alan ...
But the Boston Tea Party was not exactly the same thing. American colonists were rightiously angry for being taxed without REPRESENTATION. That is, they had no say in how the King of England reached into their pockets. We have no excuse. We elect the politicians that reach into ours. As Gord points out, our elected leaders affect countless aspects of our lives, in ways we find it difficult to understand. I read through his post a couple of times and have to admit that I can't tell you exactly how I believe the Byrd Amendment really works in balance with the impact to U.S. businesses. In general, I think that artificial (politically created) trade adjustments on any side of the border are a bad idea when they lead to retaliatory actions that impact our buying decisions and freedom of choice. For my employer, the yearly expense for lumber is in the multi-millions. What do I care if we buy from Canadian or U.S. producers. I hope they all are equally profitable. Who knows, maybe we will be building homes in Toronto someday. The last thing I want is for our suppliers and potential markets to be restricted by politicians for some self-serving interest. BTW, when are the good citizens of West Virginia going to vote that guy out??!! ;{
But the Boston Tea Party was not exactly the same thing. American colonists were rightiously angry for being taxed without REPRESENTATION. That is, they had no say in how the King of England reached into their pockets. We have no excuse. We elect the politicians that reach into ours. As Gord points out, our elected leaders affect countless aspects of our lives, in ways we find it difficult to understand. I read through his post a couple of times and have to admit that I can't tell you exactly how I believe the Byrd Amendment really works in balance with the impact to U.S. businesses. In general, I think that artificial (politically created) trade adjustments on any side of the border are a bad idea when they lead to retaliatory actions that impact our buying decisions and freedom of choice. For my employer, the yearly expense for lumber is in the multi-millions. What do I care if we buy from Canadian or U.S. producers. I hope they all are equally profitable. Who knows, maybe we will be building homes in Toronto someday. The last thing I want is for our suppliers and potential markets to be restricted by politicians for some self-serving interest. BTW, when are the good citizens of West Virginia going to vote that guy out??!! ;{
51st State? How about 11th Province?
How about a reverse take-over. Seems to me that with Canada being the U.S.'s largest trading partner and the U.S. being WAY OVERBALANCED in the balance of trade department (you buy more outside the U.S. than you create inside and sell to others)... Canada may want to start bartering raw materials for property. For starters, so many Calgarians own land in Montana, Idaho and Arizona - why not just hand those states over to us and we'll ... say ... give you 100 million gallons of fresh water for Los Angeles per day for 5 years. Oh ... then there's all the friendly Franco-Canadians in Florida and S. Carolina. Transfer title of those sates to us and we'll front you say ... a couple of thousnad giga watts of Quebec Hydro power to New York for 5 years. And Hey! ... so many B.C. Bud smokers like it over on Maui, let's pull an island for weed deal. Now if we can only figure a way to get all these mad cows worked into the deal we'd be set. Let me see ... Hey is MacDonalds expanding into S. America yet? We could have an endless source of cheap burgers for them. Just athought. P.S. George W is here today. I hope the local nutjobs in Ottawa remember their manners.
How about a reverse take-over. Seems to me that with Canada being the U.S.'s largest trading partner and the U.S. being WAY OVERBALANCED in the balance of trade department (you buy more outside the U.S. than you create inside and sell to others)... Canada may want to start bartering raw materials for property. For starters, so many Calgarians own land in Montana, Idaho and Arizona - why not just hand those states over to us and we'll ... say ... give you 100 million gallons of fresh water for Los Angeles per day for 5 years. Oh ... then there's all the friendly Franco-Canadians in Florida and S. Carolina. Transfer title of those sates to us and we'll front you say ... a couple of thousnad giga watts of Quebec Hydro power to New York for 5 years. And Hey! ... so many B.C. Bud smokers like it over on Maui, let's pull an island for weed deal. Now if we can only figure a way to get all these mad cows worked into the deal we'd be set. Let me see ... Hey is MacDonalds expanding into S. America yet? We could have an endless source of cheap burgers for them. Just athought. P.S. George W is here today. I hope the local nutjobs in Ottawa remember their manners.
The same side of the deal?
You guys can't make a deal if both want the same territory ... unless you want to be on the same side of the deal. Richard, I'd be leary of making a deal with a guy that switches his first and last name. Do the Red States of America align with particular provinces in Canada? Maybe this secession idea has border crossing implications?
You guys can't make a deal if both want the same territory ... unless you want to be on the same side of the deal. Richard, I'd be leary of making a deal with a guy that switches his first and last name. Do the Red States of America align with particular provinces in Canada? Maybe this secession idea has border crossing implications?
You guys are gettin close, but I think
the split oughta be East & West. I feel at home West of the Rockies, Hunter S. Thompson once said "From California, civilization as we know it, ends somewhere East of the Rockies". Face it, we all talk real slow out here, they talk way to fast (except New England & Northern Provinces where they don't talk at all). Western Canadians & Americans share a common langauge and culture, not sure about Texas, they would probably just as soon be their own republic again. That'd be OK except they'd probably try to take over Mexico.
the split oughta be East & West. I feel at home West of the Rockies, Hunter S. Thompson once said "From California, civilization as we know it, ends somewhere East of the Rockies". Face it, we all talk real slow out here, they talk way to fast (except New England & Northern Provinces where they don't talk at all). Western Canadians & Americans share a common langauge and culture, not sure about Texas, they would probably just as soon be their own republic again. That'd be OK except they'd probably try to take over Mexico.
Perry!
Roger is the only hope for sanity left!!!! Merge with Canada. That means we call for a constitutional convention. We have most EVERYTHING in common (speaking of the blue west coast states) Then we can get rid of the BS in our constitution, like GUNS. The canuks (did I spell that right) can get rid of the French! Such a deal! Both sides win.
Roger is the only hope for sanity left!!!! Merge with Canada. That means we call for a constitutional convention. We have most EVERYTHING in common (speaking of the blue west coast states) Then we can get rid of the BS in our constitution, like GUNS. The canuks (did I spell that right) can get rid of the French! Such a deal! Both sides win.
CMMA Against Tarrif
The Canadian Marine Manufacturers Association is joining the fight against a 100-percent tariff on U.S.-built recreational boats that has been proposed by the Canadian government. “This tariff would be completely devastating to the Canadian boating industry,” said Sandy Currie, executive director of CMMA, in a statement. The tariff is retaliation for the Byrd Amendment, a law that allows funds collected from anti-dumping fines and countervailing duties to be given to U.S. firms that petition for tax relief. The World Trade Organization has ruled that the amendment violates international trade laws, and has given other countries a green light to implement a tariff on selected U.S. manufactured products. CMMA says it is against this tariff being applied to any product in the boating industry. The association will be appealing to the Canadian government to have Chapter 89.03 — “yachts and other vessels for pleasure or sports; rowing boats and canoes” — removed from the list of products for the proposed tariffs. In addition, CMMA supports an appeal of the Byrd Amendment and will be working with other marine industry associations in Canada and the National Marine Manufacturers Association on this issue. CMMA is encouraging its members to contact their local members of Parliament about the “tremendous stress and devastating impact” the tariff would have on their businesses. “How would 100-percent tariffs affect me? The answer is severely,” James Malcolm, who sells Johnson Outdoors boats through his Kingston, Ontario dealership, told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Several Wisconsin-based boatbuilders said the tariff would double the price of U.S. boats sold over the border, and make it impossible for them to compete in the Canadian market, the newspaper reports. “You would never be able to survive in the boat business in Canada,” Genmar Holdings chairman Irwin Jacobs was quoted as saying. Genmar is the parent company of Pulaski, Wis.-based Carver Yachts. Crayke Windsor, co-owner of Storm Hawk Boats Co. in Madison, Wis., told the Journal Sentinel that his company “just flat out couldn’t compete in Canada” with the proposed tariff. “It’s unfortunate that manufacturers have to take the brunt of politics,” he added. The Canadian government has set a Dec. 20 deadline for accepting comments about the proposed tariffs.
The Canadian Marine Manufacturers Association is joining the fight against a 100-percent tariff on U.S.-built recreational boats that has been proposed by the Canadian government. “This tariff would be completely devastating to the Canadian boating industry,” said Sandy Currie, executive director of CMMA, in a statement. The tariff is retaliation for the Byrd Amendment, a law that allows funds collected from anti-dumping fines and countervailing duties to be given to U.S. firms that petition for tax relief. The World Trade Organization has ruled that the amendment violates international trade laws, and has given other countries a green light to implement a tariff on selected U.S. manufactured products. CMMA says it is against this tariff being applied to any product in the boating industry. The association will be appealing to the Canadian government to have Chapter 89.03 — “yachts and other vessels for pleasure or sports; rowing boats and canoes” — removed from the list of products for the proposed tariffs. In addition, CMMA supports an appeal of the Byrd Amendment and will be working with other marine industry associations in Canada and the National Marine Manufacturers Association on this issue. CMMA is encouraging its members to contact their local members of Parliament about the “tremendous stress and devastating impact” the tariff would have on their businesses. “How would 100-percent tariffs affect me? The answer is severely,” James Malcolm, who sells Johnson Outdoors boats through his Kingston, Ontario dealership, told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Several Wisconsin-based boatbuilders said the tariff would double the price of U.S. boats sold over the border, and make it impossible for them to compete in the Canadian market, the newspaper reports. “You would never be able to survive in the boat business in Canada,” Genmar Holdings chairman Irwin Jacobs was quoted as saying. Genmar is the parent company of Pulaski, Wis.-based Carver Yachts. Crayke Windsor, co-owner of Storm Hawk Boats Co. in Madison, Wis., told the Journal Sentinel that his company “just flat out couldn’t compete in Canada” with the proposed tariff. “It’s unfortunate that manufacturers have to take the brunt of politics,” he added. The Canadian government has set a Dec. 20 deadline for accepting comments about the proposed tariffs.
CASCADIA is the answer!
A few years ago, a think tank was conviened in Banff or futurists from the Pacific North-West, California and the Western Provinces. Their conclusion was that the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia, the Territory of the Yukon and the states of Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana and California have: - more in common with each other than with thier "sister states or provinces to the east; - enormous untapped resource and intellectual potential; -a significant drain of resources, both natural and financial to support eastern "have-not" jurisdictions; - unparalled potential to make the new millenium the century of the Pacic Rim; - unbridalled optimism amoung its (comparitavely) younger, better educated, wealthier and more entrepreneurial population; etc, etc, etc. The sum total was that for the 70 million inhabitants of those jurisdictions(20% of the combined national population), there was greater future potential in forming a union amoung themselves. The concept of a new economic unit called CASCADIA was concieved. People still talk about it. It was actually raised during a Conservative Party (Republicans) convention this past spring. Interesting idea.
A few years ago, a think tank was conviened in Banff or futurists from the Pacific North-West, California and the Western Provinces. Their conclusion was that the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia, the Territory of the Yukon and the states of Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana and California have: - more in common with each other than with thier "sister states or provinces to the east; - enormous untapped resource and intellectual potential; -a significant drain of resources, both natural and financial to support eastern "have-not" jurisdictions; - unparalled potential to make the new millenium the century of the Pacic Rim; - unbridalled optimism amoung its (comparitavely) younger, better educated, wealthier and more entrepreneurial population; etc, etc, etc. The sum total was that for the 70 million inhabitants of those jurisdictions(20% of the combined national population), there was greater future potential in forming a union amoung themselves. The concept of a new economic unit called CASCADIA was concieved. People still talk about it. It was actually raised during a Conservative Party (Republicans) convention this past spring. Interesting idea.
Even our state is split
The eastern half of Washington is Republican-farmer bible thumpers and the western half is mostly techies. Same with Oregon. A group tried to form a new state a couple years ago. Western Washington and western Oregon would be called Columbia. I forget what the eastern combination would be called. Alas, they failed. The group disbanded.
But Cascadia would be great for a new country.
The eastern half of Washington is Republican-farmer bible thumpers and the western half is mostly techies. Same with Oregon. A group tried to form a new state a couple years ago. Western Washington and western Oregon would be called Columbia. I forget what the eastern combination would be called. Alas, they failed. The group disbanded.
But Cascadia would be great for a new country.Sounds Appealing, Richard!
Cascadia sounds like a nice place! How would the immigration laws work. Any room for some immigrants from Joisey?
Cascadia sounds like a nice place! How would the immigration laws work. Any room for some immigrants from Joisey?
Everyone would be welcome!
Everyone who wants a piece of the good life would be welcome to Cascadia. Even if you just want to park a boat out here and keep your residence in NJ. Hell, we'll even keep her washed and in bristle shape for you. Alberta just finished paying off it's debt and therefore makes Alberta and Alaska the only debt free jurisdictions in North America (love that oil revenue). We're even thinking of abolishing the monthly medical surcharge ($75 month per family) and the real keeners want to elliminate the personal income tax (like Alaska did). In Cascadia (of course) these innovative steps would be enshrined in our constitution along with the requirement for government services to be provided by as small a civil service as possible i.e. one civil servant to 50,000 residents rather than the 1:20,000 in most locations. Boat ownership expenses would provide a tax-credit as it is an investment in your well-being and therefore keeps you out of the medical care facilities. (Couldn't be a tax deduction as we would not have income tax) We would have to sort out the marijuana / same sex marriage / gun control issue : 'cause we're all over the map on those ones - but I think a legislature of sailors could sort all this out over the winter and leave 8 months a year for sailing. Who's in?
Everyone who wants a piece of the good life would be welcome to Cascadia. Even if you just want to park a boat out here and keep your residence in NJ. Hell, we'll even keep her washed and in bristle shape for you. Alberta just finished paying off it's debt and therefore makes Alberta and Alaska the only debt free jurisdictions in North America (love that oil revenue). We're even thinking of abolishing the monthly medical surcharge ($75 month per family) and the real keeners want to elliminate the personal income tax (like Alaska did). In Cascadia (of course) these innovative steps would be enshrined in our constitution along with the requirement for government services to be provided by as small a civil service as possible i.e. one civil servant to 50,000 residents rather than the 1:20,000 in most locations. Boat ownership expenses would provide a tax-credit as it is an investment in your well-being and therefore keeps you out of the medical care facilities. (Couldn't be a tax deduction as we would not have income tax) We would have to sort out the marijuana / same sex marriage / gun control issue : 'cause we're all over the map on those ones - but I think a legislature of sailors could sort all this out over the winter and leave 8 months a year for sailing. Who's in?
I like it Richard, I think as long as we try to
keep a philosophy of not caring what others do as long as it don't hurt me, I think we can work out the small stuff. A mix of people is good as long as one side don't run roughshod over the other. That seems to be what's happening now, urban populations & global economics have eliminated the rural industries of farming, lumber & fishing. Down here our Hollywood Governor just gave the whole coast below high tide line to the Feds, who gave it to BLM which is in the process of making everything a some kind of park. They just turned the Mojave Desert into a National Preserve even tho' there are people whose families have been ranching there for 200 years.
keep a philosophy of not caring what others do as long as it don't hurt me, I think we can work out the small stuff. A mix of people is good as long as one side don't run roughshod over the other. That seems to be what's happening now, urban populations & global economics have eliminated the rural industries of farming, lumber & fishing. Down here our Hollywood Governor just gave the whole coast below high tide line to the Feds, who gave it to BLM which is in the process of making everything a some kind of park. They just turned the Mojave Desert into a National Preserve even tho' there are people whose families have been ranching there for 200 years.
- Status