Retirement Friendly States

Non-investing personal finance issues including insurance, credit, real estate, taxes, employment and legal issues such as trusts and wills
User avatar
willthrill81
Posts: 15304
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 3:17 pm
Location: USA

Re: Retirement Friendly States

Post by willthrill81 » Wed Dec 04, 2019 1:12 pm

2pedals wrote:
Wed Dec 04, 2019 1:04 pm
Please no more pro WA posts. It rains a lot and the traffic is really bad. We don't need any more people.
We only get 18" of precipitation over here on the east side of the state, and traffic is pretty mild, but we already have enough west-siders and Californians retiring here. :wink:
“It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to.” J.R.R. Tolkien,The Lord of the Rings

texasdiver
Posts: 3284
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 12:50 am
Location: Vancouver WA

Re: Retirement Friendly States

Post by texasdiver » Wed Dec 04, 2019 1:14 pm

JoeRetire wrote:
Wed Dec 04, 2019 7:44 am
marcopolo wrote:
Tue Dec 03, 2019 10:03 pm
JoeRetire wrote:
Tue Dec 03, 2019 9:45 pm
marcopolo wrote:
Tue Dec 03, 2019 9:42 pm
as has been pointed out states have to fund services somehow.
To be fair, some states offer far fewer (and/or lower quality) services.

But in general, the tax base has to come from somewhere.
That is absolutely true. But, depending on the service, in some cases you end up paying for it directly instead of through your taxes, so the net savings is not as much as people think.
Maybe. But remember that not everyone desires the same level of services and so would not pay for them directly.

To use an analogy at a more local level, some folks are willing to pay higher taxes for a better public school system. Others want to pay lower taxes but will then send their children to private school. Still others want to pay lower taxes, but won't send their children to private school.

We all choose a state that meets our needs. Not everyone's needs are the same. Some value lower tax rates more than others. We all decide individually.
It isn't always a democratic choice made at the local community. States vary greatly on how much the state itself supports things like education at the state level and in the extent that they allow for democratic local decision-making. School bonds in Texas, for example, require only a simple 50% majority to pass. By comparison WA requires a 60% supermajority to pass school bonds. And in Oregon there is a weird supermajority requirement that at least 50% of registered voters show up to vote regardless of the passing percentage. So a bond can get 80% or 90% support by the voters and still fail if a minority don't bother to show up to vote. A community in Texas can have all its school bonds pass every year with lower percentage of voter support than a WA or OR community that always sees its bonds fail.

But it is most certainly true that with research you can search out a community that provides the level of public infrastructure and services that you want. What most often happens though, is that retirees become enamored with a location based on the scenery and charm of the area and don't really dig deep until they have invested. The Oregon Coast is a good example. It has been attracting retirees for decades, and is most certainly gorgeous with lots of picturesque towns. But dive into local internet forums and you find all manner of dissatisfaction. Lack of available housing and good schools means that a declining number of working families want to live there. Medical services can be difficult and far away. Neighborhood continuity is getting gutted by the rise of the AirB&B culture. Restaurants are closing or curtailing hours because they can't find staff willing to work for restaurant wages. Especially in winter. And it's just hard to find anyone to do anything from home health care to yard work.

drawpoker
Posts: 2809
Joined: Mon May 19, 2014 6:33 pm
Location: Delmarva

Re: Retirement Friendly States

Post by drawpoker » Wed Dec 04, 2019 1:24 pm

willthrill81 wrote:
Wed Dec 04, 2019 12:00 am
This may or may not affect retirees, but the issue that my cousin frequently dealt with as a nursing manager was that as soon as someone shouted "Surf's up," many of her staff just didn't show up for work. With something as vital as a medical care can be, she was understandably very frustrated with this, and she couldn't just fire those who didn't show up because new hires would behave the same way (i.e. it's apparently part of the culture).........
Either that or those slackers were transplants who moved there from the Delmarva peninsula. This area is notorious for the very bad worth ethic exhibited by so many. Particularly in the service trades.

It's not "Surf's up" but rather rockfish has come in, or Canada geese season, firearms deer hunting begins, Mourning doves, the list is endless, any excuse to abandon work, ignore scheduled appointments, leave customers in the lurch. Definitely part of the DNA of the natives here, they see nothing wrong about it.

Definitely affects retirees. Who can't do a lot of things anymore and have to hire people.

Broken Man 1999
Posts: 3815
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 11:31 am

Re: Retirement Friendly States

Post by Broken Man 1999 » Wed Dec 04, 2019 2:50 pm

2pedals wrote:
Wed Dec 04, 2019 1:04 pm
Please no more pro WA posts. It rains a lot and the traffic is really bad. We don't need any more people.
Ha!

Sadly Florida is full up also. Right now the governor has the Florida Highway Patrol allowing one car into Florida, but only if one car leaves the state.

Visitors are still welcome to come and pay a generous portion of our taxes, but are not to be encouraged to stay forever. If you can't make it down to Florida one year, just mail the money instead.

Skeeters the size of humming birds, alligators longer than most SUVs, pythons longer than school buses; seriously, do you want to put your children in danger from such wildlife?

You can usually get out alive leaving from the touristy areas, but once you leave the interstates, well.....

Broken Man 1999
“If I cannot drink Bourbon and smoke cigars in Heaven than I shall not go. " -Mark Twain

User avatar
JoeRetire
Posts: 4547
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 2:44 pm

Re: Retirement Friendly States

Post by JoeRetire » Wed Dec 04, 2019 3:16 pm

texasdiver wrote:
Wed Dec 04, 2019 1:14 pm
JoeRetire wrote:
Wed Dec 04, 2019 7:44 am
marcopolo wrote:
Tue Dec 03, 2019 10:03 pm
JoeRetire wrote:
Tue Dec 03, 2019 9:45 pm
marcopolo wrote:
Tue Dec 03, 2019 9:42 pm
as has been pointed out states have to fund services somehow.
To be fair, some states offer far fewer (and/or lower quality) services.

But in general, the tax base has to come from somewhere.
That is absolutely true. But, depending on the service, in some cases you end up paying for it directly instead of through your taxes, so the net savings is not as much as people think.
Maybe. But remember that not everyone desires the same level of services and so would not pay for them directly.

To use an analogy at a more local level, some folks are willing to pay higher taxes for a better public school system. Others want to pay lower taxes but will then send their children to private school. Still others want to pay lower taxes, but won't send their children to private school.

We all choose a state that meets our needs. Not everyone's needs are the same. Some value lower tax rates more than others. We all decide individually.
It isn't always a democratic choice made at the local community. States vary greatly on how much the state itself supports things like education at the state level and in the extent that they allow for democratic local decision-making. School bonds in Texas, for example, require only a simple 50% majority to pass. By comparison WA requires a 60% supermajority to pass school bonds. And in Oregon there is a weird supermajority requirement that at least 50% of registered voters show up to vote regardless of the passing percentage. So a bond can get 80% or 90% support by the voters and still fail if a minority don't bother to show up to vote. A community in Texas can have all its school bonds pass every year with lower percentage of voter support than a WA or OR community that always sees its bonds fail.

But it is most certainly true that with research you can search out a community that provides the level of public infrastructure and services that you want. What most often happens though, is that retirees become enamored with a location based on the scenery and charm of the area and don't really dig deep until they have invested. The Oregon Coast is a good example. It has been attracting retirees for decades, and is most certainly gorgeous with lots of picturesque towns. But dive into local internet forums and you find all manner of dissatisfaction. Lack of available housing and good schools means that a declining number of working families want to live there. Medical services can be difficult and far away. Neighborhood continuity is getting gutted by the rise of the AirB&B culture. Restaurants are closing or curtailing hours because they can't find staff willing to work for restaurant wages. Especially in winter. And it's just hard to find anyone to do anything from home health care to yard work.
My point wasn't how a state gets to be the way it is.

Rather, my point was that you can choose to move to any "flavor" of state you like, based on whatever attributes are important to you at the time.
Very Stable Genius

cowbman
Posts: 120
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2017 2:10 pm

Re: Retirement Friendly States

Post by cowbman » Wed Dec 04, 2019 5:04 pm

texasdiver wrote:
Wed Dec 04, 2019 12:40 pm
cowbman wrote:
Tue Dec 03, 2019 10:29 pm

It makes a difference, but you likely need to have several businesses/chain of restaurants/7 figure income for it to be 40k/year. However, a particularly striking example is California vs. Nevada. If you are in a lower income group your choice of state is probably better decided by subsidies to those in your level of income (ie. Medicaid expansion vs. none). For retirees, no income states are likely only better if they are going to purchase a property less than 250K-300K. States like PA or DE may actually be better than TX or FL because of property taxes. I previously mentioned California as a better option then one would think because of relatively modest property taxes (and exemption of social security).

I previously lived in TX, and with the recent run up in property prices find it's more expensive for me and my family in terms of taxes than states with an income tax (property taxes at 2.35% of appraised value, which is market value at the time of purchase). Exceptions are no income tax and low property tax such as Nevada. If one is looking at 750K properties in WA vs. TX though, WA wins. Even at 1.25MM in WA vs. 650K in TX. WA wins. (1.2% of 1.2 MM is $14,400) vs. (2.35% of 650K is $15,275). There are other factors as well to consider, but purely from a tax perspective, income tax is not the only tax that matters (property becomes a big one too!). Of course for retirees, income tax is less important than possibly even in sales tax. Different states are better depending on income/lifestyle is what I was trying to say. For me personally, it's hard to beat Nevada from a tax perspective, but income/family/lifestyle don't necessarily support that choice.
The biggest financial surprise I found when moving from TX to WA was the reduction in my utility costs. My electric bill (especially in the summer) was almost $200/mo cheaper in WA. My water/sewer bill was also much lower as I barely ever have to water anything in WA and don't have a pool. I would have to go through my old Quicken ledgers to add up the actual difference but I wouldn't be surprised if I'm paying $200 month less in utilities on average. Both houses are over 3000 sf suburban houses. The electric bills in TX were just brutal 6 months out out of the year due to the need to keep AC running. The pool pumps also burned a lot of electricity. I barely ever run the AC in WA. And because the house is well insulated, barely run the gas furnace much. Anyone who has ever lived in the south knows it costs a lot more to cool a house than warm it.

Yes, you *can* live with less AC in Texas if you really want to. But houses are no longer designed to provide any natural ventilation. Architects or builders don't think about providing air flow by opening windows and using fans. They just assume AC. The old style Texas homes with large roof eaves and verandas wrapped all around and air-flow corridors running through the entire house just aren't made anymore. Likewise, you can xeroscape and do with a lot less water to save on water bills. But typical suburban houses are all built with St. Augustine or Bermuda grass lawns and lots of generic northern shrubs that require water. The typical suburban house is also built with pop-up sprinkler systems that are also water-inefficient. So it is considerable investment to rip all that out and xeroscape and drip irrigation. Much of the suburban Texas landscape is also so new that there's barely any shade at all. It takes decades to grow up nice shade trees.
I played the game where I kept changing power companies to keep 4-6 cents/kWh pricing.

User avatar
nativenewenglander
Posts: 174
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2017 6:05 am

Re: Retirement Friendly States

Post by nativenewenglander » Sat Dec 07, 2019 4:56 am

finster869 wrote:
Wed Dec 04, 2019 6:44 am
nativenewenglander wrote:
Wed Dec 04, 2019 6:14 am
vu8 wrote:
Mon Nov 25, 2019 10:33 am
States with no state income taxes: Washington, Nevada, Texas, Wyoming, South Dakota, Florida and Alaska
NH has no income or sales tax.
Although there is no income tax on W-2 income, NH does have a 5% tax on investments and dividends which would make NH, in many instances, not tax friendly for retirement purposes.
True is does tax dividends, but overall the tax burden is low and is the most tax friendly state in the region. It doesn't tax pensions, so many move here in retirement for that reason.

ScubaHogg
Posts: 190
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2011 3:02 pm

Re: Retirement Friendly States

Post by ScubaHogg » Sat Dec 07, 2019 8:42 am

JoeRetire wrote:
Wed Dec 04, 2019 7:44 am
marcopolo wrote:
Tue Dec 03, 2019 10:03 pm
JoeRetire wrote:
Tue Dec 03, 2019 9:45 pm
marcopolo wrote:
Tue Dec 03, 2019 9:42 pm
as has been pointed out states have to fund services somehow.
To be fair, some states offer far fewer (and/or lower quality) services.

But in general, the tax base has to come from somewhere.
That is absolutely true. But, depending on the service, in some cases you end up paying for it directly instead of through your taxes, so the net savings is not as much as people think.
Maybe. But remember that not everyone desires the same level of services and so would not pay for them directly.

To use an analogy at a more local level, some folks are willing to pay higher taxes for a better public school system. Others want to pay lower taxes but will then send their children to private school. Still others want to pay lower taxes, but won't send their children to private school.

We all choose a state that meets our needs. Not everyone's needs are the same. Some value lower tax rates more than others. We all decide individually.
It’s not so clear that higher taxes and spending leads to better services. DC spends almost $20,000 per student on its public schools but one reason we left is we would never send our child to a public school there. Where we live now spends roughly half per student and has a far superior school system by virtually every measure.

If you are reading Bogleheads it seems unlikely you are taking advantages of many of the services that high tax states provide (more expansive Medicaid, expensive public pensions) that lower tax states don’t. School systems, for example, vary much more within a state than across state averages, so simply writing a bigger check every year isn’t necessarily buying you anything.

I’m starting to think folks who live in very high tax states (I live in a mid tax state) have convinced themselves they are getting a lot of extra stuff that poor ole Texans/Floridians /Tennesseans don’t get. Some places are very lovely, like coastal CA, but those extra taxes probably don’t have much to do with it and I doubt you are getting too much in the way of a return on them.

marielake
Posts: 109
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 5:39 pm

Re: Retirement Friendly States

Post by marielake » Sat Dec 07, 2019 9:20 am

I moved from Mass to NC for retirement. The basic reasons were a warmer climate and housing costs as I didn’t think I could afford my home one I retired. I also wanted an area with a hospital and university. I’ve seen snow twice in 4 years, summers are brutal and real estate is half that of Mass. I never considered taxes, but since learned property taxes are about half and home insurance is double so the two balanced out. I did consider political climate and potential for hurricanes, but neither were drivers. Have since experienced two hurricanes and the tornados that accompanied them.

MathIsMyWayr
Posts: 1264
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2017 10:47 pm
Location: CA

Re: Retirement Friendly States

Post by MathIsMyWayr » Sat Dec 07, 2019 9:32 am

ScubaHogg wrote:
Sat Dec 07, 2019 8:42 am
JoeRetire wrote:
Wed Dec 04, 2019 7:44 am
marcopolo wrote:
Tue Dec 03, 2019 10:03 pm
JoeRetire wrote:
Tue Dec 03, 2019 9:45 pm
marcopolo wrote:
Tue Dec 03, 2019 9:42 pm
as has been pointed out states have to fund services somehow.
To be fair, some states offer far fewer (and/or lower quality) services.

But in general, the tax base has to come from somewhere.
That is absolutely true. But, depending on the service, in some cases you end up paying for it directly instead of through your taxes, so the net savings is not as much as people think.
Maybe. But remember that not everyone desires the same level of services and so would not pay for them directly.

To use an analogy at a more local level, some folks are willing to pay higher taxes for a better public school system. Others want to pay lower taxes but will then send their children to private school. Still others want to pay lower taxes, but won't send their children to private school.

We all choose a state that meets our needs. Not everyone's needs are the same. Some value lower tax rates more than others. We all decide individually.
It’s not so clear that higher taxes and spending leads to better services. DC spends almost $20,000 per student on its public schools but one reason we left is we would never send our child to a public school there. Where we live now spends roughly half per student and has a far superior school system by virtually every measure.

If you are reading Bogleheads it seems unlikely you are taking advantages of many of the services that high tax states provide (more expansive Medicaid, expensive public pensions) that lower tax states don’t. School systems, for example, vary much more within a state than across state averages, so simply writing a bigger check every year isn’t necessarily buying you anything.

I’m starting to think folks who live in very high tax states (I live in a mid tax state) have convinced themselves they are getting a lot of extra stuff that poor ole Texans/Floridians /Tennesseans don’t get. Some places are very lovely, like coastal CA, but those extra taxes probably don’t have much to do with it and I doubt you are getting too much in the way of a return on them.
Student do poorly not because of bad schools or bad teachers. It is simply because of bad parents. Unfortunately, it became a blaming game.

smitcat
Posts: 4694
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 10:51 am

Re: Retirement Friendly States

Post by smitcat » Sat Dec 07, 2019 9:36 am

MathIsMyWayr wrote:
Sat Dec 07, 2019 9:32 am
ScubaHogg wrote:
Sat Dec 07, 2019 8:42 am
JoeRetire wrote:
Wed Dec 04, 2019 7:44 am
marcopolo wrote:
Tue Dec 03, 2019 10:03 pm
JoeRetire wrote:
Tue Dec 03, 2019 9:45 pm

To be fair, some states offer far fewer (and/or lower quality) services.

But in general, the tax base has to come from somewhere.
That is absolutely true. But, depending on the service, in some cases you end up paying for it directly instead of through your taxes, so the net savings is not as much as people think.
Maybe. But remember that not everyone desires the same level of services and so would not pay for them directly.

To use an analogy at a more local level, some folks are willing to pay higher taxes for a better public school system. Others want to pay lower taxes but will then send their children to private school. Still others want to pay lower taxes, but won't send their children to private school.

We all choose a state that meets our needs. Not everyone's needs are the same. Some value lower tax rates more than others. We all decide individually.
It’s not so clear that higher taxes and spending leads to better services. DC spends almost $20,000 per student on its public schools but one reason we left is we would never send our child to a public school there. Where we live now spends roughly half per student and has a far superior school system by virtually every measure.

If you are reading Bogleheads it seems unlikely you are taking advantages of many of the services that high tax states provide (more expansive Medicaid, expensive public pensions) that lower tax states don’t. School systems, for example, vary much more within a state than across state averages, so simply writing a bigger check every year isn’t necessarily buying you anything.

I’m starting to think folks who live in very high tax states (I live in a mid tax state) have convinced themselves they are getting a lot of extra stuff that poor ole Texans/Floridians /Tennesseans don’t get. Some places are very lovely, like coastal CA, but those extra taxes probably don’t have much to do with it and I doubt you are getting too much in the way of a return on them.
Student do poorly not because of bad schools or bad teachers. It is simply because of bad parents. Unfortunately, it became a blaming game.
There is definitely a difference in quality of schools and teachers even across the more local area where we are.

MathIsMyWayr
Posts: 1264
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2017 10:47 pm
Location: CA

Re: Retirement Friendly States

Post by MathIsMyWayr » Sat Dec 07, 2019 9:50 am

smitcat wrote:
Sat Dec 07, 2019 9:36 am
MathIsMyWayr wrote:
Sat Dec 07, 2019 9:32 am
ScubaHogg wrote:
Sat Dec 07, 2019 8:42 am
JoeRetire wrote:
Wed Dec 04, 2019 7:44 am
marcopolo wrote:
Tue Dec 03, 2019 10:03 pm


That is absolutely true. But, depending on the service, in some cases you end up paying for it directly instead of through your taxes, so the net savings is not as much as people think.
Maybe. But remember that not everyone desires the same level of services and so would not pay for them directly.

To use an analogy at a more local level, some folks are willing to pay higher taxes for a better public school system. Others want to pay lower taxes but will then send their children to private school. Still others want to pay lower taxes, but won't send their children to private school.

We all choose a state that meets our needs. Not everyone's needs are the same. Some value lower tax rates more than others. We all decide individually.
It’s not so clear that higher taxes and spending leads to better services. DC spends almost $20,000 per student on its public schools but one reason we left is we would never send our child to a public school there. Where we live now spends roughly half per student and has a far superior school system by virtually every measure.

If you are reading Bogleheads it seems unlikely you are taking advantages of many of the services that high tax states provide (more expansive Medicaid, expensive public pensions) that lower tax states don’t. School systems, for example, vary much more within a state than across state averages, so simply writing a bigger check every year isn’t necessarily buying you anything.

I’m starting to think folks who live in very high tax states (I live in a mid tax state) have convinced themselves they are getting a lot of extra stuff that poor ole Texans/Floridians /Tennesseans don’t get. Some places are very lovely, like coastal CA, but those extra taxes probably don’t have much to do with it and I doubt you are getting too much in the way of a return on them.
Student do poorly not because of bad schools or bad teachers. It is simply because of bad parents. Unfortunately, it became a blaming game.
There is definitely a difference in quality of schools and teachers even across the more local area where we are.
Not all schools or teachers are the same, but parents exert far greater influence on the learning of students. If you examine carefully, there is a close correlation between student performance and the occupation of parents. It may be a chicken and eggs, but students tend to do best if the occupation of their parents need high education, more than the household wealth. If the parents' occupation is knowledge-based, their children often take up their attitude.

User avatar
Topic Author
LiveSimple
Posts: 1465
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 7:55 am

Re: Retirement Friendly States

Post by LiveSimple » Sat Dec 07, 2019 9:52 am

JoeRetire wrote:
Tue Nov 26, 2019 9:49 am
If your definition of "Retirement Friendly" is only "low taxes", then it's pretty easy to choose. A single table of tax rates would probably suffice.

If, like most people, you really mean "the kind of place I would prefer to live in during my retirement", then there are far more important factors than just taxes.

Personally I find those click-bait "The best places to retire" articles virtually worthless. Your mileage may vary.
Mostly looking overall not only taxes...

smitcat
Posts: 4694
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 10:51 am

Re: Retirement Friendly States

Post by smitcat » Sat Dec 07, 2019 9:55 am

MathIsMyWayr wrote:
Sat Dec 07, 2019 9:50 am
smitcat wrote:
Sat Dec 07, 2019 9:36 am
MathIsMyWayr wrote:
Sat Dec 07, 2019 9:32 am
ScubaHogg wrote:
Sat Dec 07, 2019 8:42 am
JoeRetire wrote:
Wed Dec 04, 2019 7:44 am


Maybe. But remember that not everyone desires the same level of services and so would not pay for them directly.

To use an analogy at a more local level, some folks are willing to pay higher taxes for a better public school system. Others want to pay lower taxes but will then send their children to private school. Still others want to pay lower taxes, but won't send their children to private school.

We all choose a state that meets our needs. Not everyone's needs are the same. Some value lower tax rates more than others. We all decide individually.
It’s not so clear that higher taxes and spending leads to better services. DC spends almost $20,000 per student on its public schools but one reason we left is we would never send our child to a public school there. Where we live now spends roughly half per student and has a far superior school system by virtually every measure.

If you are reading Bogleheads it seems unlikely you are taking advantages of many of the services that high tax states provide (more expansive Medicaid, expensive public pensions) that lower tax states don’t. School systems, for example, vary much more within a state than across state averages, so simply writing a bigger check every year isn’t necessarily buying you anything.

I’m starting to think folks who live in very high tax states (I live in a mid tax state) have convinced themselves they are getting a lot of extra stuff that poor ole Texans/Floridians /Tennesseans don’t get. Some places are very lovely, like coastal CA, but those extra taxes probably don’t have much to do with it and I doubt you are getting too much in the way of a return on them.
Student do poorly not because of bad schools or bad teachers. It is simply because of bad parents. Unfortunately, it became a blaming game.
There is definitely a difference in quality of schools and teachers even across the more local area where we are.
Not all schools or teachers are the same, but parents exert far greater influence on the learning of students. If you examine carefully, there is a close correlation between student performance and the occupation of parents. It may be a chicken and eggs, but students tend to do best if the occupation of their parents need high education, more than the household wealth. If the parents' occupation is knowledge-based, their children often take up their attitude.
Perhaps your area is different ….school quality varies greatly here even over a short amount of distance. School supplies, teacher credentials, supervision, student teacher ratios all very variable by area.
So saying that 'it is simply because of bad parents" does not apply here.

MathIsMyWayr
Posts: 1264
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2017 10:47 pm
Location: CA

Re: Retirement Friendly States

Post by MathIsMyWayr » Sat Dec 07, 2019 10:19 am

smitcat wrote:
Sat Dec 07, 2019 9:55 am
MathIsMyWayr wrote:
Sat Dec 07, 2019 9:50 am
smitcat wrote:
Sat Dec 07, 2019 9:36 am
MathIsMyWayr wrote:
Sat Dec 07, 2019 9:32 am
ScubaHogg wrote:
Sat Dec 07, 2019 8:42 am


It’s not so clear that higher taxes and spending leads to better services. DC spends almost $20,000 per student on its public schools but one reason we left is we would never send our child to a public school there. Where we live now spends roughly half per student and has a far superior school system by virtually every measure.

If you are reading Bogleheads it seems unlikely you are taking advantages of many of the services that high tax states provide (more expansive Medicaid, expensive public pensions) that lower tax states don’t. School systems, for example, vary much more within a state than across state averages, so simply writing a bigger check every year isn’t necessarily buying you anything.

I’m starting to think folks who live in very high tax states (I live in a mid tax state) have convinced themselves they are getting a lot of extra stuff that poor ole Texans/Floridians /Tennesseans don’t get. Some places are very lovely, like coastal CA, but those extra taxes probably don’t have much to do with it and I doubt you are getting too much in the way of a return on them.
Student do poorly not because of bad schools or bad teachers. It is simply because of bad parents. Unfortunately, it became a blaming game.
There is definitely a difference in quality of schools and teachers even across the more local area where we are.
Not all schools or teachers are the same, but parents exert far greater influence on the learning of students. If you examine carefully, there is a close correlation between student performance and the occupation of parents. It may be a chicken and eggs, but students tend to do best if the occupation of their parents need high education, more than the household wealth. If the parents' occupation is knowledge-based, their children often take up their attitude.
Perhaps your area is different ….school quality varies greatly here even over a short amount of distance. School supplies, teacher credentials, supervision, student teacher ratios all very variable by area.
So saying that 'it is simply because of bad parents" does not apply here.
If you take the Greater Boston area, the vast difference among districts is striking. There are many factors behind it, but the commonality is the attitude of parents on education and decision on how to spend tax dollars. Schools are supported by local taxes, at least in the past.

https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED577825
Elementary school students are entering a stage in their lives when psychological, emotional, cognitive and social characteristics are beginning to change. During this time, parental involvement and support is crucial to their academic achievement. According to Bryan (2005), children are likely to excel in academics when their parents' actively participate in their education.

smitcat
Posts: 4694
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 10:51 am

Re: Retirement Friendly States

Post by smitcat » Sat Dec 07, 2019 10:22 am

MathIsMyWayr wrote:
Sat Dec 07, 2019 10:19 am
smitcat wrote:
Sat Dec 07, 2019 9:55 am
MathIsMyWayr wrote:
Sat Dec 07, 2019 9:50 am
smitcat wrote:
Sat Dec 07, 2019 9:36 am
MathIsMyWayr wrote:
Sat Dec 07, 2019 9:32 am

Student do poorly not because of bad schools or bad teachers. It is simply because of bad parents. Unfortunately, it became a blaming game.
There is definitely a difference in quality of schools and teachers even across the more local area where we are.
Not all schools or teachers are the same, but parents exert far greater influence on the learning of students. If you examine carefully, there is a close correlation between student performance and the occupation of parents. It may be a chicken and eggs, but students tend to do best if the occupation of their parents need high education, more than the household wealth. If the parents' occupation is knowledge-based, their children often take up their attitude.
Perhaps your area is different ….school quality varies greatly here even over a short amount of distance. School supplies, teacher credentials, supervision, student teacher ratios all very variable by area.
So saying that 'it is simply because of bad parents" does not apply here.
If you take the Greater Boston area, the vast difference among districts is striking. There are many factors behind it, but the commonality is the attitude of parents on education and decision on how to spend tax dollars. Schools are supported by local taxes, at least in the past.

https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED577825
Elementary school students are entering a stage in their lives when psychological, emotional, cognitive and social characteristics are beginning to change. During this time, parental involvement and support is crucial to their academic achievement. According to Bryan (2005), children are likely to excel in academics when their parents' actively participate in their education.
As I said - it is the schools quality which makes much of the difference.
If you are in the Boston area would you be satisfied sending your kids to the poor schools?- I think not.

MathIsMyWayr
Posts: 1264
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2017 10:47 pm
Location: CA

Re: Retirement Friendly States

Post by MathIsMyWayr » Sat Dec 07, 2019 10:43 am

smitcat wrote:
Sat Dec 07, 2019 10:22 am
MathIsMyWayr wrote:
Sat Dec 07, 2019 10:19 am
smitcat wrote:
Sat Dec 07, 2019 9:55 am
MathIsMyWayr wrote:
Sat Dec 07, 2019 9:50 am
smitcat wrote:
Sat Dec 07, 2019 9:36 am


There is definitely a difference in quality of schools and teachers even across the more local area where we are.
Not all schools or teachers are the same, but parents exert far greater influence on the learning of students. If you examine carefully, there is a close correlation between student performance and the occupation of parents. It may be a chicken and eggs, but students tend to do best if the occupation of their parents need high education, more than the household wealth. If the parents' occupation is knowledge-based, their children often take up their attitude.
Perhaps your area is different ….school quality varies greatly here even over a short amount of distance. School supplies, teacher credentials, supervision, student teacher ratios all very variable by area.
So saying that 'it is simply because of bad parents" does not apply here.
If you take the Greater Boston area, the vast difference among districts is striking. There are many factors behind it, but the commonality is the attitude of parents on education and decision on how to spend tax dollars. Schools are supported by local taxes, at least in the past.

https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED577825
Elementary school students are entering a stage in their lives when psychological, emotional, cognitive and social characteristics are beginning to change. During this time, parental involvement and support is crucial to their academic achievement. According to Bryan (2005), children are likely to excel in academics when their parents' actively participate in their education.
As I said - it is the schools quality which makes much of the difference.
If you are in the Boston area would you be satisfied sending your kids to the poor schools?- I think not.
I am not suggesting to disregard the quality of schools when deciding where to reside. Unfortunately many parents have no options. My point is that not all the hope is lost. Parents have a great influence on the academic success of their children, far greater than you read or heard on media. You may find living examples in new economic powers such as South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, and other countries. Germany and Japan were in ruins not too long ago. Their economy and schools were in a miserable state, but their high value on education lifted them up.

User avatar
danielrhall
Posts: 42
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2018 2:20 pm
Location: Raymond, NH USA

Re: Retirement Friendly States

Post by danielrhall » Sat Dec 07, 2019 10:55 am

nativenewenglander wrote:
Sat Dec 07, 2019 4:56 am
finster869 wrote:
Wed Dec 04, 2019 6:44 am
nativenewenglander wrote:
Wed Dec 04, 2019 6:14 am
vu8 wrote:
Mon Nov 25, 2019 10:33 am
States with no state income taxes: Washington, Nevada, Texas, Wyoming, South Dakota, Florida and Alaska
NH has no income or sales tax.
Although there is no income tax on W-2 income, NH does have a 5% tax on investments and dividends which would make NH, in many instances, not tax friendly for retirement purposes.
True is does tax dividends, but overall the tax burden is low and is the most tax friendly state in the region. It doesn't tax pensions, so many move here in retirement for that reason.
The burden is dependent on the amount of interest and dividends, which is not taxed until it exceeds $2400 annually for single filers or $4800 for joint filers. There is a $1200 exemption for residents 65 years of age or older, blind residents regardless of age, or disabled individuals younger than 65 who are unable to work.

User avatar
TomatoTomahto
Posts: 9770
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 1:48 pm

Re: Retirement Friendly States

Post by TomatoTomahto » Sat Dec 07, 2019 2:59 pm

MathIsMyWayr wrote:Student do poorly not because of bad schools or bad teachers. It is simply because of bad parents. Unfortunately, it became a blaming game.
One of our kids was doing poorly in a supposedly great school. I’m glad to know that my parenting improved so dramatically year on year when we moved him to another school. Yay me! I’ll take full credit.
Okay, I get it; I won't be political or controversial. The Earth is flat.

smitcat
Posts: 4694
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 10:51 am

Re: Retirement Friendly States

Post by smitcat » Sat Dec 07, 2019 3:06 pm

MathIsMyWayr wrote:
Sat Dec 07, 2019 10:43 am
smitcat wrote:
Sat Dec 07, 2019 10:22 am
MathIsMyWayr wrote:
Sat Dec 07, 2019 10:19 am
smitcat wrote:
Sat Dec 07, 2019 9:55 am
MathIsMyWayr wrote:
Sat Dec 07, 2019 9:50 am

Not all schools or teachers are the same, but parents exert far greater influence on the learning of students. If you examine carefully, there is a close correlation between student performance and the occupation of parents. It may be a chicken and eggs, but students tend to do best if the occupation of their parents need high education, more than the household wealth. If the parents' occupation is knowledge-based, their children often take up their attitude.
Perhaps your area is different ….school quality varies greatly here even over a short amount of distance. School supplies, teacher credentials, supervision, student teacher ratios all very variable by area.
So saying that 'it is simply because of bad parents" does not apply here.
If you take the Greater Boston area, the vast difference among districts is striking. There are many factors behind it, but the commonality is the attitude of parents on education and decision on how to spend tax dollars. Schools are supported by local taxes, at least in the past.

https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED577825
Elementary school students are entering a stage in their lives when psychological, emotional, cognitive and social characteristics are beginning to change. During this time, parental involvement and support is crucial to their academic achievement. According to Bryan (2005), children are likely to excel in academics when their parents' actively participate in their education.
As I said - it is the schools quality which makes much of the difference.
If you are in the Boston area would you be satisfied sending your kids to the poor schools?- I think not.
I am not suggesting to disregard the quality of schools when deciding where to reside. Unfortunately many parents have no options. My point is that not all the hope is lost. Parents have a great influence on the academic success of their children, far greater than you read or heard on media. You may find living examples in new economic powers such as South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, and other countries. Germany and Japan were in ruins not too long ago. Their economy and schools were in a miserable state, but their high value on education lifted them up.
"I am not suggesting to disregard the quality of schools when deciding where to reside. Unfortunately many parents have no options. My point is that not all the hope is lost. Parents have a great influence on the academic success of their children, far greater than you read or heard on media."
I would agree with this.

"Student do poorly not because of bad schools or bad teachers. It is simply because of bad parents"
I do not agree with this.

We have been working in this area for the past 15+ years and see hundreds of parents each year. The idea that parents can be sorted into a good pile and a bad pile is quite hard to imagine or do.
Schools do matter and therefore challenged schools with challenged teachers make a large difference with student performance.

User avatar
Toons
Posts: 13427
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 10:20 am
Location: Hills of Tennessee

Re: Retirement Friendly States

Post by Toons » Sat Dec 07, 2019 3:12 pm

Tennessee

:happy
"One does not accumulate but eliminate. It is not daily increase but daily decrease. The height of cultivation always runs to simplicity" –Bruce Lee

User avatar
vitaflo
Posts: 1206
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 3:02 pm

Re: Retirement Friendly States

Post by vitaflo » Sat Dec 07, 2019 3:21 pm

Glockenspiel wrote:
Mon Nov 25, 2019 11:20 am
Couldn’t pay me to live in almost any of the southeastern states. I’ll be staying in Minnesota, where it’s beautiful, but just cold enough to keep out the riff-raff.
The best thing about MN is you can talk to death about how great the opportunities are here for jobs, education, health care, outdoors, etc, all with a fairly affordable COL and people still won't move here because of the winter.

User avatar
willthrill81
Posts: 15304
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 3:17 pm
Location: USA

Re: Retirement Friendly States

Post by willthrill81 » Sat Dec 07, 2019 3:30 pm

vitaflo wrote:
Sat Dec 07, 2019 3:21 pm
Glockenspiel wrote:
Mon Nov 25, 2019 11:20 am
Couldn’t pay me to live in almost any of the southeastern states. I’ll be staying in Minnesota, where it’s beautiful, but just cold enough to keep out the riff-raff.
The best thing about MN is you can talk to death about how great the opportunities are here for jobs, education, health care, outdoors, etc, all with a fairly affordable COL and people still won't move here because of the winter.
We lived in MN for four years, and I thought that it was a beautiful place. With modern clothing, I didn't find the winters too bad.
“It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to.” J.R.R. Tolkien,The Lord of the Rings

abner kravitz
Posts: 505
Joined: Tue May 05, 2015 7:42 am
Location: Beaufort County, SC

Re: Retirement Friendly States

Post by abner kravitz » Sat Dec 07, 2019 3:39 pm

willthrill81 wrote:
Sat Dec 07, 2019 3:30 pm
vitaflo wrote:
Sat Dec 07, 2019 3:21 pm
Glockenspiel wrote:
Mon Nov 25, 2019 11:20 am
Couldn’t pay me to live in almost any of the southeastern states. I’ll be staying in Minnesota, where it’s beautiful, but just cold enough to keep out the riff-raff.
The best thing about MN is you can talk to death about how great the opportunities are here for jobs, education, health care, outdoors, etc, all with a fairly affordable COL and people still won't move here because of the winter.
We lived in MN for four years, and I thought that it was a beautiful place. With modern clothing, I didn't find the winters too bad.
I lived in St. Paul for 4 years. One of them was the winter of 1996-97 (I think that was the year). 20 below zero 7 days straight at one point.

Other than that I enjoyed my time there, but it was a little too much character building for me.

User avatar
willthrill81
Posts: 15304
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 3:17 pm
Location: USA

Re: Retirement Friendly States

Post by willthrill81 » Sat Dec 07, 2019 4:40 pm

abner kravitz wrote:
Sat Dec 07, 2019 3:39 pm
willthrill81 wrote:
Sat Dec 07, 2019 3:30 pm
vitaflo wrote:
Sat Dec 07, 2019 3:21 pm
Glockenspiel wrote:
Mon Nov 25, 2019 11:20 am
Couldn’t pay me to live in almost any of the southeastern states. I’ll be staying in Minnesota, where it’s beautiful, but just cold enough to keep out the riff-raff.
The best thing about MN is you can talk to death about how great the opportunities are here for jobs, education, health care, outdoors, etc, all with a fairly affordable COL and people still won't move here because of the winter.
We lived in MN for four years, and I thought that it was a beautiful place. With modern clothing, I didn't find the winters too bad.
I lived in St. Paul for 4 years. One of them was the winter of 1996-97 (I think that was the year). 20 below zero 7 days straight at one point.

Other than that I enjoyed my time there, but it was a little too much character building for me.
We lived in East Grand Forks (and briefly in Grand Forks, ND), and we once had a three week span where the ambient temp or wind chill is -40 or colder for three weeks straight. When people ask how you deal with that, I tell them "We did the same thing that we did in the South when it was 100 with 80% humidity: we stayed indoors."
“It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to.” J.R.R. Tolkien,The Lord of the Rings

User avatar
LilyFleur
Posts: 848
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 10:36 pm

Re: Retirement Friendly States

Post by LilyFleur » Sat Dec 07, 2019 4:46 pm

willthrill81 wrote:
Sat Dec 07, 2019 4:40 pm
abner kravitz wrote:
Sat Dec 07, 2019 3:39 pm
willthrill81 wrote:
Sat Dec 07, 2019 3:30 pm
vitaflo wrote:
Sat Dec 07, 2019 3:21 pm
Glockenspiel wrote:
Mon Nov 25, 2019 11:20 am
Couldn’t pay me to live in almost any of the southeastern states. I’ll be staying in Minnesota, where it’s beautiful, but just cold enough to keep out the riff-raff.
The best thing about MN is you can talk to death about how great the opportunities are here for jobs, education, health care, outdoors, etc, all with a fairly affordable COL and people still won't move here because of the winter.
We lived in MN for four years, and I thought that it was a beautiful place. With modern clothing, I didn't find the winters too bad.
I lived in St. Paul for 4 years. One of them was the winter of 1996-97 (I think that was the year). 20 below zero 7 days straight at one point.

Other than that I enjoyed my time there, but it was a little too much character building for me.
We lived in East Grand Forks (and briefly in Grand Forks, ND), and we once had a three week span where the ambient temp or wind chill is -40 or colder for three weeks straight. When people ask how you deal with that, I tell them "We did the same thing that we did in the South when it was 100 with 80% humidity: we stayed indoors."
The cold in California hits me in the bones (I can't imagine being in ND), and there is something to be said for being able to sit outside in the sunshine (think of all the lizard-like folks in Palm Springs outside baking their bones :mrgreen: ) Arthritis affects your functionality when you get old. It is hard to imagine when you are young.

User avatar
willthrill81
Posts: 15304
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 3:17 pm
Location: USA

Re: Retirement Friendly States

Post by willthrill81 » Sat Dec 07, 2019 4:49 pm

LilyFleur wrote:
Sat Dec 07, 2019 4:46 pm
willthrill81 wrote:
Sat Dec 07, 2019 4:40 pm
abner kravitz wrote:
Sat Dec 07, 2019 3:39 pm
willthrill81 wrote:
Sat Dec 07, 2019 3:30 pm
vitaflo wrote:
Sat Dec 07, 2019 3:21 pm


The best thing about MN is you can talk to death about how great the opportunities are here for jobs, education, health care, outdoors, etc, all with a fairly affordable COL and people still won't move here because of the winter.
We lived in MN for four years, and I thought that it was a beautiful place. With modern clothing, I didn't find the winters too bad.
I lived in St. Paul for 4 years. One of them was the winter of 1996-97 (I think that was the year). 20 below zero 7 days straight at one point.

Other than that I enjoyed my time there, but it was a little too much character building for me.
We lived in East Grand Forks (and briefly in Grand Forks, ND), and we once had a three week span where the ambient temp or wind chill is -40 or colder for three weeks straight. When people ask how you deal with that, I tell them "We did the same thing that we did in the South when it was 100 with 80% humidity: we stayed indoors."
The cold in California hits me in the bones (I can't imagine being in ND), and there is something to be said for being able to sit outside in the sunshine (think of all the lizard-like folks in Palm Springs outside baking their bones :mrgreen: ) Arthritis affects your functionality when you get old. It is hard to imagine when you are young.
I don't know. The biggest ski resort near where we are now has an 80+ club, and I've heard that the best skier in that bunch is over 90.

In eastern WA, we get a lot of sunshine, but we also get four distinct seasons, and we love that.
“It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to.” J.R.R. Tolkien,The Lord of the Rings

User avatar
LilyFleur
Posts: 848
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 10:36 pm

Re: Retirement Friendly States

Post by LilyFleur » Sat Dec 07, 2019 4:58 pm

willthrill81 wrote:
Sat Dec 07, 2019 4:49 pm
LilyFleur wrote:
Sat Dec 07, 2019 4:46 pm
willthrill81 wrote:
Sat Dec 07, 2019 4:40 pm
abner kravitz wrote:
Sat Dec 07, 2019 3:39 pm
willthrill81 wrote:
Sat Dec 07, 2019 3:30 pm


We lived in MN for four years, and I thought that it was a beautiful place. With modern clothing, I didn't find the winters too bad.
I lived in St. Paul for 4 years. One of them was the winter of 1996-97 (I think that was the year). 20 below zero 7 days straight at one point.

Other than that I enjoyed my time there, but it was a little too much character building for me.
We lived in East Grand Forks (and briefly in Grand Forks, ND), and we once had a three week span where the ambient temp or wind chill is -40 or colder for three weeks straight. When people ask how you deal with that, I tell them "We did the same thing that we did in the South when it was 100 with 80% humidity: we stayed indoors."
The cold in California hits me in the bones (I can't imagine being in ND), and there is something to be said for being able to sit outside in the sunshine (think of all the lizard-like folks in Palm Springs outside baking their bones :mrgreen: ) Arthritis affects your functionality when you get old. It is hard to imagine when you are young.
I don't know. The biggest ski resort near where we are now has an 80+ club, and I've heard that the best skier in that bunch is over 90.

In eastern WA, we get a lot of sunshine, but we also get four distinct seasons, and we love that.
The older you get, the more you know about how you are going to age--whether you'll be in the ski club, or in the walk-by-the-beach club, or the go-to-the-donut-shop-and-sit-with-all-the-other-85-year-olds club, or the walk 8-miles-a-day-in-Paris club, or the take-a-bus-everywhere tour club. Or maybe all of them!

smitcat
Posts: 4694
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 10:51 am

Re: Retirement Friendly States

Post by smitcat » Sat Dec 07, 2019 5:22 pm

willthrill81 wrote:
Sat Dec 07, 2019 4:49 pm
LilyFleur wrote:
Sat Dec 07, 2019 4:46 pm
willthrill81 wrote:
Sat Dec 07, 2019 4:40 pm
abner kravitz wrote:
Sat Dec 07, 2019 3:39 pm
willthrill81 wrote:
Sat Dec 07, 2019 3:30 pm


We lived in MN for four years, and I thought that it was a beautiful place. With modern clothing, I didn't find the winters too bad.
I lived in St. Paul for 4 years. One of them was the winter of 1996-97 (I think that was the year). 20 below zero 7 days straight at one point.

Other than that I enjoyed my time there, but it was a little too much character building for me.
We lived in East Grand Forks (and briefly in Grand Forks, ND), and we once had a three week span where the ambient temp or wind chill is -40 or colder for three weeks straight. When people ask how you deal with that, I tell them "We did the same thing that we did in the South when it was 100 with 80% humidity: we stayed indoors."
The cold in California hits me in the bones (I can't imagine being in ND), and there is something to be said for being able to sit outside in the sunshine (think of all the lizard-like folks in Palm Springs outside baking their bones :mrgreen: ) Arthritis affects your functionality when you get old. It is hard to imagine when you are young.
I don't know. The biggest ski resort near where we are now has an 80+ club, and I've heard that the best skier in that bunch is over 90.

In eastern WA, we get a lot of sunshine, but we also get four distinct seasons, and we love that.
We know a lot of folks that ski as well later in life just on the water - as you get a bit older your thoughts about temperature may change. Certainly did for us.

User avatar
JoeRetire
Posts: 4547
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 2:44 pm

Re: Retirement Friendly States

Post by JoeRetire » Sat Dec 07, 2019 5:28 pm

ScubaHogg wrote:
Sat Dec 07, 2019 8:42 am
If you are reading Bogleheads it seems unlikely you are taking advantages of many of the services that high tax states provide (more expansive Medicaid, expensive public pensions) that lower tax states don’t.
Nobody takes advantage of all the services a state can provide. Some seem to think they don't take advantage of any.

As I wrote, choosing a place to live involves many aspects, not just taxes. I suspect most of us don't rank taxes at the top.
Very Stable Genius

MathIsMyWayr
Posts: 1264
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2017 10:47 pm
Location: CA

Re: Retirement Friendly States

Post by MathIsMyWayr » Sat Dec 07, 2019 5:45 pm

JoeRetire wrote:
Sat Dec 07, 2019 5:28 pm
ScubaHogg wrote:
Sat Dec 07, 2019 8:42 am
If you are reading Bogleheads it seems unlikely you are taking advantages of many of the services that high tax states provide (more expansive Medicaid, expensive public pensions) that lower tax states don’t.
Nobody takes advantage of all the services a state can provide. Some seem to think they don't take advantage of any.

As I wrote, choosing a place to live involves many aspects, not just taxes. I suspect most of us don't rank taxes at the top.
Life is all about how much you can get out of it, not how much they take out of you. If you are afraid of losing, then you will end up with nothing to afraid to lose.

ScubaHogg
Posts: 190
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2011 3:02 pm

Re: Retirement Friendly States

Post by ScubaHogg » Sun Dec 08, 2019 9:43 am

JoeRetire wrote:
Sat Dec 07, 2019 5:28 pm
ScubaHogg wrote:
Sat Dec 07, 2019 8:42 am
If you are reading Bogleheads it seems unlikely you are taking advantages of many of the services that high tax states provide (more expansive Medicaid, expensive public pensions) that lower tax states don’t.
Nobody takes advantage of all the services a state can provide. Some seem to think they don't take advantage of any.

As I wrote, choosing a place to live involves many aspects, not just taxes. I suspect most of us don't rank taxes at the top.
I agree. That’s why I’ve said all in cost of living is probably the more important factor, financially. But other people keep referring to “services” they get in high tax states that they don’t in lower tax states. I keep asking what services they are referring to, but no answers yet.

User avatar
RickBoglehead
Posts: 5608
Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2018 9:10 am
Location: In a house

Re: Retirement Friendly States

Post by RickBoglehead » Sun Dec 08, 2019 9:51 am

JoeRetire wrote:
Sat Dec 07, 2019 5:28 pm
ScubaHogg wrote:
Sat Dec 07, 2019 8:42 am
If you are reading Bogleheads it seems unlikely you are taking advantages of many of the services that high tax states provide (more expansive Medicaid, expensive public pensions) that lower tax states don’t.
Nobody takes advantage of all the services a state can provide. Some seem to think they don't take advantage of any.

As I wrote, choosing a place to live involves many aspects, not just taxes. I suspect most of us don't rank taxes at the top.
That's what I said in the 5th post on this thread :D viewtopic.php?f=2&t=295947&start=300#p4856596

"Retirement Friendly" is in the eye of the beholder. Taxes are one element. Services are another. And there are many others. Only YOU can decide what matters to YOU, but go into the decision with all the facts. Too many are surprised by finding higher taxes, fees they didn't know about, etc.

We live within less than 10 minutes of one of the best hospitals in the US, and even closer to one that's really good. Where we're moving we'd have to travel hours for what might not even be a comparable hospital. Goes on the list.

Some states mandate that people over a certain age (60, 62, 65) get free classes at public universities. Some can take only certain "public" classes, some allow any class to be taken, even a degree pursued, for free (just some fees). Worth considering.

For example, we have a well and septic. Lots of savings as compared to public water and sewer. One area we might move to has public water and septic. Since watering there is done from the lake, we only have to budget for normal water use (not watering use), so I put $500 in for the year. That's a charge we haven't had in 13 years. Similarly, we have to pump our septic here every 3 years by HOA edict (absurd). That's $600 every 3 years, $200 per year. If the new location has a different standard, like every 7 years (as our county suggests), then my annual savings could be over $100. Small in the scheme of things, and not the level of granularity I go to, but not putting into the decision say $1,000 a year for public water and sewer vs. private water and sewer would be a surprise. If that surprise is $10,000 a year, that's not a good surprise.
Avid user of forums on variety of interests-financial, home brewing, F-150, PHEV, home repair, etc. Enjoy learning & passing on knowledge. It's PRINCIPAL, not PRINCIPLE. I ADVISE you to seek ADVICE.

User avatar
willthrill81
Posts: 15304
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 3:17 pm
Location: USA

Re: Retirement Friendly States

Post by willthrill81 » Sun Dec 08, 2019 11:03 am

RickBoglehead wrote:
Sun Dec 08, 2019 9:51 am
"Retirement Friendly" is in the eye of the beholder. Taxes are one element. Services are another. And there are many others. Only YOU can decide what matters to YOU, but go into the decision with all the facts.
+1

State taxes would definitely enter the equation for me when deciding where to live, whether while working or in retirement, but the climate and geography of the area would be even more important, for instance, and there are many other factors in play too. Initially, we took a pay cut to live where we do now because we couldn't stand where we lived before. Money is only one factor.
“It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to.” J.R.R. Tolkien,The Lord of the Rings

User avatar
abuss368
Posts: 17244
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Where the water is warm, the drinks are cold, and I don't know the names of the players!
Contact:

Re: Retirement Friendly States

Post by abuss368 » Sun Dec 08, 2019 11:06 am

RickBoglehead wrote:
Sun Dec 08, 2019 9:51 am
"Retirement Friendly" is in the eye of the beholder. Taxes are one element. Services are another. And there are many others. Only YOU can decide what matters to YOU, but go into the decision with all the facts. Too many are surprised by finding higher taxes, fees they didn't know about, etc.
I would agree. The perfect retirement friendly state is the one that works for you and your family. There are many pieces to that decision and puzzle: taxes, location, family, cost of living, and so forth.
John C. Bogle - Two Fund Portfolio: Total Stock & Total Bond. "Simplicity is the master key to financial success."

User avatar
TomatoTomahto
Posts: 9770
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 1:48 pm

Re: Retirement Friendly States

Post by TomatoTomahto » Sun Dec 08, 2019 12:42 pm

RickBoglehead wrote:For example, we have a well and septic. Lots of savings as compared to public water and sewer.
I had public water for 4 decades. Because of the chlorine, a taste I’m sensitive to, I drank Poland Spring and felt crummy taking a shower in the smell. $$$

Now, drinking well water, not only do I save money and enjoy the taste, but I drink a lot more water, which is healthier than any of the alternatives.

As to septic, my wife and I are doing our best to fill up a 7 bedroom septic, so I don’t think I’ll have to pump it any time soon :)
Okay, I get it; I won't be political or controversial. The Earth is flat.

smitcat
Posts: 4694
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 10:51 am

Re: Retirement Friendly States

Post by smitcat » Sun Dec 08, 2019 3:25 pm

TomatoTomahto wrote:
Sun Dec 08, 2019 12:42 pm
RickBoglehead wrote:For example, we have a well and septic. Lots of savings as compared to public water and sewer.
I had public water for 4 decades. Because of the chlorine, a taste I’m sensitive to, I drank Poland Spring and felt crummy taking a shower in the smell. $$$

Now, drinking well water, not only do I save money and enjoy the taste, but I drink a lot more water, which is healthier than any of the alternatives.

As to septic, my wife and I are doing our best to fill up a 7 bedroom septic, so I don’t think I’ll have to pump it any time soon :)
For those with wells - have you had the water tested?

User avatar
TomatoTomahto
Posts: 9770
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 1:48 pm

Re: Retirement Friendly States

Post by TomatoTomahto » Sun Dec 08, 2019 3:33 pm

smitcat wrote:
Sun Dec 08, 2019 3:25 pm
TomatoTomahto wrote:
Sun Dec 08, 2019 12:42 pm
RickBoglehead wrote:For example, we have a well and septic. Lots of savings as compared to public water and sewer.
I had public water for 4 decades. Because of the chlorine, a taste I’m sensitive to, I drank Poland Spring and felt crummy taking a shower in the smell. $$$

Now, drinking well water, not only do I save money and enjoy the taste, but I drink a lot more water, which is healthier than any of the alternatives.

As to septic, my wife and I are doing our best to fill up a 7 bedroom septic, so I don’t think I’ll have to pump it any time soon :)
For those with wells - have you had the water tested?
I have it tested annually. It is pristine, other than being hard. It actually tests cleaner than Poland Spring. We live in a town with a strong Conservation Commission, but developers sometimes play around. Among other things, the town minimally salts the roads.
Okay, I get it; I won't be political or controversial. The Earth is flat.

User avatar
dm200
Posts: 22996
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:21 pm
Location: Washington DC area

Re: Retirement Friendly States

Post by dm200 » Sun Dec 08, 2019 4:40 pm

Let me comment, again, that real estate tax exemption from local real estate taxes can be a huge financial benefit - if you are under the asset and income levels to qualify. Some jurisdictions, like ours, have a fairly generous qualification.

User avatar
goodenyou
Posts: 2078
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 11:57 pm
Location: Skating to Where the Puck is Going to Be..or on the golf course

Re: Retirement Friendly States

Post by goodenyou » Sun Dec 08, 2019 4:55 pm

willthrill81 wrote:
Sat Dec 07, 2019 4:40 pm
abner kravitz wrote:
Sat Dec 07, 2019 3:39 pm
willthrill81 wrote:
Sat Dec 07, 2019 3:30 pm
vitaflo wrote:
Sat Dec 07, 2019 3:21 pm
Glockenspiel wrote:
Mon Nov 25, 2019 11:20 am
Couldn’t pay me to live in almost any of the southeastern states. I’ll be staying in Minnesota, where it’s beautiful, but just cold enough to keep out the riff-raff.
The best thing about MN is you can talk to death about how great the opportunities are here for jobs, education, health care, outdoors, etc, all with a fairly affordable COL and people still won't move here because of the winter.
We lived in MN for four years, and I thought that it was a beautiful place. With modern clothing, I didn't find the winters too bad.
I lived in St. Paul for 4 years. One of them was the winter of 1996-97 (I think that was the year). 20 below zero 7 days straight at one point.

Other than that I enjoyed my time there, but it was a little too much character building for me.
We lived in East Grand Forks (and briefly in Grand Forks, ND), and we once had a three week span where the ambient temp or wind chill is -40 or colder for three weeks straight. When people ask how you deal with that, I tell them "We did the same thing that we did in the South when it was 100 with 80% humidity: we stayed indoors."
You don't have to stay indoors at night in the South in the summer. The nights are hot, but not unbearable like it is 24/7 in the winter in the Far North. Not quite a fair comparison of extremes.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" | Do you know how to make a rain dance work? Dance until it rains.

User avatar
willthrill81
Posts: 15304
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 3:17 pm
Location: USA

Re: Retirement Friendly States

Post by willthrill81 » Sun Dec 08, 2019 4:58 pm

goodenyou wrote:
Sun Dec 08, 2019 4:55 pm
willthrill81 wrote:
Sat Dec 07, 2019 4:40 pm
abner kravitz wrote:
Sat Dec 07, 2019 3:39 pm
willthrill81 wrote:
Sat Dec 07, 2019 3:30 pm
vitaflo wrote:
Sat Dec 07, 2019 3:21 pm


The best thing about MN is you can talk to death about how great the opportunities are here for jobs, education, health care, outdoors, etc, all with a fairly affordable COL and people still won't move here because of the winter.
We lived in MN for four years, and I thought that it was a beautiful place. With modern clothing, I didn't find the winters too bad.
I lived in St. Paul for 4 years. One of them was the winter of 1996-97 (I think that was the year). 20 below zero 7 days straight at one point.

Other than that I enjoyed my time there, but it was a little too much character building for me.
We lived in East Grand Forks (and briefly in Grand Forks, ND), and we once had a three week span where the ambient temp or wind chill is -40 or colder for three weeks straight. When people ask how you deal with that, I tell them "We did the same thing that we did in the South when it was 100 with 80% humidity: we stayed indoors."
You don't have to stay indoors at night in the South in the summer. The nights are hot, but not unbearable like it is 24/7 in the winter in the Far North. Not quite a fair comparison of extremes.
Where we lived in the deep South, if it was 100 during the day, it might cool off to the low 80s at night, but it was often still too humid to enjoy. By comparison, we can wear proper clothing in the winter and be perfectly comfortable.

You can always add clothing, but you can only take off so much, and you might still roast anyway.

Personal preference counts for a lot. I would rather deal with a cold winter than a hot and humid summer.
“It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to.” J.R.R. Tolkien,The Lord of the Rings

User avatar
goodenyou
Posts: 2078
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 11:57 pm
Location: Skating to Where the Puck is Going to Be..or on the golf course

Re: Retirement Friendly States

Post by goodenyou » Sun Dec 08, 2019 5:13 pm

willthrill81 wrote:
Sun Dec 08, 2019 4:58 pm
goodenyou wrote:
Sun Dec 08, 2019 4:55 pm
willthrill81 wrote:
Sat Dec 07, 2019 4:40 pm
abner kravitz wrote:
Sat Dec 07, 2019 3:39 pm
willthrill81 wrote:
Sat Dec 07, 2019 3:30 pm


We lived in MN for four years, and I thought that it was a beautiful place. With modern clothing, I didn't find the winters too bad.
I lived in St. Paul for 4 years. One of them was the winter of 1996-97 (I think that was the year). 20 below zero 7 days straight at one point.

Other than that I enjoyed my time there, but it was a little too much character building for me.
We lived in East Grand Forks (and briefly in Grand Forks, ND), and we once had a three week span where the ambient temp or wind chill is -40 or colder for three weeks straight. When people ask how you deal with that, I tell them "We did the same thing that we did in the South when it was 100 with 80% humidity: we stayed indoors."
You don't have to stay indoors at night in the South in the summer. The nights are hot, but not unbearable like it is 24/7 in the winter in the Far North. Not quite a fair comparison of extremes.
Where we lived in the deep South, if it was 100 during the day, it might cool off to the low 80s at night, but it was often still too humid to enjoy. By comparison, we can wear proper clothing in the winter and be perfectly comfortable.

You can always add clothing, but you can only take off so much, and you might still roast anyway.

Personal preference counts for a lot. I would rather deal with a cold winter than a hot and humid summer.
Personal preference is important. But, 15 degrees during the day to -10 at night is not enjoyable at all. I have lived in both 100 and -10.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" | Do you know how to make a rain dance work? Dance until it rains.

User avatar
willthrill81
Posts: 15304
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 3:17 pm
Location: USA

Re: Retirement Friendly States

Post by willthrill81 » Sun Dec 08, 2019 5:29 pm

goodenyou wrote:
Sun Dec 08, 2019 5:13 pm
Personal preference is important. But, 15 degrees during the day to -10 at night is not enjoyable at all. I have lived in both 100 and -10.
I'll go out on a limb and say that you're not a downhill skier. :P

Some of the best snow I ever skied on was on a day where the ambient temp that morning was -29, though it warmed up to -22 during the day.

Thankfully, most of our winter days where we live now are between 20-45, which isn't bad at all.
“It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to.” J.R.R. Tolkien,The Lord of the Rings

User avatar
dm200
Posts: 22996
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:21 pm
Location: Washington DC area

Re: Retirement Friendly States

Post by dm200 » Sun Dec 08, 2019 5:33 pm

A big difference between a warm/hot climate and a cold/snowy one - is that even in the hottest times - you can just about always get out of your house to go to the store, church, see friends, etc. However, in the very cold and snowy areas, you may be stuck in your house for days at a time - and then have to deal with the snow to go anywhere.

User avatar
goodenyou
Posts: 2078
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 11:57 pm
Location: Skating to Where the Puck is Going to Be..or on the golf course

Re: Retirement Friendly States

Post by goodenyou » Sun Dec 08, 2019 5:36 pm

willthrill81 wrote:
Sun Dec 08, 2019 5:29 pm
goodenyou wrote:
Sun Dec 08, 2019 5:13 pm
Personal preference is important. But, 15 degrees during the day to -10 at night is not enjoyable at all. I have lived in both 100 and -10.
I'll go out on a limb and say that you're not a downhill skier. :P

Some of the best snow I ever skied on was on a day where the ambient temp that morning was -29, though it warmed up to -22 during the day.

Thankfully, most of our winter days where we live now are between 20-45, which isn't bad at all.
Just grew up in Western New York and lived in Chicago. Winter temps 75 to 80 with short days and low lying sun where we are now. Not bad at all. No shoveling heat.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" | Do you know how to make a rain dance work? Dance until it rains.

ktd
Posts: 169
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 8:19 am

Re: Retirement Friendly States

Post by ktd » Sun Dec 08, 2019 5:40 pm

The best place on earth to retire is California. Best weather, food, ocean, mountains, ski, surfing, desert, something for everyone. Why you see a lot of hate for California. It's just so bad nobody lives here!
Last edited by ktd on Sun Dec 08, 2019 5:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
dm200
Posts: 22996
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:21 pm
Location: Washington DC area

Re: Retirement Friendly States

Post by dm200 » Sun Dec 08, 2019 5:42 pm

ktd wrote:
Sun Dec 08, 2019 5:40 pm
The best place on earth to retire is California. Best weather, food, ocean, mountains, ski, surfing, desert, something for everyone.
Earthquakes as well! The land of "fruits" and "nuts" !!

stoptothink
Posts: 6791
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 9:53 am

Re: Retirement Friendly States

Post by stoptothink » Sun Dec 08, 2019 5:46 pm

ktd wrote:
Sun Dec 08, 2019 5:40 pm
The best place on earth to retire is California. Best weather, food, ocean, mountains, ski, surfing, desert, something for everyone.
...except for the fact that you have to live there. Speaking as a SoCal native who would never move back. It's the best place, for those who think it is the best place.

SrGrumpy
Posts: 1193
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2015 3:21 pm

Re: Retirement Friendly States

Post by SrGrumpy » Sun Dec 08, 2019 6:00 pm

ktd wrote:
Sun Dec 08, 2019 5:40 pm
The best place on earth to retire is California. Best weather, food, ocean, mountains, ski, surfing, desert, something for everyone. Why you see a lot of hate for California. It's just so bad nobody lives here!
Shh! Echoing an earlier post - 'We don't need any more people."

AlphaLess
Posts: 1903
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 11:38 pm
Location: Kentucky

Re: Retirement Friendly States

Post by AlphaLess » Sun Dec 08, 2019 6:01 pm

Costa Rica
Saint Lucia
"A Republic, if you can keep it". Benjamin Franklin. 1787. | Party affiliation: Vanguard. Religion: low-cost investing.

Post Reply