Best states for "Home Address" for car registration, driver's license, mailing address, low taxes, and remote working online & taxes?

[Morgana]

The CO river water "crisis" is entirely due to overestimating availability.

Yeah, but isn't that like saying "the riot that's burning the city down is due to people getting on each others nerves" or "the drowning was due to the drunk jumping off the cruise ship without being able to swim"? The fact that it happened by error or poor judgment is not a reason to think it's solved (or could easily be).

People are still getting on each other's nerves, and getting drunk, and resisting giving up their (totally miscalculated) water rights ... meanwhile, aren't there already housing developments in Arizona that have had their city water cut off altogether, not just had their rates raised? They probably wouldn't put scare quotes around "crisis."

How do you get logically from Point A ("we've identified an error that contributed to this problem") to Point B ("there will be a solution")? (Not a rhetorical question -- I might be missing your point.)

And just to throw in a little vegetarian snark: if we're talking about water-hungry crops, does anyone know the comparative water usage of rice vs. beef? or which of the two sucks more H2O out of the Colorado?

 

[rruff]

It can easily be solved by renegotiating the allotments and the price of water. The allotments can also be sold. Yes, people who have legal rights to a certain amount and a certain price will need to be compensated, but it's absurd to think there is no solution... that "water will be unavailable at any price". Rather the extreme waste will need to become a bit less extreme if the price goes up.

It wouldn't surprise me if cattle farms and alfalfa fields are using CO river water.... that's just typical of the waste.

"Cities in Arizona having their water cut off altogether"... Scottsdale cut off a neighboring community who was purchasing its water (hauled) from them. This community never secured its own water rights, so they rely on purchasing it from others. They currently have it hauled from further away, but are considering their own well and treatment. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...rio-verde-foothills-water-crisis/11081256002/

 

[abnorm]

And La Paz County Arizona is home to a huge Saudi Arabian alfalfa farm.............."for the Kingdom's Horses"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/16/fondomonte-arizona-drought-saudi-farm-water/

 

[rruff]

A fine tale of corruption and incompetence.

"A lot of money was on the line. The state was receiving about $50,000 a year by leasing the land to Fondomonte, the memo noted, but could make at least $1.2 million a year by selling the water to thirsty Phoenix."

It's mind boggling that the cheapest place they can afford to grow fricken *grass* and have it shipped home, is on the other side of the world, in one of the richest countries, in the drought stricken desert southwest!

 

[bullfrog !]

^^^ It took a change in government to even acknowledge there was a problem! Lol!!!

 

[RonDean]

Politics, poor management, trying to farm in the desert, eating meat (yuk and so on.

Yes, it didn't have to get as bad as it has. But, the SW now and in the foreseeable future has a greater water demand than supply. With global warming or climate change (pick your favorite words and causes) there is certain to be less supply of water. It is no secret that agriculture uses the bulk of available water. But people won't stop doing that until they are forced to.

I remember a comedian years ago doing a bit about shipping food to Africa instead of moving the people there to WHERE THE FOOD IT! In this case to where the water is. So... I would prefer moving myself to where the water is.

 

[Morgana]

We do all need to be prepared -- and to think about how the world is changing as well as about how we as individuals are changing (eg, in my case, becoming decrepit and obsolete aaaaaaaa lol) -- but I really wonder where to draw the line. You can only prepare up to a point. You could go where there's water and there could be more floods or hurricanes. Where tornados used to be rare and now they're not so rare. Where there's trees, and there could be fires. Who the h$%^& thought Lahaina of all places would burn down?? Where there's lenient code enforcement, and they could crack down.

If there was such a thing as a safe place, the bitcoin billionaires would probably buy it up and fence us out.

I keep thinking about being "agile and resilient" but what does that really mean in a world that's this volatile? I sort of vaguely try to stay healthy and frugal ... but not too frugal cuz you have to have some fun while you can ... crazy times. I guess we each have to draw the line on preparedness wherever it seems best.

 

[rruff]

Yes, it didn't have to get as bad as it has. But, the SW now and in the foreseeable future has a greater water demand than supply.

Like in all economic transactions, supply and demand are brought into harmony by price.

I keep thinking about being "agile and resilient" but what does that really mean in a world that's this volatile? I sort of vaguely try to stay healthy and frugal ... but not too frugal cuz you have to have some fun while you can ... crazy times. I guess we each have to draw the line on preparedness wherever it seems best.

We live in one of the safest places, in the safest time in history. Not many people realize that the violent crime rate in the US was ~3x higher in the early 90s vs now. I was living in my truck then... everything seemed fine from my perspective... except the cops were pretty dangerous.

The perceived volatility is mostly pundits trying real hard to "make news". Fear mongering. Politics and other fantasies. People are kinda crazy and easily manipulated. But if I unplug from the "news" and just go for a walk or cruise around town, everybody is happy and smiling... doesn't seem to be anything to worry about. Maybe it's because weed was legalized last year...

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

Politics, poor management, trying to farm in the desert ..... It is no secret that agriculture uses the bulk of available water .....

People like to eat. One can get 3 harvests in the south, 2 in the southern plains, and only one in the northern plains. Less food = higher prices. Hard to feed everyone with less food.

..... there is certain to be less supply of water .....

With minuscule exceptions the supply of water on earth is constant.

Sooner, rather than later we are going to have to get smart about water management. Desalinization, capturing and transporting flood water, reducing pollution.

..... I remember a comedian years ago doing a bit about shipping food to Africa instead of moving the people there to WHERE THE FOOD IT! [sic] .....

It is much more efficient and much less disruptive to ship food to people than to relocate people to food.

 

[rruff]

People like to eat. One can get 3 harvests in the south, 2 in the southern plains, and only one in the northern plains. Less food = higher prices. Hard to feed everyone with less food.

If you say... double the price that farmers pay for CO river water, the effect on food prices would be minuscule. It's incredibly cheap, beyond all reason. The Saudi alfalfa situation is illustrative, not unique. The Chinese bought and lease land here to grow rice. At least that is food, but flooding fields in the desert is an insane waste of a precious resource. The government essentially gave the water away to farming interests in long term leases in order to encourage development, and we are still living with that.

 

[Frood]

And La Paz County Arizona is home to a huge Saudi Arabian alfalfa farm.............."for the Kingdom's Horses"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/16/fondomonte-arizona-drought-saudi-farm-water/

LOL yeah... I remember reading about this. Because growing alfalfa in Saudi is illegal because of the water it requires.
I don't know how reliable the reporting was but I found the irony quite delicious.

 

[bullfrog !]

There seem to be a lot of smarter people in other parts of the world doing what we did for years, using other countrie’s resources for their countries or their own benefit!

 

[Morgana]

This has been going on for years in other countries, especially in Africa I think.
Here are a couple of quick-and-dirty URL grabs from several years ago --
Washington Post
Guardian
We just don't expect to be on this end of the stick!

 

[RonDean]

People like to eat. One can get 3 harvests in the south, 2 in the southern plains, and only one in the northern plains. Less food = higher prices. Hard to feed everyone with less food.

With minuscule exceptions the supply of water on earth is constant.

Sooner, rather than later we are going to have to get smart about water management. Desalinization, capturing and transporting flood water, reducing pollution.

It is much more efficient and much less disruptive to ship food to people than to relocate people to food.

I agree there is (approximately) the same amount of water on earth in any given period. Exactly where, when, and in what amounts at any given time or place is the problem. It doesn't take much to make the difference between somewhere I want to be and not. For the purpose of the original thread, I would rather live next to a year around babbling brook than anywhere near a yearly flash flood, even when averaged out they both carry the same amount of water.

On the agriculture question, after the United States, the Netherlands is the biggest exporter of agricultural produce in the world. (https://www.government.nl/topics/agriculture/agriculture-and-horticulture) It's not like the Dutch have any physical advantage over most of the rest of the world. But they have figured a few things out and chosen to do something to make things better. Once again there are other countries doing things better, but are we willing to learn from them? Nope!

 

[Camper]

So what does all this have to do with a home address for living in a van?

 

[bullfrog !]

Water shortages in the west were brought up as a reason not to choose the Southwest. Lol!!!

 

[LargeMarge]

Yes, but... Home prices are very sensitive to interest rates. Over the past 20 years, [hysterically]...

The housing economy is cyclical. I believe home prices will drop... stagnant...

.
Off-Topic:
We do this for a living.
We have a half-century of experience doing the opposite of everything in your post.
Stick with us, this will be thorough.
.
a)
We acquired single-family homes and small apartment complexes since the mid-1970s.
We never paid any attention to interest rates or anything else.
We acquire the place, toss on a kitchen re-do and landscaping, move in some renters, and generally forget about the place except for rent-day.
.
Every place had a loan, we pay the payments, everybody happy.
After a few months, after several short discussions about the (alleged) advantages, our renters are usually eager to buy their home from us.
Low payments, low interest, everybody wins.
.
b)
The only way to make houses cheaper to own:
* lower real-estate taxes
* reduce interest in an area (by importing addicts, bums, illegals, etcetera)
* too many houses for the number of buyers.
Other than that, a growing population will continue to chase a limited number of houses.
In fUSA, the recent 'open-borders' nincompoopery quickly increased the population by tens of millions... without a simultaneous increase in the numbers of houses.
.
Those tens of millions of 'arrivals' compete against recently-married young Americans, down-sizing elderly, and legal immigrants... all believing in TheAmericanDream© of home ownership.
.
Property values cannot stagnate, nor can they drop (outside hell-hole inner-city war-zones, or if the well goes dry (as I discussed earlier)).
.
Lastly, the purchase power of fiat currency -- US federal reserve notes -- will continue to erode.
Last year's hamburger was us$3, today it costs $5 for a smaller version of the same.
A 3/2 with attached garage was a half mil a couple years ago.
Today, try and touch it for double that.
Of course, only the foolish would sell.
Replacement would be triple, eating their profits.
.
Nobody sells, nobody can buy.
.
.
Returning to the topic:
I firmly believe mobile living is:
* more fun
* healthier
* far more interesting
* spiritually fulfilling, and
* keeps the mind active and the imagination engaged.
None of that is available in a stand-still house... except for the yard-work, the painting and roofing, the crumbling driveway, rolling black-outs, iffy water, escalating taxes, untouchable Home Owners Associations regulating the number of petunias... and daffy-dills...
.
.
The best state for establishing a home-base?
For us, Oregon.
We live in a place with more elk than people.
Plenty of water, fishing and hunting and foraging to extend grocery dollars, relaxed marijuana rules, almost zero enforcement of prostitution rules.
.
(outside of the goofballs in Ashland) Oregonians pay zero tax on purchases... you see the price, you pay that price.
.
For mobile living, this seems ideal.

 

[user 29855]

.
Off-Topic:
We do this for a living.
We have a half-century of experience doing the opposite of everything in your post.
Stick with us, this will be thorough.
.
a)
We acquired single-family homes and small apartment complexes since the mid-1970s.
We never paid any attention to interest rates or anything else.
We acquire the place, toss on a kitchen re-do and landscaping, move in some renters, and generally forget about the place except for rent-day.
.
Every place had a loan, we pay the payments, everybody happy.
After a few months, after several short discussions about the (alleged) advantages, our renters are usually eager to buy their home from us.
Low payments, low interest, everybody wins.
.
b)
The only way to make houses cheaper to own:
* lower real-estate taxes
* reduce interest in an area (by importing addicts, bums, illegals, etcetera)
* too many houses for the number of buyers.
Other than that, a growing population will continue to chase a limited number of houses.
In fUSA, the recent 'open-borders' nincompoopery quickly increased the population by tens of millions... without a simultaneous increase in the numbers of houses.
.
Those tens of millions of 'arrivals' compete against recently-married young Americans, down-sizing elderly, and legal immigrants... all believing in TheAmericanDream© of home ownership.
.
Property values cannot stagnate, nor can they drop (outside hell-hole inner-city war-zones, or if the well goes dry (as I discussed earlier)).
.
Lastly, the purchase power of fiat currency -- US federal reserve notes -- will continue to erode.
Last year's hamburger was us$3, today it costs $5 for a smaller version of the same.
A 3/2 with attached garage was a half mil a couple years ago.
Today, try and touch it for double that.
Of course, only the foolish would sell.
Replacement would be triple, eating their profits.
.
Nobody sells, nobody can buy.
.
.
Returning to the topic:
I firmly believe mobile living is:
* more fun
* healthier
* far more interesting
* spiritually fulfilling, and
* keeps the mind active and the imagination engaged.
None of that is available in a stand-still house... except for the yard-work, the painting and roofing, the crumbling driveway, rolling black-outs, iffy water, escalating taxes, untouchable Home Owners Associations regulating the number of petunias... and daffy-dills...
.
.
The best state for establishing a home-base?
For us, Oregon.
We live in a place with more elk than people.
Plenty of water, fishing and hunting and foraging to extend grocery dollars, relaxed marijuana rules, almost zero enforcement of prostitution rules.
.
(outside of the goofballs in Ashland) Oregonians pay zero tax on purchases... you see the price, you pay that price.
.
For mobile living, this seems ideal.

Gotta tell you, you are one of the main reasons I decided to support this channel as opposed to just be a free member. I appreciate your insight, and while I Don’t always agree with you I certainly respect the thought that goes into what you say.

 

[user 29855]

.
Off-Topic:
We do this for a living.
We have a half-century of experience doing the opposite of everything in your post.
Stick with us, this will be thorough.
.
a)
We acquired single-family homes and small apartment complexes since the mid-1970s.
We never paid any attention to interest rates or anything else.
We acquire the place, toss on a kitchen re-do and landscaping, move in some renters, and generally forget about the place except for rent-day.
.
Every place had a loan, we pay the payments, everybody happy.
After a few months, after several short discussions about the (alleged) advantages, our renters are usually eager to buy their home from us.
Low payments, low interest, everybody wins.
.
b)
The only way to make houses cheaper to own:
* lower real-estate taxes
* reduce interest in an area (by importing addicts, bums, illegals, etcetera)
* too many houses for the number of buyers.
Other than that, a growing population will continue to chase a limited number of houses.
In fUSA, the recent 'open-borders' nincompoopery quickly increased the population by tens of millions... without a simultaneous increase in the numbers of houses.
.
Those tens of millions of 'arrivals' compete against recently-married young Americans, down-sizing elderly, and legal immigrants... all believing in TheAmericanDream© of home ownership.
.
Property values cannot stagnate, nor can they drop (outside hell-hole inner-city war-zones, or if the well goes dry (as I discussed earlier)).
.
Lastly, the purchase power of fiat currency -- US federal reserve notes -- will continue to erode.
Last year's hamburger was us$3, today it costs $5 for a smaller version of the same.
A 3/2 with attached garage was a half mil a couple years ago.
Today, try and touch it for double that.
Of course, only the foolish would sell.
Replacement would be triple, eating their profits.
.
Nobody sells, nobody can buy.
.
.
Returning to the topic:
I firmly believe mobile living is:
* more fun
* healthier
* far more interesting
* spiritually fulfilling, and
* keeps the mind active and the imagination engaged.
None of that is available in a stand-still house... except for the yard-work, the painting and roofing, the crumbling driveway, rolling black-outs, iffy water, escalating taxes, untouchable Home Owners Associations regulating the number of petunias... and daffy-dills...
.
.
The best state for establishing a home-base?
For us, Oregon.
We live in a place with more elk than people.
Plenty of water, fishing and hunting and foraging to extend grocery dollars, relaxed marijuana rules, almost zero enforcement of prostitution rules.
.
(outside of the goofballs in Ashland) Oregonians pay zero tax on purchases... you see the price, you pay that price.
.
For mobile living, this seems ideal.

Would you mind sharing the general area that you’re speaking of? I’m currently in South Dakota for the summer but will be leaving in September. I’m a huge fan of camping near rule communities.
Thanks

 

[user 29855]

Would you mind sharing the general area that you’re speaking of? I’m currently in South Dakota for the summer but will be leaving in September. I’m a huge fan of camping near rule communities.
Thanks

Rural not rule