AARoads Forum

Non-Road Boards => Off-Topic => Topic started by: golden eagle on February 20, 2019, 07:54:33 PM

Title: Petition offered to sell Montana to Canada for $1 trillion
Post by: golden eagle on February 20, 2019, 07:54:33 PM
Down payment on the national debt:

https://www.newsweek.com/montana-worth-selling-canada-1-trillion-thousands-people-think-so-1336512
Title: Re: Petition offered to sell Montana to Canada for $1 trillion
Post by: nexus73 on February 20, 2019, 07:59:29 PM
I wonder what we can get for that tiny piece of Minnesota which sticks into Molsen Country?

Rick
Title: Re: Petition offered to sell Montana to Canada for $1 trillion
Post by: 1 on February 20, 2019, 08:02:41 PM
When I saw this thread title, I was thinking both "this should belong in the create your own news stories thread" and "it's not April 1". I didn't realize this was a real petition, although it's even less likely to pass than the "3 Californias" petition.
Title: Re: Petition offered to sell Montana to Canada for $1 trillion
Post by: Takumi on February 20, 2019, 08:05:04 PM
what
Title: Re: Petition offered to sell Montana to Canada for $1 trillion
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 20, 2019, 08:14:04 PM
When I saw this thread title, I was thinking both "this should belong in the create your own news stories thread" and "it's not April 1". I didn't realize this was a real petition, although it's even less likely to pass than the "3 Californias" petition.

Well, all petitons are real. Are they serious? Not really.
Title: Re: Petition offered to sell Montana to Canada for $1 trillion
Post by: Takumi on February 20, 2019, 08:24:54 PM
But if we sell Montana to Canada, how will rich guys evade paying taxes on their cars?
Title: Re: Petition offered to sell Montana to Canada for $1 trillion
Post by: nexus73 on February 20, 2019, 09:48:36 PM
But if we sell Montana to Canada, how will rich guys evade paying taxes on their cars?

Oregon!  Ever wonder why we have large RV manufacturing here?  Got half a mil or more to spend on something bigger than a Greyhound bus?  Well folks, let me introduce you to Oregon, where there is no sales tax on vehicles or at least none until a little while ago, when new vehicle sales got a tax slapped on them.  These dealers knew the shady side of setting the expensive RV owners up with an Oregon title and registration but eventually the state squeezed them hard so there went that deal.

Today to transfer a title is over $100 and registration for two years is over $100.  When I bought my first car in the summer of 1973, title transfers were $2 and registration for two years was $10.  Boy howdy, did we have it good!

Rick
Title: Re: Petition offered to sell Montana to Canada for $1 trillion
Post by: Takumi on February 20, 2019, 10:59:26 PM
But if we sell Montana to Canada, how will rich guys evade paying taxes on their cars?

Oregon!  Ever wonder why we have large RV manufacturing here?  Got half a mil or more to spend on something bigger than a Greyhound bus?  Well folks, let me introduce you to Oregon, where there is no sales tax on vehicles or at least none until a little while ago, when new vehicle sales got a tax slapped on them.  These dealers knew the shady side of setting the expensive RV owners up with an Oregon title and registration but eventually the state squeezed them hard so there went that deal.

Today to transfer a title is over $100 and registration for two years is over $100.  When I bought my first car in the summer of 1973, title transfers were $2 and registration for two years was $10.  Boy howdy, did we have it good!

Rick
Montana has a loophole where you can establish an LLC there, buy a car anywhere but register it in Montana, pay no taxes on it, and be able to drive it in whatever state you actually reside. Lots of rich people use the loophole to buy supercars and not pay tax on them. Some states are cracking down on it.
https://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/news/out-of-state-car-buyers-use-montana-llc-s-to/article_b4b37d29-e894-523e-b0ed-be7c0bf7e398.html
Title: Re: Petition offered to sell Montana to Canada for $1 trillion
Post by: Roadgeekteen on February 20, 2019, 11:41:30 PM
RIP I-90. Would need to build something through Yellowstone and the mountains.
Title: Re: Petition offered to sell Montana to Canada for $1 trillion
Post by: nexus73 on February 21, 2019, 12:15:40 AM
But if we sell Montana to Canada, how will rich guys evade paying taxes on their cars?

Oregon!  Ever wonder why we have large RV manufacturing here?  Got half a mil or more to spend on something bigger than a Greyhound bus?  Well folks, let me introduce you to Oregon, where there is no sales tax on vehicles or at least none until a little while ago, when new vehicle sales got a tax slapped on them.  These dealers knew the shady side of setting the expensive RV owners up with an Oregon title and registration but eventually the state squeezed them hard so there went that deal.

Today to transfer a title is over $100 and registration for two years is over $100.  When I bought my first car in the summer of 1973, title transfers were $2 and registration for two years was $10.  Boy howdy, did we have it good!

Rick
Montana has a loophole where you can establish an LLC there, buy a car anywhere but register it in Montana, pay no taxes on it, and be able to drive it in whatever state you actually reside. Lots of rich people use the loophole to buy supercars and not pay tax on them. Some states are cracking down on it.
https://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/news/out-of-state-car-buyers-use-montana-llc-s-to/article_b4b37d29-e894-523e-b0ed-be7c0bf7e398.html

Wow, that is the first I have heard of this going on in Montana!  Anytime a level of government decides to raise the taxes, people will behave like water and find a way to leak out of the system.  Then that level of government has to go on a chase to get their money back!  California just recently had a story come from there about reducing MJ taxes since they were so high that the black market was still flourishing. 

Rick
Title: Re: Petition offered to sell Montana to Canada for $1 trillion
Post by: kphoger on February 21, 2019, 02:56:41 PM
Montana has a loophole where you can establish an LLC there, buy a car anywhere but register it in Montana, pay no taxes on it, and be able to drive it in whatever state you actually reside. Lots of rich people use the loophole to buy supercars and not pay tax on them. Some states are cracking down on it.

Yep.  The owner of the company I work for had his RV tagged with Montana plates, and that's exactly how he did it.  That was before he had a front tire had a blowout while driving 70-75 mph on the turnpike, they miraculously managed to not flip the thing and kill people, and the frame was torqued beyond easy repair.  I'm not even sure if he plans to buy a new one or not.
Title: Re: Petition offered to sell Montana to Canada for $1 trillion
Post by: Roadgeekteen on February 21, 2019, 04:18:21 PM
US without Montana would be some real bordergore.
Title: Re: Petition offered to sell Montana to Canada for $1 trillion
Post by: 1 on February 21, 2019, 04:24:42 PM
US without Montana would be some real bordergore.

It wouldn't look any more out of place than Sault Ste. Marie to Montreal belonging to Canada instead of the US, with the exception that in the case of Montana moving to Canada, the BC/ID and SK/ND borders would still line up perfectly.
Title: Re: Petition offered to sell Montana to Canada for $1 trillion
Post by: nexus73 on February 21, 2019, 04:36:42 PM
54 40 Or Fight!  That was then.  Now it's "$1 Trillion Gets You A State!".  Imagine a group of billionaires getting together and buying one...

The last time the US purchased land from another nation was 1917.  We bought the Virgin Islands from Denmark.  102 years later and now we are selling...LOL!

Rick
Title: Re: Petition offered to sell Montana to Canada for $1 trillion
Post by: Stephane Dumas on February 21, 2019, 06:00:13 PM
I wonder what we can get for that tiny piece of Minnesota which sticks into Molsen Country?

Rick

While we're at it, we could add Point Roberts along with some parts of Alaska panhandle, Northern Maine, Campobello Island to the list. ;) 
Title: Re: Petition offered to sell Montana to Canada for $1 trillion
Post by: Scott5114 on February 21, 2019, 08:44:36 PM
I can think of some states I'd rather sell off than Montana. The US would probably be better off without Oklahoma, for instance.

Wait, shit.
Title: Re: Petition offered to sell Montana to Canada for $1 trillion
Post by: GaryV on February 21, 2019, 09:13:54 PM
Sell off 22 more states, and we'd be out of debt.
Title: Re: Petition offered to sell Montana to Canada for $1 trillion
Post by: nexus73 on February 21, 2019, 10:25:45 PM
I can think of some states I'd rather sell off than Montana. The US would probably be better off without Oklahoma, for instance.

Wait, shit.

I wonder which state would be the best one to sell?  So far our best deals were the Louisiana Purchase and Seward's Folly when being the buyer.  Do we go for maximum dinero or do we sell off our equivalent of Baltic and Mediterranean? 

Want another option?  Robert Heinlein wrote a book about such and given how people like Musk and Branson are going, we may get such a future.  Here is a blurb I found:

"The Man Who Sold the Moon" is a science fiction novella by American author Robert A. Heinlein, written in 1949 and published in 1950. A part of his Future History and prequel to "Requiem", it covers events around a fictional first Moon landing in 1978 and the schemes of Delos D. Harriman, a businessman who is determined to personally reach and control the Moon.

Rick

Title: Re: Petition offered to sell Montana to Canada for $1 trillion
Post by: Bruce on February 22, 2019, 12:16:49 AM
We could pay off the entire national debt by selling Washington. We'd be sad to go, but I'd love to remain a resident of Canadian Washington.
Title: Re: Petition offered to sell Montana to Canada for $1 trillion
Post by: Scott5114 on February 22, 2019, 01:30:22 AM
I can think of some states I'd rather sell off than Montana. The US would probably be better off without Oklahoma, for instance.

Wait, shit.

I wonder which state would be the best one to sell?

If you were to run the country like a business, you would want to sell the lowest-performing states, i.e. the ones that have the lowest per-capita GDP. Using 2015 stats (which are the most recent ones Wikipedia has), that would say you would sell Mississippi, West Virginia, and Idaho first.

Alaska actually performs better than New York on a per-capita basis, the only state that does so.
Title: Re: Petition offered to sell Montana to Canada for $1 trillion
Post by: ET21 on February 22, 2019, 08:55:24 AM
North Dakota should go first
Title: Re: Petition offered to sell Montana to Canada for $1 trillion
Post by: SP Cook on February 22, 2019, 12:54:15 PM
BTW, while the whole concept is silly in the first place, basic Constitutional law would teach us that Montana is not the USA's to sell, because the USA is a creation of the states, not the other way around.  If you want to make a business analogy, Montana owns a 1/50th share in a corporation known as the "USA".

Title: Re: Petition offered to sell Montana to Canada for $1 trillion
Post by: Brandon on February 22, 2019, 01:13:01 PM
BTW, while the whole concept is silly in the first place, basic Constitutional law would teach us that Montana is not the USA's to sell, because the USA is a creation of the states, not the other way around.  If you want to make a business analogy, Montana owns a 1/50th share in a corporation known as the "USA".

And they'd need Montana's willingness and agreement to go in any case as no state can be removed from the Union without its own consent.
Title: Re: Petition offered to sell Montana to Canada for $1 trillion
Post by: Roadgeekteen on February 22, 2019, 04:19:05 PM
BTW, while the whole concept is silly in the first place, basic Constitutional law would teach us that Montana is not the USA's to sell, because the USA is a creation of the states, not the other way around.  If you want to make a business analogy, Montana owns a 1/50th share in a corporation known as the "USA".

And they'd need Montana's willingness and agreement to go in any case as no state can be removed from the Union without its own consent.
Well, the constitution could be changed.
Title: Re: Petition offered to sell Montana to Canada for $1 trillion
Post by: 1 on February 22, 2019, 04:26:33 PM
BTW, while the whole concept is silly in the first place, basic Constitutional law would teach us that Montana is not the USA's to sell, because the USA is a creation of the states, not the other way around.  If you want to make a business analogy, Montana owns a 1/50th share in a corporation known as the "USA".

And they'd need Montana's willingness and agreement to go in any case as no state can be removed from the Union without its own consent.
Well, the constitution could be changed.

Almost nobody would agree to make that change.
Title: Re: Petition offered to sell Montana to Canada for $1 trillion
Post by: Roadgeekteen on February 22, 2019, 05:35:27 PM
BTW, while the whole concept is silly in the first place, basic Constitutional law would teach us that Montana is not the USA's to sell, because the USA is a creation of the states, not the other way around.  If you want to make a business analogy, Montana owns a 1/50th share in a corporation known as the "USA".

And they'd need Montana's willingness and agreement to go in any case as no state can be removed from the Union without its own consent.
Well, the constitution could be changed.

Almost nobody would agree to make that change.
Just saying that the other 49 could kick Montana out if they really wanted to.
Title: Re: Petition offered to sell Montana to Canada for $1 trillion
Post by: kphoger on February 22, 2019, 05:55:02 PM


BTW, while the whole concept is silly in the first place, basic Constitutional law would teach us that Montana is not the USA's to sell, because the USA is a creation of the states, not the other way around.  If you want to make a business analogy, Montana owns a 1/50th share in a corporation known as the "USA".

And they'd need Montana's willingness and agreement to go in any case as no state can be removed from the Union without its own consent.

Well, the constitution could be changed.

I don't buy it.  There is, to my knowledge, no part of the Constitution that basically says "these are the rules by which a State may leave the Union."  Rather, the Constitution is a construct of a Union of States, and it has therefore been determined by no less than the US Supreme Court to not allow a State to leave said Union except through the consent of the States.  This is not simply something you can alter in the Constitution by amendment, but rather extant constitutional law.

Quote from: US Supreme Court, Texas v. White
… the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not? … And we have already had occasion to remark at this term, that ... "without the States in union, there could be no such political body as the United States." … The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States.  When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States.

I think it's fairly clear that the phrase "consent of the States"—along with everything else about indissolubility, indestructibility, finality, and perpetuity—means all states, including the one in jeopardy of leaving the Union.  It should therefore be considered constitutional law that a State cannot be kicked out of the Union by the other 49.  Changing the Constitution would not un-write that constitutional law, and any amendment intended to contradict it would be determined inadmissible.
Title: Re: Petition offered to sell Montana to Canada for $1 trillion
Post by: Roadgeekteen on February 22, 2019, 09:15:31 PM


BTW, while the whole concept is silly in the first place, basic Constitutional law would teach us that Montana is not the USA's to sell, because the USA is a creation of the states, not the other way around.  If you want to make a business analogy, Montana owns a 1/50th share in a corporation known as the "USA".

And they'd need Montana's willingness and agreement to go in any case as no state can be removed from the Union without its own consent.

Well, the constitution could be changed.

I don't buy it.  There is, to my knowledge, no part of the Constitution that basically says "these are the rules by which a State may leave the Union."  Rather, the Constitution is a construct of a Union of States, and it has therefore been determined by no less than the US Supreme Court to not allow a State to leave said Union except through the consent of the States.  This is not simply something you can alter in the Constitution by amendment, but rather extant constitutional law.

Quote from: US Supreme Court, Texas v. White
… the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not? … And we have already had occasion to remark at this term, that ... "without the States in union, there could be no such political body as the United States." … The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States.  When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States.

I think it's fairly clear that the phrase "consent of the States"—along with everything else about indissolubility, indestructibility, finality, and perpetuity—means all states, including the one in jeopardy of leaving the Union.  It should therefore be considered constitutional law that a State cannot be kicked out of the Union by the other 49.  Changing the Constitution would not un-write that constitutional law, and any amendment intended to contradict it would be determined inadmissible.
But these are just pieces of paper. If the other 49 really wanted to kick Montana out they could.
Title: Re: Petition offered to sell Montana to Canada for $1 trillion
Post by: oscar on February 22, 2019, 09:39:15 PM
I think it's fairly clear that the phrase "consent of the States"—along with everything else about indissolubility, indestructibility, finality, and perpetuity—means all states, including the one in jeopardy of leaving the Union.  It should therefore be considered constitutional law that a State cannot be kicked out of the Union by the other 49.  Changing the Constitution would not un-write that constitutional law, and any amendment intended to contradict it would be determined inadmissible.

I'm not sure about that, since there is only one part of the Constitution (equal Senate representation) that can't be amended without consent of the affected state.

I wonder whether any border adjustment has happened without consent of the affected state(s). Lots of adjustments have happened where the affected lands were not yet part of a state. One that didn't was the resolution of the Chamizal border dispute in El Paso/Ciudad Juarez, which changed the Texas-Chihuahua border long after Texas became a state. But maybe Texas' consent was required, and given, to make that treaty happen. Another was how West Virginia was carved out of Virginia during our Civil War. But conveniently, Virginia had left the Union, and was required to agree to the loss of West Virginia before it was readmitted.
Title: Re: Petition offered to sell Montana to Canada for $1 trillion
Post by: kalvado on February 22, 2019, 09:40:12 PM
I hate to say that... but did anyone asked what Canada thinks about the offer?
Title: Re: Petition offered to sell Montana to Canada for $1 trillion
Post by: jp the roadgeek on February 23, 2019, 07:21:42 AM
US without Montana would be some real bordergore.
Would look something like the Southwick Jog on the CT/MA border.
Title: Re: Petition offered to sell Montana to Canada for $1 trillion
Post by: Scott5114 on February 24, 2019, 02:45:31 PM
If you want to make a business analogy, Montana owns a 1/50th share in a corporation known as the "USA".

I'd argue the actual fraction is 5/538ths, but the point still stands.
Title: Re: Petition offered to sell Montana to Canada for $1 trillion
Post by: Big John on February 24, 2019, 02:55:18 PM
^^ How do you figure 5/538 since Montana has only 3 electoral votes?
Title: Re: Petition offered to sell Montana to Canada for $1 trillion
Post by: Scott5114 on February 25, 2019, 04:36:36 AM
For some reason I was thinking 'Montana = 3' and thought '3' was the number of House seats, and added 2 to that. So I essentially double-counted the Senators. It's a mistake I make a lot.
Title: Re: Petition offered to sell Montana to Canada for $1 trillion
Post by: nexus73 on February 25, 2019, 12:09:45 PM
For some reason I was thinking 'Montana = 3' and thought '3' was the number of House seats, and added 2 to that. So I essentially double-counted the Senators. It's a mistake I make a lot.

It is funny to think that we have states with more Senators than House Representatives.  Then you go the other way, where the House Representative count for a state drowns the amount of Senators by an order of magnitude plus.  How overworked is the single Representative from low population states?  How overworked are Senators from states with large populations?  Having never served in either office or being involved in the legislative process of DC, I always did wonder about this.

Rick
Title: Re: Petition offered to sell Montana to Canada for $1 trillion
Post by: abefroman329 on February 25, 2019, 01:05:09 PM
For some reason I was thinking 'Montana = 3' and thought '3' was the number of House seats, and added 2 to that. So I essentially double-counted the Senators. It's a mistake I make a lot.

It is funny to think that we have states with more Senators than House Representatives.  Then you go the other way, where the House Representative count for a state drowns the amount of Senators by an order of magnitude plus.  How overworked is the single Representative from low population states?  How overworked are Senators from states with large populations?  Having never served in either office or being involved in the legislative process of DC, I always did wonder about this.

Rick
Since every state is guaranteed one Representative regardless of population, I think it's more that the single Rep from low-population states is underworked compared to a Rep from a state with multiple Reps, particularly if the state with multiple Reps is on the border of needing one more due to population.

Workload really has more to do with tenure, since the longer you've been in office, the likelier you are to be a committee chair.  Reps are pretty much constantly campaigning since they're up for election every 2 years.
Title: Re: Petition offered to sell Montana to Canada for $1 trillion
Post by: kphoger on February 25, 2019, 03:01:10 PM
But these are just pieces of paper. If the other 49 really wanted to kick Montana out they could.

If you're talking about an armed revolution, then what are we really arguing about?
Title: Re: Petition offered to sell Montana to Canada for $1 trillion
Post by: Henry on February 27, 2019, 01:44:20 PM
Is this really happening, or is it just a joke? If it is, then they really jumped the gun on this one!
Title: Re: Petition offered to sell Montana to Canada for $1 trillion
Post by: 1 on February 27, 2019, 01:46:41 PM
Is this really happening, or is it just a joke? If it is, then they really jumped the gun on this one!

There's an actual petition. Obviously, a petition passing does not automatically mean that the event happens.