Community Forums

Bill98116 · 03-14-2019, 10:21 AM

We are legal residents of SD whether we are physically in the state or not. We all count in the census which determines how many representatives the state has in Congress. It seems unlikely the state would want to limit their representation.
On the other hand, I can understand the SD legislators worry about their local politics having a bunch of people who don't live full time in their district having a voice.
They don't want their state to turn into CA where even illegals can vote.
Bill

2Yung2 Quit · 03-14-2019, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill98116

We are legal residents of SD whether we are physically in the state or not. We all count in the census which determines how many representatives the state has in Congress. It seems unlikely the state would want to limit their representation.
On the other hand, I can understand the SD legislators worry about their local politics having a bunch of people who don't live full time in their district having a voice.
They don't want their state to turn into CA where even illegals can vote.
Bill

Ouch. Yeah this.

Solo_RV_Guy · 03-14-2019, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill98116

We are legal residents of SD whether we are physically in the state or not. We all count in the census which determines how many representatives the state has in Congress. It seems unlikely the state would want to limit their representation.
On the other hand, I can understand the SD legislators worry about their local politics having a bunch of people who don't live full time in their district having a voice.
They don't want their state to turn into CA where even illegals can vote.
Bill

Anyone who lies can vote anywhere, but that opens a political discussion best left away from these forums.

The impact of votes by people who, while duly registered voters, do not physically reside in the community, county or state is part of the concern being voiced by S.D. legislators. Toss in that such voters pay only a bare minimum of taxes (4% on your RV, only once, no income taxes or inheritance tax) while being able to receive the full benefits of being a "resident" and you can see where both legislators and local citizens may have issues.

Again, I'm not taking a side... but like the states that are clamping down on Montana LLC registration tax avoidance, I think the reactions we're seeing were inevitable.

Bill98116 · 03-14-2019, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo_RV_Guy

Anyone who lies can vote anywhere, but that opens a political discussion best left away from these forums.

The impact of votes by people who, while duly registered voters, do not physically reside in the community, county or state is part of the concern being voiced by S.D. legislators. Toss in that such voters pay only a bare minimum of taxes (4% on your RV, only once, no income taxes or inheritance tax) while being able to receive the full benefits of being a "resident" and you can see where both legislators and local citizens may have issues.

Again, I'm not taking a side... but like the states that are clamping down on Montana LLC registration tax avoidance, I think the reactions we're seeing were inevitable.

As it stands now, we are classified as "Travelers". At least that's what the nice lady at the SD DMV called us. I agree with you, I can see where that could change.
It doesn't seem right that we travelers should have a say or vote in SD politics. But for now, until the laws are changed, we are good.

I have felt this for a long time, I think there should be just one driver's license needed. A US license good wherever you live in the United States. It's so crazy that with a valid license I can drive in any state, but if I decide to change residence, I have to get a new license in that state. If I can legally drive the moving truck to my new house on Friday, why on Monday do I have to go to the DMV and get a new license? Seems ludicrous. I've driven a car in other countries and all I needed was a Spanish license in Spain, a Japanese license when I was in Japan. They didn't require (that I am aware of) a different license for different areas like we do here in the US. One license, a United States license should be all we need.
Ok, I'll get off the soap box now!
Bill

Solo_RV_Guy · 03-14-2019, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill98116

As it stands now, we are classified as "Travelers". At least that's what the nice lady at the SD DMV called us. I agree with you, I can see where that could change.
It doesn't seem right that we travelers should have a say or vote in SD politics. But for now, until the laws are changed, we are good.

I have felt this for a long time, I think there should be just one driver's license needed. A US license good wherever you live in the United States. It's so crazy that with a valid license I can drive in any state, but if I decide to change residence, I have to get a new license in that state. If I can legally drive the moving truck to my new house on Friday, why on Monday do I have to go to the DMV and get a new license? Seems ludicrous. I've driven a car in other countries and all I needed was a Spanish license in Spain, a Japanese license when I was in Japan. They didn't require (that I am aware of) a different license for different areas like we do here in the US. One license, a United States license should be all we need.
Ok, I'll get off the soap box now!
Bill

As a practical matter, I'm in full agreement about drivers licenses but there are potential issues regarding the US Constitution and the rights of States and the perceived needs of a states constituencies. Again, a #10 Can o' Worms that would likely veer off into politics so I'll leave it lie.

And I get the tax avoidance desire (hey, the very rich get it on a grand scale, we mere mortals get the scraps) as I'm soon to be on a fixed income myself. But the impression created by folks buying mid six-figure coaches, towing expensive toys and cars/SUVs and going to what appears to outsiders as extreme measures to not pay taxes, makes for very little sympathy on the part of those who do not or cannot play the same game. I suspect there's more than a little of that going on, too.

RMD3819 · 03-14-2019, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roadking1217

Hi to all and thanks for the help in advance, friends of ours are about to join this great group of RVers they live in NY and are looking to purchase a DP up to $100k. what's holding them back is 8.25% tax on MH.(over $9k by the time its registered YIKES) they where thinking because the dw does not work she should get South Dakota drivers license and register MH in her name they have a SB home in NY as a base when it was suggested to them they were not sure if its legal and what the ramifications would be so is it? also 3 questions 1st is it hard to do and what's the best service to use? 2nd what are the initial cost
and is it as easy as you read on line about these services 3rd do you need to bring MH to South Dakota and if yes how would you obtain temporary tag if purchasing privately I hope I did not forget any info for a good response and I hope post was not that lengthy thanks SAFE TRAVELS to all !!!!

Legal? Don't know. I would be cautious as there are stories here about states like NY going after things like this for tax evasion with sales and income tax.

I use Americas Mailbox and am pleased with them. They charge $20 to do the paperwork and mail the tags to you. You also pay them the actual registration fees which go by vehicle weight. There is a fee list on the SD website. It is as easy as you read here.

MH never needs to go to SD. I purchased a coach in FL. Sent paperwork with fees (sales tax 4%, registration fee and their fee) to Americas Mailbox. Few weeks later my tag and registration arrived in FL. Had a FL temp tag from the dealer. Renew online and registrations mailed to my SD address/mailbox.