In a May 16 video on Youtube channel Our Road Less Traveled, produced by Alabama RVers Clay and Maria, Clay says “if you remove the tax haven, there’s no reason to be in South Dakota.” And Clay claims that legal changes to South Dakota’s definition of residency have removed that tax haven:
Clay complains that 2023 Senate Bill 139, signed by Governor Kristi Noem in March and coming into effect on July 1, has tightened the definition of residency, making it impossible to claim mailbox services like America’s Mailbox in Box Elder and My Home Address Inc. in Emery as their permanent residences, since those places are mere offices and not “an actual fixed permanent dwelling, establishment, or any other abode.” SB 139 also requires that individuals maintain residence in South Dakota for at least 30 days before registering to vote.
Clay mistakenly says that SB 139 modified South Dakota’s unemployment laws (Title 61, “Reemployment Assistance”). SB 139 addresses residence solely for the purpose of voting. It says nothing about residency for the purpose of business or employment. SB 139 amends only three statutes within Title 12, “Elections” and adds a fourth new statute to Chapter 12-4, “Registration of Voters”. It amends nothing in Title 61.
Nonetheless, citing the statutes defining whether work is considered within or without South Dakota (SDCL 61-1-3, 61-1-26, 61-1-27, which were last amended in 2012), Clay says that South Dakota has started sending out letters to RVers domiciled at South Dakota’s various mailbox/residency mills telling them that if they are working in other states as they travel, their employers don’t have tax status in South Dakota and must pay into the unemployment systems of the other states in which the RVers are actually doing their work. The problem, says Clay, is paying into another state’s unemployment system also requires the employee to pay into the state’s income tax.
Clay says his employer tried to establish an unemployment account for him in South Dakota but notified him last month that the state refused to recognize him as a South Dakota worker. Clay says he thus must pay Virginia “thousands of dollars in taxes.”
Clay says he contacted his Representative Kirk Chaffee (R-29/Whitewood) and the Governor’s Office, but he’s not waiting for an answer: he’s switching his domicile from South Dakota to Texas.
In the May 16 video, Clay notes that this change apparently only affects remote workers employed by companies not registered in South Dakota. Clay follows up with a May 21 video saying that this change affects all remote workers and businesses, not just RVers, who use a virtual presence address or mail-forwarding service. Clay notes that the Department of Labor evidently had “over 600 entities” try to use one of the mail-forwarding addresses in November, prompting the department to investigate and determine that all of those applicants were violating South Dakota law as it stood prior to and independent of 2023 SB 139.
Clay says the Department of Labor started notifying employers of this new enforcement of South Dakota law in November 2022 and will continue digging through the records and notifying users of mail-forwarding services of their disqualification from tax status in South Dakota through 2023.
Clay’s May 21 video shows him replacing the South Dakota plates on his truck and trailer with his new Texas plates. His closing words: “Like a bad girlfriend—see ya, South Dakota.”
Freeloaders. See ya.
Clay and Maria are the bad girlfriends in this relationship, always taking and never giving.
Oooooh, noooooo, not “thousands of dollars in taxes.”
Hey, Clay and Maria – polish tRumps wee toadstool knob, why doncha. Oh, wait; you already do. It’s parasites JUST LIKE YOU that force Virginia and other blue states to support parasitical red states and tax evaders and cheats.
What sx123 said. Also, I hope you go all “van life” on each other.
I still wonder whether this new law will disenfranchise homeless individuals that consider SD their permanent residence and regularly return to SD (probably the Black Hills) during warmer seasons. And while some RV’ers (maybe even most) may be like Clay and consider SD their residence only as a “tax haven,” I have known RV’ers and/or campers with no “fixed and permanent abode” that have always considered SD to be their homes. For example, they may have decided to sell or leave whateverSD fixed and permanent abode they used to reside in and live the RV or camping lifestyle. To the extent this new law takes away the voting rights of these individuals I don’t see how the law can stand a court challenge as being unconstitutional. It seems an unfortunate example of “tirar al bebé con el agua del baño.”
Based on my bill and what I hear others are paying in property taxes, maybe it’s time to look into a state income tax. If you’re crazy or wealthy enough to buy an acre on Old Hill City Road for $70K, (that meadow was underwater not too many years ago, full disclosure) better be ready for a hefty tax bill every year. It’s not cheap to celebrate the Freedom of property ownership, especially if the Governor is willing to let a private company come in and claim your property. (Although the people whining about that seem to want to have their cake and eat it, too, and it looks like the money to be made by capturing carbon is going to be sourced from taxpayer dollars, anyway). This attempt to control voter turnout might thin out a few tax scofflaws and vote manipulators; but isn’t it kind of anti business? Now those campgrounds won’t have out of state freeloaders helping to pay their property taxes. Call me a sucker, but when I was working I paid income tax in 2-3 states every year. Adios, “y’all.” You’ve been added to my ever lengthening list of people I don’t want to know. Now, what about all those blind trusts?
This sure disenfranchises all actual street people without a home. Just because you don’t have a home you cannot vote? They’re the ones who never will be represented. All my friends with addresses like, ‘ Two miles passed the church, on the left’ are also in dire need of representation. What a heap of stank this bill is.
AM, A cynic might say you ere right, that was the intent.
This legislation was long overdue. If you want to take advantage of our lack of a state income tax and lower vehicle registration fees and be allowed to vote as a South Dakota resident, then live here, with the exception of active military who were residents. “If you remove the tax haven, there`s no reason to be in South Dakota” only confirms my belief that this is the right thing.
It’s pathetic that no one in South Dakota State government ran the cost to state taxpayers of this discriminatory proposal.
It should not be too hard to give a range of estimates. Most RVers have an over-sized vehicle and a second vehicle (or more). Large RVs pay more for vehicle registration – funds now lost to the state. Likely more importantly, some federal highway matching funds are awarded in whole or in part on the numbers of vehicles registered in a state. This likely unconstitutional feel-good legislative nonsense is costing the state money.
A proper preliminary fix for mail in ballots. Hear, hear!
In this country, we have a whole sub culture of people who live nomadically. Remote employment has increased the population of these folks as have specialized crafts which allow people to move from state to state for short term employment. South Dakota catered to these folks, as well as numerous retirees living a similar lifestyle, and granted them “state citizenship.” Now our misguided, neophyte Secretary of State and numbskull legislature has decided this sub culture is the locus of “voter fraud” in the state. As it seems the majority of these people are disaffected, right wing voters, driving them from the state is fine with me. As John points out, this Republican “solving a problem that isn’t a problem” solution”, will cost South Dakotans money. Another self inflicted shot to the foot by the present Republican regime.
Buy or lease a small plot of land. Pay for water and electrical to be installed on the land. Put a mailbox on the land. Pay property taxes. Park your RV on the land and claim that as your address.
It’s great that you spend your money in SD, _but_ you drive around on SD roads, use SD parks, probably use SD lakes and rivers and do the same in other states where you use resources other actual residents of the states are paying for. How come you didn’t get California license plates instead of Texas plates? (I know the answer.) South Dakota is cheap enough and you’re complaining?
If you don’t have the money to buy or rent a house (which is understandable now-a-days), I’m sure there are trailer parks where you can rent a plot long term, park your RV there, and have a physical mailing address.
Freeloaders.
Aside from the small amount they pay in sales tax when they visit, what benefit does Clay provide South Dakota and the people that live here if he actually lives and works in Virginia?
Like, why should I care if South Dakota is a tax haven for anyone but people that actually live here and contribute to the economy?
Frankly, I’m already troubled by the massive influx of retirees that have moved to Rapid City recently. They’ve driven the real estate prices sky-high and otherwise contribute very little to the local economy. Historically, that is the same demographic known to vote against things like a new arena or public school construction and repair. I don’t have anything against the elderly or senior citizens, but if anyone was going to use SD as a tax haven, I would prefer it to be young professionals who will more greatly impact the local economy from working and spending.
I typically work in several states during the course of my seasonal employment (4 so far this year) and pay state income taxes in each of them for whatever period of time I work in each. I typically file 4-5 state W4’s with my Federal Taxes. My employer and I have CHOSEN to pay my unemployment taxes and for me to collect them in the state where the company’s offices are. As I understand it, they COULD choose to pay into the unemployment fund of ANY state in which I work, live, or am employed. That was information given to me by the state of Colorado several years ago,
My wife recently visited Banff, Canada. A beautiful rocky mountain park/community. They have laws that you can’t live there unless you are working. Interesting way to keep retirees from flooding the housing market and destroying a local economy.. but. You know..Canada.
I’m filling my My Pillow pillow with tears after reading the very sad plight of these freeloaders, er, fine citizens… Enjoy, Texas!!
This is only for “Unemployment” cause if you work in another state, that Employer is paying Unemployment Tax, remitted to that Foreign State. This changes nothing related to Domiciles, It simply says you cannot request Unemployment from South Dakota’s treasury.
I should emphasize that the new law concerning voting residence has nothing to do with the new Department of Labor enforcement action, which is based not on election law but on unemployment insurance law. Clay and Maria didn’t rush over to Texas for new license plates because South Dakota made it harder for them to vote; they ran because South Dakota revoked their tax dodge.
Mike, did you read the article and listen to Clay’s explanation? Sure, the law DOL is enforcing deals with unemployment insurance, but the DOL action doesn’t just mean the workers in question can’t collect South Dakota UI. It means their employers don’t pay UI tax to South Dakota but must pay into other states’ UI funds. That opens the door for those states to also assess income tax on those employees. For tax purposes, it renders the claim of domicile in South Dakota meaningless.
Mark B, really interesting point about Banff. It seems problematic that any community would require people to work to be residents… but Banff is a national park, so I guess the government can impose unique regulations.
Banff’s eligible resident policy does allow retirees to live there if they worked in the park for five consecutive years immediately prior to retirement or meet some other exceptions.
The state government thinks RVers are liberals who will mess up the voting pool?! As someone who has worked with a lot of RV couples their political leanings are more on the right. Hence why SD appeals to them.
Considering how quickly these RVers intend on pulling up stakes you know why they’re truly here. Now, can all the out of staters who moved during Covid please leave so the housing market in the Hills can go back to normal?
Kind of pathetic.
Gotta fix the vote.
But this is a good first step to fixing the issues.
I think Johnson found a really bad situation.
Worse than we thought.
And repairs are underway.
We’ll see.
What’s the indicator?
If we see local elections start to sway toward old time salty SD originals in bigger cities.