Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Dual residence question  (Read 5594 times)

Jubal

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5
  • I'm a llama!
Dual residence question
« on: August 11, 2002, 09:04:56 am »

How are dual residency laws factored into our equation? I recall Dick Cheney and George I being involed in quite a squall because of this.

Might these laws vary state by state?
Logged

JasonPSorens

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5720
  • Neohantonum liberissimum erit.
    • My Homepage
Re:Dual residence question
« Reply #1 on: August 14, 2002, 08:53:08 pm »

Legal residency is more of a problem for political candidates, to whom special rules apply.  As far as being a participant in the FSP, we're more interested in "practical residency."  If you live in the state at least a few months out of the year, and support in-state efforts for liberty with significant investments of your time, effort, or money, we're interested in having you!
Logged
"Educate your children, educate yourselves, in the love for the freedom of others, for only in this way will your own freedom not be a gratuitous gift from fate. You will be aware of its worth and will have the courage to defend it." --Joaquim Nabuco (1883), Abolitionism

Doc

  • FSP Participant
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 29
  • A Demonstrated Aptitude for Reasonable Mayhem
    • Deuce of Clubs
Re:Dual residence question
« Reply #2 on: August 14, 2002, 09:12:29 pm »


Legal residency is more of a problem for political candidates, to whom special rules apply.  As far as being a participant in the FSP, we're more interested in "practical residency."  If you live in the state at least a few months out of the year, and support in-state efforts for liberty with significant investments of your time, effort, or money, we're interested in having you!


If dual residency makes a difference to enough people, the residency qualifications of the various states might be worth listing. I know I will be trying to spend as much time in the Arizona desert as possible...
Logged
http://www.deuceofclubs.com -- A Demonstrated Aptitude for Reasonable Mayhem

JasonPSorens

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5720
  • Neohantonum liberissimum erit.
    • My Homepage
Re:Dual residence question
« Reply #3 on: August 14, 2002, 09:18:04 pm »

You're right; I didn't really answer the original question.  We will be looking at residency requirements in the various states.  So far it doesn't seem there are great differences.
Logged
"Educate your children, educate yourselves, in the love for the freedom of others, for only in this way will your own freedom not be a gratuitous gift from fate. You will be aware of its worth and will have the courage to defend it." --Joaquim Nabuco (1883), Abolitionism

bud

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 32
  • I'm a llama!
Re:Dual residence question
« Reply #4 on: August 17, 2002, 07:18:13 pm »

Many states now have laws that allow them to get a piece of the action if you regularly live in their state even part-time.  If you spend 182 days in state A and 183 in state B, state B may be your primary residence, but state A can tax you for any income you earn while you're there.  And, if you have cars registered there, or bank accounts, or a job,  they will consider you liable for their taxes.  I've even seen a case where a man moved out of one state to another one, but continued using his bank account in the first sate.  That state wanted a slice of his income tax.  Now, if that's worth what it costs you to continue living there, that's OK, but if you don't want to pay over 50% of your earnings to the gummint, you'd better consider the implications.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2002, 02:28:29 am by bud »
Logged

Zack Bass

  • Guest
Re:Dual residence question
« Reply #5 on: September 18, 2002, 03:29:23 pm »


Many states now have laws that allow them to get a piece of the action if you regularly live in their state even part-time.


I recall one instance where a guy's combined inheritance and estate taxes, for all the jurisdictions where he had been involved, ended up greater than 100%.  Talk about a poor widow.
I believe the Supremes finally decided they can't take over 100%, but I do recall it was not a slam dunk: many bureaucrats really thought it ought to go the other way.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up