That is absolutely not true Not in the least. Of the top ten states, economically, 9 are blue. Of the bottom ten, 9 are red. But then that is the conservative way, the Evangelical way, to just make up stuff and claim you won.
The story depicts Jackson Hole as a wealthy 2nd home owners area which means that they are not residents of Jackson Hole (Teton county) and cannot vote. So the busboys, gardeners and maids do all the voting. Don't worry though, it won't be long before the left turns this once pristine land into a homeless encampment. Teton County which, because of its substantial cadre of uber-wealthy second home owners, has one of the richest, per capita, populaces of any county in the U.S. And, at the same time, it's too expensive for school teachers, police officers, firefighters and average families to own a home.
That is all they have, mining and cow grazing. The states that are most successful, like Colorado, are so because they invest in their future. Something conservatives don't like to do.
It is a tax Haven. My dad owned like a square foot of land so he could avoid paying taxes, by claiming he lived in Wyoming.
If you read the article it agrees with you. The article depicts Jackson Hole as just a wealthy second home destination, for out of state residents with no Wyoming voting rights, and the rest of the state as the working class conservatives. I believe the total state voted 69% red, yet Teton county (Jackson Hole) only voted 30% red. That's because the only working class, with Wyoming voting rights, that resides in Teton county are maids, gardeners, waiters, grocery clerks and Uber drivers. We have a very similar situation here in AZ with a city named Scottsdale. With a population of 250,000 and a vast array of multi multi million dollar homes, many are second homes, Scottsdale caters to the ultra wealthy. The only difference being that Scottsdale is surrounded by Metro Phoenix, a conservative working class area with a population near 5 million. So in turn the 10,000 liberal maids, gardeners, busboys and Uber drivers that reside in Phoenix but work in Scottsdale won't even make a little dent in our voting.
There are many more stipulations than just owning property in a state that determines residency. ACROSS THE NATION State Residency For Tax Purposes: The 183-Day Limit By Travis H. Brown | May 11, 2015 Home is where the heart is, and home is what decides your state residency for tax purposes. This can be an expensive problem for anyone who owns a home in more than one state. New York, for example, is like so many other states since it requires residents to pay income taxes, even if they don’t live there year-round. Any New Yorkers that leave the state for part of the year — and want to avoid the Empire State’s high income taxes — will have to prove exactly how long they live in another state. Proving Nonresidency If you’re close to the 183-day limit, you’ll need to hold on to your bills, phone records, and receipts to prove the exact amount of days you spent in and out of the state. This may sound tough, but state income tax investigators are tougher. Each year, New York State auditors hunt down and collect over $200 million in residency audits.
Hillary likes the beef industry, she was an absolute whiz in cattle futures *snickers and giggles* The wall is great investment in our future. Your blanket opinion, could not be further from the truth, just partisan ranting, false claims.
If you spend your retirement driving around in an RV than you're my idol. That is exactly what I want to do in about another 5-7 years. I just need to convince the little woman. I will use the old, "Hey, we'll be able to go visit the grandkids all the time and stay for months at a time" line. I've been looking into RV's and conversions. Damn, they're expensive. There are some very nice barely used ones too. Almost like rich people bought one and only used it once or twice. Any recommendations?
Exactly, Wyoming has no industry. A few mines and lots of grazing cows isn't exactly my idea of industry. Industry is where raw goods are turned into useful products. The cows get shipped to Colorado.
I've been to Wyoming. I'm not surprised it's the least populated state in the union. It's like North Dakota without the Lawrence Welk birthplace. That whole area of the country is a cold, windy, waterless, treeless nightmare from hell.
It is what my dad did. Sold his house and bought an RV. Had a little trailer on the back, where he had a Ford Fiesta. He was really into square dancing and traveled the country, going to square dance conventions. There is a whole subculture of people who do that. I don't remember the brand, but it was mounted on a Ford chassis and had a Ford engine, and the dash had Ford components, but the RV was built by another company. I don't think he ever had any real trouble with it, although I think he once had to have the brake rotors replaced because he didn't change his brake pads in time. He drove it around for maybe 10 years. When he started to forget where he was going, he sold the RV and moved in with one of my brothers.
I have some, but it would depend on your budget. Like if you can afford to do better, don't buy Coachman. If you can't afford better, just know what you're getting yourself into. (Roof leaks.) Your analysis is correct, a lot of older folks buy an RV and then one or the other gets sick and the RV gets parked and never used again. If I might make a suggestion, buy a smaller, older, less expensive RV and keep the house for the first year or two. That way you have a home to go back to, and if life on the road isn't all you thought it would be, you aren't screwed. Also, keep your options open. Some people are set on getting a monster class A right out of the gate when they would be better off with something more maneuverable, like a class C or a truck & trailer combo. And then a lot of people find that they would prefer to park their RV and have something small to drive around town with, so then they either have to get a standard transmission vehicle that can be towed or switch to the above-mentioned truck & trailer combo so they can park the trailer, unhitch, and drive the truck around. The only thing the trailer doesn't have that most RV's do is the generator. (I keep thinking I should make trailers with built in generators as a money making opportunity, but of course that takes money and skill I don't have.) What else... oh, yes, diesels are a very popular option these days, but they are much more expensive and much more NOISY. Generators are noisy no matter what they run on, but generators in diesel coaches run off of LP, not diesel, so that cuts into how long your LP gas supply lasts. On the other hand, generators in gas coaches run off of gasoline, but to save fuel for the engine, they are designed to cut off when your gas tank gets down to a quarter of a tank, meaning you can still travel, but you won't have power. That's annoying when you're using the overhead a/c to keep cool. Which brings me to something else a lot of people don't think about when looking at RV's, and that is gas mileage. You get a 50 gallon tank but you only get 7 miles per gallon, meaning you have an effective range of 300 miles, and you have to put another 43 gallons of gas in every 300 miles. That gets expensive in a hurry. Smaller class A's, class C's, and diesels do better in terms of mileage. A truck with a trailer varies... a simple trailer with a contour shape like an Airstream won't cut into the truck's natural mileage that much, but a monster 5th wheel with a giant deck overhanging the truck cab will cut the truck's mileage in half. By the way, you can get super-luxurious 5th wheels, but because they don't have the RV engine, they are still far cheaper than an RV. The overhang is typically the bedroom, with a queen sized bed and stairs going up to it. There's more, but I probably overloaded you with info already, so I'll stop there.
I liked your info and the effort into your post is appreciated. Though it would be an easier read, with paragraphs. Still informative.
Yes, it was stream of consciousness writing. I had intended to only post a few sentences but got carried away.
That's a good thing. Because it's a beautiful place not yet destroyed by liberals wanting to live in a pretty place.
Rerun your calculation on a per capitalist basis. Of course more people equates to more economy... but per person, they are far less productive. Your way is cherry picking facts to align with your argument. Fact is.... blue states are tax and spend states that run businesses out and people follow.
I don't know any liberal business owners. Every successful company i have worked for was owned by very fiscally concervstive people.
Replacing the native population with a population that is half as productive is NOT investing in the future. It is suicide. It engenders resentment among whites that minorities are not contributing their fair share. It engenders resentment among minorities that they are not receiving their fair share. The Balkanization we now have is going to go onto steroids as time passes. The federal government will use the increased ethnic violence as an excuse to repeal constitutional rights. Civil war or Chinese democracy is our future and it is 100% due to demographics brought about by an elite class that stopped caring about the native population and quit protecting them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_the_United_States_by_per_capita_income
The way it works is that companies move to places like Colorado, Oregon and Washington because taxes were low and living conditions for their employees. What it is not is progressives moving in and creating lots of opportunities. It is progressives taking advantage of opportunities made by conservatives then stabbing them in the back by raising taxes, increasing property values and driving the conservatives out. As evidenced by what is occurring in California. And what is starting to happen in Oregon and Washington.
