Blues

I'm not sure that's the worst case scenario. Figuring out the financials later is possible in emergencies, since they're required to treat you, but you'll still owe whatever you're charged, sending you into bankruptcy if you can't pay. Also, they're required only to stabilize you. They can kick you out once you're stabilized, and at that point you'll have to find someone who will treat uninsured patients and figure out how to pay for it yourself. Just look at how many gofundme appeals are for medical expenses, and most are for ongoing treatment, not paying for emergency care they received. And medical debt is responsible for something like 60% of personal bankruptcies.

I'm glad I asked, because I don't know what you've been reading but your understanding of Obamacare couldn't be more wrong. All Obamacare does is provide a way for people to buy health insurance from insurance companies (like Kaiser or Blue Cross). Obamacare doesn't restrict anyone's care at all. In fact, it expanded the care people receive under their insurance policies. The only thing Obamacare "tells" the insurance companies is that if they want their plan to qualify as an Obamacare plan, the plan has to cover specific services (like preventive care), it can't have a lifetime limit on coverage, and it can't exclude any coverage based on pre-existing conditions. All plans offered on the Exchange meet those requirements, and the consumer can pick whichever one he wants, based on whatever factors he wants--which insurance company is offering it, premium amount, deductible amount, co-pays, coverage network, whether it's an HMO or a PPO. Once he picks a plan, it's a contract between him and the insurance company, and the insurance company provides coverage according to the contract. Obamacare isn't involved in any individual's care whatsoever.

I'm not sure what you mean by "real care." Can you explain?

I realize this is a thread about vehicle registration, but don't want to leave this hanging out there... Maybe I'm misreading what you're saying, but you seem to imply that there can be a tax advantage to being a resident of a state without a state income tax for a person who works in several different states. There's aren't any, other than the usual tax advantages a person who resides in a state without a state income tax enjoys (e.g., no state income tax on unearned income). If you're a resident of a state without a state income tax and perform work in a state that does impose a state income tax, you must file a non-resident state income tax return in the state(s) where you performed the work, and pay income tax based on that return (assuming you exceed that state's filing threshold). If you're a resident of a state that imposes a state income tax and perform work in another state that imposes a state income tax, as in the example of the person above, you file a non-resident state income tax return in the state(s) where you performed the work, and pay income tax based on that return. BUT when you file your income tax return in your residency state, you can get a credit against your residency state's income tax for the tax you paid in other states. In both of these cases, whether you are a resident of state without a state income tax or a state with a state income tax, you pay the same amount of taxes to the states where you performed work.

Are you saying you were able to get quotes without providing any address whatsoever? Insurance rates are based on zip code, and if you didn't give them one, I'm curious how they would be able to quote a premium. If fulltiming, I've always thought it's a good idea to use a company that specializes in fulltiming because they understand that the "garaging address," which every policy I've ever gotten required, is a legal fiction in the case of fulltimers. I figure if they sell me the fulltimer liability coverage, then they're acknowledging that I don't have a "real" garaging address, but they need something to set my rates. I suppose companies insuring fulltimers without an actual garaging address could come up with a nationwide average for insurance premiums and charge fulltimers that, but they haven't chosen to do that, and still base everyone's rates on the Ip code for the garaging address that never actually garages the RV.

That article doesn't even mention the water usage by the condensing dryers, never mind how much. For the ventless versions of the Splendide 2000S and 2100, the Training Guide says the condenser drying system uses 5 gallons of cold water per hour during the dry cycle. http://www.splendide.com/service/TRAINMAN_Complete.pdf The 7100 uses 2.5 gallons per hour. http://www.splendide.com/images/splendide_WDC7100XC.htm That wouldn't matter in an apartment or a house, which might be why it wasn't mentioned, but in an RV, it's something to be aware of.

Only seven states have a minimum income required for filing taxes, and some of those also have a minimum length-of-stay threshold. On the other hand, 24 states have no minimum length-of-stay threshold or income threshold, which means people who did work in those states have to file tax returns no matter how briefly they worked in that state or how little income they earned in that state. If you go to this link and scroll down to Table 3, you'll see a listing of the states and their thresholds. https://taxfoundation.org/remote-work-tax-reform-mobility-modernization/#Thresholds States' laws dictate when state income tax is owed (and must be withheld on the employee's behalf by the employer). Those laws don't necessarily make sense (like answering a work email in an airport on a layover triggering income tax in that state), but that doesn't mean they don't exist. And they're obviously not enforced in ticky-tack cases like the airport layover. But with so many more people working remotely, it's possible that states will start being more aggressive, especially because in most cases, it won't be difficult because the person works from his home in that state all the time. He'll be responsible for state income taxes in the state where he lives and performs his work. The only difference between him and a traveling remote worker is that the traveler has a series of homes instead of just one. But that's not the state's problem--it's the employee's problem and the employer's problem, as Payroll Person has pointed out in various posts upthread. Which is why employees should at least tell their employer what they're doing, and let the employer decide how to handle it in accordance with its legal responsibilities--responsibilities to both the government and insurers and the like, as well as to the employee, who could get hit with an income tax bill for which he'll have to come up with the money because his employer didn't withhold any tax.

They won't let people who don't have policies talk to customer service. Even though I told them that the answers I get will determine whether I want to get that policy or not. I can't remember the question I asked the sales agent--whether it was can I belong to more than one gym at a time, or maybe if I can use Active Renew to get a day pass. But I remember his answer: "I don't see why not." That's not the sort of assurance I want to base my supplement choice on, especially now that I know that this is the only time I'll have guaranteed-issue status. In the future, if I want to change supplements, I have to apply and undergo medical underwriting, and possibly be denied. So I'd like to get it right the first time, even if it means going with a company that's already making me mad and forcing me elsewhere to try to get answers.

Actually, it is other people's business. If you read posts upthread by Payroll Person, you'll see how your employer can be affected by the location where you are when you're working. And it could be that your employer is making a conscious effort not to be considered to be doing business in a particular state, only to have that upended by an employee working there, subjecting your employer (in addition to yourself) to taxes in that state. That's not a surprise most companies would welcome.

I found a Medicare supplement that includes Renew Active, which is a program kind of Silver Sneakers. I went to the local YMCA and they said the Renew Active would get me a free membership, but not a day pass. But what I really want is day passes wherever I go, and not a membership. I looked again at the Renew Active website and it does say "gym membership," and nothing about day passes. I was under the impression that with Silver Sneakers, you can get a day pass wherever you are, but maybe I'm wrong about that. Does anybody use SS for day passes as they travel, especially at locations that don't have dedicated Silver Sneakers classes? I can't get Silver Sneakers because a Medicare Advantage plan won't work for me, but it would be helpful to know how the program works. Or better yet, is anybody actually using United Healthcare Renew Active for day passes as they travel around? Or being refused? The supplement that includes Renew Active is more expensive than the one that doesn't, so I don't want to get it if it's not going to work well for me.

You have it backwards. He's not driving a motorhome and towing a GMC Sierra; he's driving a GMC Sierra and towing a fifth-wheel trailer. To the OP: I'm in Texas and currently have Progressive on my motorhome, and also had Progressive about ten years ago, and they've never asked what class of driver's license I have. In fact, none of the insurance companies that have insured my moho in Texas have ever asked.

I'm not sure if you're clear on this, but if you use the route planning map on the website, it will be the most current information available, and includes items in the updates log. So if you have internet access when you're doing your planning, I'd suggest using the route planning map instead of the downloaded version of the directory.

Your domicile is already established--it's Nevada, where you're currently living. When you start traveling, you'll just be Nevadans who are traveling. Is your driver's license a Real ID? If not, I'd get it upgraded to one right now, while you still have a residence in Nevada that you can use for the physical address, and you have easy access to paperwork that shows that address, if you need any. In that same vein, if I were you, I'd try to renew it now rather than wait for the expiration date, while you still have a physical address where you're actually living--a very clean transaction. That will extend the time when it will come up for renewal again. Actually, Nevada has an early renewal process that it says is "highly recommended for those who are planning an extended trip outside of Nevada," which is what you're doing. Scroll down to "early renewal" on this site: https://dmv.nv.gov/dlrenewal.htm You should get your new mailing address well in advance of when you start traveling, and immediately start using it, to give everything time to get switched over.

I realize this post is 5 years old, but I'm so happy to find someone else who doesn't like the taste of olive oil. For me, it's not the olive taste--I kind of like olives. But olive oil tastes rancid to me. Every single time I've ever tried it, including in an olive oil store where you sample a bunch of different ones. I was like, Finally! I can find an olive oil I like! Nope. I wonder if it's similar to how cilantro tastes like soap to some people due to genetics, only not nearly as common (as in as far as I know, I'm the only one).

I guess enough people griped about it that a few years ago, they changed that policy--I don't remember exactly when. Now, you can get a free towed vehicle pass for vehicles that are "towed or carried in by a motorhome." https://cpw.state.co.us/buyapply/Pages/TowedVehiclePass.aspx But now I wonder about those HDTs that pull a trailer and have a smart car on the back of the HDT. I'm glad I don't have to write the laws.

I always log my diesel purchases into a spreadsheet, and just looked at it and was shocked to realize I was paying $4.60/gallon back in 2008, in three different states, and not one of them was California. And I shop pretty hard for diesel--at one point, my destination was Denver, but I fueled up 200 miles short of there because Denver was going to be 25 cents/gallon more. In today's money, that would be pushing $6.00/gallon. So we haven't always had it good. And then 7 months after the $4.60/gallon, it was $2.20/gallon about 250 miles west of Denver. Back to having it good.

I guarantee you Texas would call a special session to pass its own income tax before it would allow California to assess its income tax against Texas citizens. 😀

If state income tax were based on where the company's headquarters is, then all those people in Austin working for Silicon Valley tech companies would owe California state income tax, and you know Texas wouldn't keep quiet about that.

With the railroad and truckers, I assume it had something to do with the federal government's authority over, and regulation of, interstate commerce, since the people affected by the law are by definition engaged in interstate commerce. I suspect it would be a stretch to apply that to remote workers. And even if the federal government tried, do you think the states would just acquiesce to this usurping of states' right to administer their own state income taxes? Not a chance. I'm sure many states would howl, and Texas and Florida would jump in regardless of the fact that they don't even have a state income tax. 😀 He posted about his previous unfavorable experience with the IRS upthread. And these days, apparently even getting someone to answer the phone at all is a challenge. https://www.taxpayeradvocate.irs.gov/news/nta-blog-hello-is-anyone-there-taxpayers-and-practitioners-continue-to-experience-frustration-over-lack-of-adequate-phone-service/ Regardless, if I were him, I'd sure be trying to find out what money the IRS says I got that I don't know I got.

I didn't say they were taxable; I said they're reported on income tax returns. Tax-exempt interest isn't taxable, either, but it is reported on income tax returns. If you get an Obamacare subsidy in the form of an advance premium tax credit (which is what most people do, to reduce the premium they pay each month when it's due, rather than waiting until they file their income tax return to get a lump sum back), the government sends you a Form 1095-A listing the amounts, and you use that to file a Form 8962 with your income tax return. Form 8962 reconciles the advance premium credit you took based on your expected income for that year with what you were actually entitled to take based on your actual income for that year, now that it's known. Lappir hasn't clarified what he was talking about, but he did use the word "subsidy," and if a person doesn't report a subsidy on his income tax return, he'll no doubt get a letter notifying him that he needs to do so, and there would be no check or direct deposit involved at all. In other words, the scenario Lappir is describing--a letter about not reporting something for which he never got a check or a direct deposit. And if that's the case, he definitely shouldn't ignore it.

Me, too. And it seems like it would work for nomadic employees, too, but Payroll Person and the New York Times article referenced above are saying otherwise. In fact, the article is titled, "These Laws Make Scofflaws of Us All." So actually, it appears that what 3M was doing was not in compliance with the law, depending on which state its employees were working in. It also appears that those states weren't enforcing their laws, probably because they wouldn't derive enough revenue to warrant the cost. But that doesn't mean 3M was in compliance with the laws. An example in the article is New York sending state employees to the Javits Center (during conventions, I assume), to see which companies are sending employees there. That's pretty aggressive, especially because New York requires a person to be in the state for 14 days before having to report income earned while there, so if an employee goes to one trade show for a week, that still wouldn't make him subject to New York income tax. But it does show that in New York, at least, physical presence while performing work does subject a person to New York's income tax, and the only question is whether the person meets the 14-day threshold. This means that regular people aren't treated like truckers or railroad employees, who pay income tax only in their state of residence, regardless of where they perform the work. But lappir said "subsidy," not stimulus, and he said he got a letter about it after filing his return. I don't think there would be any letter concerning any stimulus because stimulus payments weren't even mentioned on income tax returns. Subsidies are most prominent in Obamacare, and they do get reported on income tax returns. And a person receiving a subsidy wouldn't receive a check or direct deposit, but instead would have a reduced health insurance premium, and it all gets sorted out on the income tax return. But if it was a subsidy, as lappir reported, then surely his tax preparer wouldn't tell him to just blow it off. They're not only reported, they get their own schedule on the 1040, for reconciliation.

For the record, it doesn't apply to truckers because of a federal law that provides that their compensation is taxed in their state of residence; before the 1990 amendment that provides this, it was possible for a trucker to owe income tax in a state other than his state of residence. https://docs.uscode.justia.com/1994/title49/USCODE-1994-title49/pdf/USCODE-1994-title49-subtitleIV-chap115-sec11504.pdf What do you think led Kirk's company, and the national soft drink company my friend worked for, to base withholding solely on Kirk's and my friend's state of residence, even though they regularly performed work outside the state, in states that have income taxes? Is it possible these two major companies/employers really didn't understand the law? Or they did, and were just hoping not to get caught?

First of all, thank you for your informative posts. But I have a question. I have a friend who used to work for a national soft drink company up until about 20 years ago. His job was going all over the country to check on bottlers and retailer accounts (like grocery store chains), usually traveling Monday-Thursday, and working in his home office, in Texas, on Fridays. Texas doesn't have a state income tax, but Missouri, where he went for a week about once a month, does. As did other states he went to for work, but the Missouri visits were the most frequent. But he never paid any state income tax in any of of the states he traveled to as part of his job. He was obviously performing work in these other states, and I can't square that with the "where the work is performed" standard. This was a national company with several employees in that position, so I assume they knew what they were doing; I'm just trying to figure out how, now that I've learned about the rules.

I've always been curious about the "garaging location" on fulltimer policies. It's obviously a (necessary) fiction that the insurance companies not only allow but require, but nevertheless, the premiums are based on that location even though almost by definition, a fulltimer's RV will not actually be there and subject to the perils common in that location, which is what the premium for comprehensive insurance is based on. But I do have some doubts about the driving force behind the reassessment. Unless it was a tornado or massive hailstorm in February in Phoenix or the Rio Grande Valley, where lots of fulltime rigs are concentrated at the same time in just a few zip codes, I don't see how there could have been such a remarkable number of them being damaged. Fulltimers are almost always scattered across the country, and if an unusual number of them happened to be hit by hail or tornadoes, I assume an insurance company would understand that it's more likely a statistical anomaly rather than a situation unique to fulltimers before deciding to stop insuring that whole segment. Also, aren't losses made up for with increased premiums? I remember my comprehensive premium almost doubling once, and I asked my agent because I hadn't made any claims, and she said they were adjusting premiums for everybody to account for comprehensive claims they'd had to pay out in "my" area (even though my RV isn't actually in that area). I'm sure there are reasons for insurance companies to exit a market, but this just doesn't seem like one that would inevitably lead to the insurance companies making more money, which is the only reason they do anything.

From what I've read, you should definitely look into making your vehicle legal in Mexico. It looks like importing vehicles isn't a no-brainer. When I suggested getting a minimum-coverage policy in Texas, I was anticipating keeping it in force year-round. I was thinking it would be only a couple hundred bucks a year, but wasn't sure because my liability coverages are much higher than the minimum required, and therefore not a good comparison. My only concern on cancelling it would be if you do that every year, it might raise some red flags among insurers. I'm sure there are plenty of people who have insurance for only a month, in order to get the car registered, and then drop it. But on future applications, they may get shunted to the SR-22 companies, where insurance is a lot more expensive. I have no idea how it works, but it's something to be aware of--if saving $200/year now might cost you more than that when you buy insurance in the future. Then again, you'd think an insurance company would be eager to insure you if their policy doesn't cover you where you are--they get the premium and know they'll never have to pay a claim. Assuming, of course, that you don't drive in Texas, and there's no way they can be 100% positive you won't. But since the premium is based on your driving in Texas, it shouldn't matter to them. Just food for thought. And by the way, good for you for looking up the law, but the statute you cited, Section 601.072, doesn't say Texas insurance is required to renew vehicle registration--it just gives the minimum amounts of coverage that meets financial responsibility requirements.