The Money Mustache Community
General Discussion => Welcome and General Discussion => Topic started by: TVRodriguez on December 11, 2019, 06:52:22 AM
-
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article238233174.html?
Article about the best US states in which to retire. Not early retirement, but still. Light on information, and focused on Florida not making the top five. I still found it interesting.
-
Sorry, forgot to post the list from the article:
THE 10 BEST STATES FOR RETIREES
1. Iowa
2. Minnesota
3. Vermont
4. Wisconsin
5. Nebraska
6. Idaho
7. Maine
8. New Hampshire
9. Florida
10. North Dakota
-
All are winter weather states except for Florida. I think they're underestimating how many retirees do not want to deal with snow and ice anymore.
-
All are winter weather states except for Florida. I think they're underestimating how many retirees do not want to deal with snow and ice anymore.
FWIW, plenty of Californians are retiring in Idaho. So people do move to colder climates, too.
-
I found it interesting as well, that it's not necessarily all warm weather states.
I am not keen on the cold weather but even less keen on having to drive through snow and ice to get to work. Retirement would solve that problem, so living in a cold weather area might be more tolerable to me as a retiree. Believe it or not, DH and I have considered moving to Iowa (Des Moines area) or Nebraska (Omaha). And Wisconsin is 10 miles to the north of us so that wouldn't be much of a move if we went there. We haven't decided yet, things still being discussed.
I can see Californians retiring to Idaho. I personally knew a born and raised Californian who, between living in California, Arizona and Wisconsin, preferred Wisconsin because of 1. Four seasons and 2. Things weren't as brown, more green.
-
What fraction of retirees actually move though? My guess is that the vast majority of retirees probably don't move anywhere after retirement.
Added: My hunch seems on the mark: https://www.aarp.org/retirement/planning-for-retirement/info-2018/retirees-age-in-place-aarp-study.html (https://www.aarp.org/retirement/planning-for-retirement/info-2018/retirees-age-in-place-aarp-study.html)
-
Also from the article:
THE FIVE WORST STATES FOR RETIREES
1. Alaska
2. Hawaii
3. California
4. Maryland
5. Louisiana
"The Best and Worst States for Retirees survey, done by the Blacktower US Financial Management Group, factored in metrics like the cost of living, crime rates, life expectancy, property prices and population age to make that call."
"And then there’s that pesky issue of sea level rise, which the survey folks didn’t take into account but the problem certainly is on our mind."
Link to original source: https://www.blacktowerus.com/the-best-us-states-for-retirees/
-
I found it interesting as well, that it's not necessarily all warm weather states.
I am not keen on the cold weather but even less keen on having to drive through snow and ice to get to work. Retirement would solve that problem, so living in a cold weather area might be more tolerable to me as a retiree. Believe it or not, DH and I have considered moving to Iowa (Des Moines area) or Nebraska (Omaha). And Wisconsin is 10 miles to the north of us so that wouldn't be much of a move if we went there. We haven't decided yet, things still being discussed.
I can see Californians retiring to Idaho. I personally knew a born and raised Californian who, between living in California, Arizona and Wisconsin, preferred Wisconsin because of 1. Four seasons and 2. Things weren't as brown, more green.
Iowa is my home state.
Des Moines is tolerable as a city with enough stuff going on to make it liveable.
Iowa City has more interest-per-square-foot.
My adopted state, Missouri, has a high crime rate due to my city, St. Louis.
The crime rate of another state I have lived in, New Mexico, is hideous. Whoah! I had no idea. Where is all that crime coming from?
-
Looking at places to retire, especially for early retirement, state tax policy kept coming towards the top of the heap as one of the most important factors.
The list of states that tax long term capital gains as earned income is pretty high. And this makes even something like a Roth conversion ladder pretty hard to pull off.
-
What fraction of retirees actually move though? My guess is that the vast majority of retirees probably don't move anywhere after retirement.
Added: My hunch seems on the mark: https://www.aarp.org/retirement/planning-for-retirement/info-2018/retirees-age-in-place-aarp-study.html (https://www.aarp.org/retirement/planning-for-retirement/info-2018/retirees-age-in-place-aarp-study.html)
Most people would rather stick with what they know and at the end of the day do not really give a shit about how much marginally better a place’s food, art, and weather is.
There is no “best” place to live - for anyone. Geographic arbitrage can be good for your career and/or income, but other than that, there’s pros and cons to every single place on earth.
-
I am from Wisconsin and property taxes are high. In our state they are low and we have no income taxes.
-
All I see is cold, cold, cold, cold except for Florida.
-
All I see is cold, cold, cold, cold except for Florida.
YUP. I don't know about you guys but if I'm retiring I do not want to live in a cold state.
No wonder so many retirees are moving to Florida.
-
No wonder so many retirees are moving to Florida.
...which is why those who enjoy four seasons can find lower cost of living, better healthcare, and lower crime rates in states on top of the list.
-
I found it interesting as well, that it's not necessarily all warm weather states.
I am not keen on the cold weather but even less keen on having to drive through snow and ice to get to work. Retirement would solve that problem, so living in a cold weather area might be more tolerable to me as a retiree. Believe it or not, DH and I have considered moving to Iowa (Des Moines area) or Nebraska (Omaha). And Wisconsin is 10 miles to the north of us so that wouldn't be much of a move if we went there. We haven't decided yet, things still being discussed.
I can see Californians retiring to Idaho. I personally knew a born and raised Californian who, between living in California, Arizona and Wisconsin, preferred Wisconsin because of 1. Four seasons and 2. Things weren't as brown, more green.
Iowa is my home state.
Des Moines is tolerable as a city with enough stuff going on to make it liveable.
Iowa City has more interest-per-square-foot.
My adopted state, Missouri, has a high crime rate due to my city, St. Louis.
The crime rate of another state I have lived in, New Mexico, is hideous. Whoah! I had no idea. Where is all that crime coming from?
Heisenberg.
-
No wonder so many retirees are moving to Florida.
...which is why those who enjoy four seasons can find lower cost of living, better healthcare, and lower crime rates in states on top of the list.
Yes, because everyone knows that an influx of retirees just blows up the crime rate :) I'm flashing back to a Seinfeld episode on senior citizens stealing batteries.
-
No wonder so many retirees are moving to Florida.
...which is why those who enjoy four seasons can find lower cost of living, better healthcare, and lower crime rates in states on top of the list.
Yes, because everyone knows that an influx of retirees just blows up the crime rate :) I'm flashing back to a Seinfeld episode on senior citizens stealing batteries.
The Seinfeld episodes featuring his parents in Florida were not that far off...
-
Yes, because everyone knows that an influx of retirees just blows up the crime rate :) I'm flashing back to a Seinfeld episode on senior citizens stealing batteries.
Crime rate is listed in survey. Retirees or not, Florida and Arizona have higher crime rates than states above Florida in that list.
-
No way in hell I’m retiring to where it’s cold.
-
Where to retire is such an individual decision that I find little to no value in these kinds of lists. And within states there is a wide variety of factors that make one part of the state more appealing than another. Crime rates, for example, are much more important at the city or neighborhood level than at the state level.
States without an income tax, like FL or NH, might be appealing to a retiree on a pension. For me, my annual taxable in retirement is so small that the income tax structure in any given state is of little consequence. Property taxes and health insurance costs are a concern for me.
Do your own research.
-
Yes, because everyone knows that an influx of retirees just blows up the crime rate :) I'm flashing back to a Seinfeld episode on senior citizens stealing batteries.
Crime rate is listed in survey. Retirees or not, Florida and Arizona have higher crime rates than states above Florida in that list.
I apologize before hand because some of the stuff I'm going to say may sound very ignorant.
[MOD EDIT: some ignorant, bigoted stuff]
-
Brrr
-
I'm surprised state-averaged crime rate would be a concern for anyone. I'm willing to bet that the differences in crime rate between different locations in every state are vastly larger than the state-to-state averaged difference. If you care about crime rate, maybe pick your city or part of a city based on that. But state?
-
Yes, because everyone knows that an influx of retirees just blows up the crime rate :) I'm flashing back to a Seinfeld episode on senior citizens stealing batteries.
Crime rate is listed in survey. Retirees or not, Florida and Arizona have higher crime rates than states above Florida in that list.
Um, thanks, I did see that the crime rate was part of the survey . . . I was joking that it sounded like your earlier post was implying that the higher crime rate was due to the retirees. Never mind, it obviously wasn't very funny.
-
Yes, because everyone knows that an influx of retirees just blows up the crime rate :) I'm flashing back to a Seinfeld episode on senior citizens stealing batteries.
Crime rate is listed in survey. Retirees or not, Florida and Arizona have higher crime rates than states above Florida in that list.
I apologize before hand because some of the stuff I'm going to say may sound very ignorant.
[MOD EDIT: snipped]
Nope, you don't get off that easily. You can't apologize in advance and make a horribly bigoted comment and think no one will mind. There is nothing in the PR culture or biology that embraces crime. Maybe the PRs go there bc that's the only place they can afford bc it's crappy, or bc that's the only place non-hispanics will rent to them, or bc they are all rich and attract higher crime rates, or bc bigots attack them raising violent crime rates. Or maybe it's a high crime area bc it's a cheap poverty stricken area full of despaerate ppl that want to eat. A place may have ppl of a certain culture and be high crime but it's not bc of cultural issues, more often it's economic.
There are lots of types of crime and there are lots of reasons that ppl commit crimes and none of them is bc they are Puerto Rican.
-
Having grown up in Florida, and spent a lot of time there, pretty typically people retire and move to Florida, play a lot of golf, and then a decade into retirement, the guy dies. Then the widow packs up and moves back north to be closer to family, because life in a golf community was his fantasy not hers. YMMV, of course.
-
Yes, because everyone knows that an influx of retirees just blows up the crime rate :) I'm flashing back to a Seinfeld episode on senior citizens stealing batteries.
Crime rate is listed in survey. Retirees or not, Florida and Arizona have higher crime rates than states above Florida in that list.
I apologize before hand because some of the stuff I'm going to say may sound very ignorant.
[MOD EDIT: snipped]
Nope, you don't get off that easily. You can't apologize in advance and make a horribly bigoted comment and think no one will mind. There is nothing in the PR culture or biology that embraces crime. Maybe the PRs go there bc that's the only place they can afford bc it's crappy, or bc that's the only place non-hispanics will rent to them, or bc they are all rich and attract higher crime rates, or bc bigots attack them raising violent crime rates. Or maybe it's a high crime area bc it's a cheap poverty stricken area full of despaerate ppl that want to eat. A place may have ppl of a certain culture and be high crime but it's not bc of cultural issues, more often it's economic.
There are lots of types of crime and there are lots of reasons that ppl commit crimes and none of them is bc they are Puerto Rican.
Hooboy, how did I miss this earlier? @DeniseNJ is 100% spot on here.
-
Yeah, the underlying survey doesn't seem to take into account property taxes, which to me is one of the top factors for a retirement location. Even if the weather in Wisconsin were tolerable (it isn't) the property taxes are super high. Signed, Former Wisconsinite who fled.
-
I have lived in 4 of the 10 states. I don't know who thinks ND is a great place to retire, but I urge them to go there. Yes its inexpensive with decent medical care, but then there's everything else.
I could retire to MN, WI or ME. A lot of folks I know love the cold, me included. Snow is awesome (once you get it off the roads). I also generally like individuals and hate people. Maybe I should add ND back onto the list...
-
In all this discussion of taxes, one thing that has to be acknowledged is that ultimately governments need to raise money by taxes somehow to provide services. There are a wide range of choices that different states have adopted, with some states being more progressive than others. The overall intent of progressive taxation is that those who are well-off should pay a larger proportion of the taxes.
I found this website that seems to have a lot of statistics in this regard.
https://itep.org/whopays/ (https://itep.org/whopays/)
One curious point is that many of the states that are magnets for retirees (such as Florida and Nevada) are, in fact, the most regressive. That is to say, these states raise more of their their money from consumption taxes like sales taxes rather than income taxes. I see Washington in this list too - I was not aware of how regressive their taxes are until I read this article.
Now, a state with more regressive taxation may actually be more favorable to early retirees, who are generally well off. Conversely, for low-income working people, they may be better off living in a progressively taxed state.
My only point in writing this is that when it comes to taxation, people need to carefully look at the full situation before making long-term decisions.
-
In all this discussion of taxes, one thing that has to be acknowledged is that ultimately governments need to raise money by taxes somehow to provide services. There are a wide range of choices that different states have adopted, with some states being more progressive than others. The overall intent of progressive taxation is that those who are well-off should pay a larger proportion of the taxes.
I found this website that seems to have a lot of statistics in this regard.
https://itep.org/whopays/ (https://itep.org/whopays/)
One curious point is that many of the states that are magnets for retirees (such as Florida and Nevada) are, in fact, the most regressive. That is to say, these states raise more of their their money from consumption taxes like sales taxes rather than income taxes. I see Washington in this list too - I was not aware of how regressive their taxes are until I read this article.
Now, a state with more regressive taxation may actually be more favorable to early retirees, who are generally well off. Conversely, for low-income working people, they may be better off living in a progressively taxed state.
My only point in writing this is that when it comes to taxation, people need to carefully look at the full situation before making long-term decisions.
Good point, but I think that a state like Florida depends more on raising taxes from tourists than from residents. One hopes that tourists are spending extra disposable cash.
-
Good point, but I think that a state like Florida depends more on raising taxes from tourists than from residents. One hopes that tourists are spending extra disposable cash.
Florida does get a lot of tax revenue from tourists. Bed taxes, car rental surcharges, etc. Non-resident homeowners (aka snowbirds) also pay much higher property taxes. However, residents pay pretty high fees for things like building permits, car registration (the infamous $500 license plate when transferring your car registration into the state) and municipal services.
-
Florida charges a "fee" every time you turn around, instead of income taxes.
-
In all this discussion of taxes, one thing that has to be acknowledged is that ultimately governments need to raise money by taxes somehow to provide services. There are a wide range of choices that different states have adopted, with some states being more progressive than others. The overall intent of progressive taxation is that those who are well-off should pay a larger proportion of the taxes.
I found this website that seems to have a lot of statistics in this regard.
https://itep.org/whopays/ (https://itep.org/whopays/)
One curious point is that many of the states that are magnets for retirees (such as Florida and Nevada) are, in fact, the most regressive. That is to say, these states raise more of their their money from consumption taxes like sales taxes rather than income taxes. I see Washington in this list too - I was not aware of how regressive their taxes are until I read this article.
Now, a state with more regressive taxation may actually be more favorable to early retirees, who are generally well off. Conversely, for low-income working people, they may be better off living in a progressively taxed state.
My only point in writing this is that when it comes to taxation, people need to carefully look at the full situation before making long-term decisions.
I'm not a huge fan of the word "equitable" because it's not a synonym for equality but people use it that way.
I'll be honest, I looked at the list and saw California as the most "equitable" state for taxes and just closed the link (figure 5). Because all that tells me is that tax rates mean absolutely nothing in this ranking. Only that the poor and rich pay close to the same percentage of income. And that's just nonsense. Apparently as long as you tax everyone 50% across the board, that's better than a state that taxes the rich 5% but the poor 10%.
-
I found it interesting as well, that it's not necessarily all warm weather states.
I am not keen on the cold weather but even less keen on having to drive through snow and ice to get to work. Retirement would solve that problem, so living in a cold weather area might be more tolerable to me as a retiree. Believe it or not, DH and I have considered moving to Iowa (Des Moines area) or Nebraska (Omaha). And Wisconsin is 10 miles to the north of us so that wouldn't be much of a move if we went there. We haven't decided yet, things still being discussed.
I can see Californians retiring to Idaho. I personally knew a born and raised Californian who, between living in California, Arizona and Wisconsin, preferred Wisconsin because of 1. Four seasons and 2. Things weren't as brown, more green.
Iowa is my home state.
Des Moines is tolerable as a city with enough stuff going on to make it liveable.
Iowa City has more interest-per-square-foot.
My adopted state, Missouri, has a high crime rate due to my city, St. Louis.
The crime rate of another state I have lived in, New Mexico, is hideous. Whoah! I had no idea. Where is all that crime coming from?
Heisenberg.
Hahaha!
That reminds me of a real life story about Bryan Cranston. A young guy ran into Cranston in a store. The young guy said “hey there Heisenberg!” Cranston walked up close to him, frowned, and said in a mean voice “Dont you EVER call me that name in public where people can hear!”
And then Cranston backed off and started laughing, being his real self. That made the young guy’s day.
-
I've lived in both Iowa and Minnesota, and even though I'm a Kansas native, I would never consider retiring in those two states. My body just can't handle the cold the way it used to do so.
This weekend will be another reminder if why I would love to quit working someday. I have to work on Sunday afternoon/night, then turn around to work again Monday morning. We're expecting 4-8" of snow beginning Sunday and into Monday. I will be sleeping at work.
-
No wonder so many retirees are moving to Florida.
...which is why those who enjoy four seasons can find lower cost of living, better healthcare, and lower crime rates in states on top of the list.
Yes, because everyone knows that an influx of retirees just blows up the crime rate :) I'm flashing back to a Seinfeld episode on senior citizens stealing batteries.
Here in Florida those "retirees" in the form of snowbirds are stealing the condiments from the restaurant tables, then going to Walmart and Lowes to buy items they use for 3 months, then return them for a refund. And then they go home. Ok, yes. it is a sweeping generalization, but it happens every winter season.
-
I don't personally understand the fascination with hot weather. I haven't lived in Florida, but I've spent (cumulatively) probably about 6-8 months there for work. Downright miserable for long stretches there. Sure, I like a good tropical vacation as much as the next person, as long as I'm camped out at the beach, but for living year-round? No thanks.
I suppose I've probably lost perspective on cold, as I've lived in California for some time, but I did spend the first half of my life in cold-winter climates.
-
I'd take a winter in New England over a summer in Florida anytime.
No way. The heat may be uncomfortable, but the cold is painful.
-
I've lived in New England for almost 2 years (no longer), and would never recommend spending summers there unless you're near the coast. Muggy, buggy summers with Boston and NY tourists everywhere. If you're from the West with its dryer climate and few bugs in urban areas, it's tough to get used to.
That all being said, I'd love to have a winter place in Latin America, even if for 2-3 months. I can deal with all kinds of weather, but thinking I'll prefer warmer climates as I get older.
-
In all this discussion of taxes, one thing that has to be acknowledged is that ultimately governments need to raise money by taxes somehow to provide services. There are a wide range of choices that different states have adopted, with some states being more progressive than others. The overall intent of progressive taxation is that those who are well-off should pay a larger proportion of the taxes.
I found this website that seems to have a lot of statistics in this regard.
https://itep.org/whopays/ (https://itep.org/whopays/)
One curious point is that many of the states that are magnets for retirees (such as Florida and Nevada) are, in fact, the most regressive. That is to say, these states raise more of their their money from consumption taxes like sales taxes rather than income taxes. I see Washington in this list too - I was not aware of how regressive their taxes are until I read this article.
Now, a state with more regressive taxation may actually be more favorable to early retirees, who are generally well off. Conversely, for low-income working people, they may be better off living in a progressively taxed state.
My only point in writing this is that when it comes to taxation, people need to carefully look at the full situation before making long-term decisions.
I'm not a huge fan of the word "equitable" because it's not a synonym for equality but people use it that way.
I'll be honest, I looked at the list and saw California as the most "equitable" state for taxes and just closed the link (figure 5). Because all that tells me is that tax rates mean absolutely nothing in this ranking. Only that the poor and rich pay close to the same percentage of income. And that's just nonsense. Apparently as long as you tax everyone 50% across the board, that's better than a state that taxes the rich 5% but the poor 10%.
You know what’s nonsense? Announcing on the internet that a study is nonsense without having actually read the study :P
@2sk22 brought up a good point about how taxation might not necessarily be favorable for middle or lower income people in these retirement magnet states.
The most regressive state (Washington!), by having no income tax, needs higher taxes in other areas to support the state. This results in effectively taxing the lowest income 20% of the population at 17.8% while the richest 1% income earners effectively get taxed at 3%. And the middle 60% of earners get taxed at 10.9%. Contrast that with California that effectively taxes the poorest 20% at 10.4%, the middle 60% of earners at 8.9% and the richest 1% at 12.4%. So as long as your income is in the bottom 80% of your state, you’re paying less taxes relative to your income in California than in Washington.
Given the Mustacian emphasis on frugality, most of us are planning on living on lower than average income in retirement. So looking at what a state’s effective tax rates are for the low and middle income earners will likely be more applicable to us than what the top 1% incomes are paying.
-
This is a good point. I lived in WA state (Seattle, HCOL) and there weren't a lot of retirees wanting to locate or relocate there. High property taxes, high sales and gas taxes. No, there isn't a state income tax. Could you do a little better in Spokane, WA? Sure, a little better with housing/property taxes.
Now, where do retirees on the west coast really/actually want to live? Arizona. I live here now (not yet retired, dang it!) and understand the draw. The summers are hot, but no more hot than MN is cold in the winter. 8 months out of the year are perfectly livable. Yes, we have a state income tax, yes we have sales tax, but both are reasonable.
I work with a lot of former snowbirds. Guess where 100% of them choose to eventually live their final years? Not in their original home states (SD, IL, MN, IA, NE, etc), but here in AZ. Usually at some point the adult children follow them down, become snowbirds themselves and start the cycle all over again. It's the way things have worked here for 50+ years and just seems to accelerate every year.
In all this discussion of taxes, one thing that has to be acknowledged is that ultimately governments need to raise money by taxes somehow to provide services. There are a wide range of choices that different states have adopted, with some states being more progressive than others. The overall intent of progressive taxation is that those who are well-off should pay a larger proportion of the taxes.
I found this website that seems to have a lot of statistics in this regard.
https://itep.org/whopays/ (https://itep.org/whopays/)
One curious point is that many of the states that are magnets for retirees (such as Florida and Nevada) are, in fact, the most regressive. That is to say, these states raise more of their their money from consumption taxes like sales taxes rather than income taxes. I see Washington in this list too - I was not aware of how regressive their taxes are until I read this article.
Now, a state with more regressive taxation may actually be more favorable to early retirees, who are generally well off. Conversely, for low-income working people, they may be better off living in a progressively taxed state.
My only point in writing this is that when it comes to taxation, people need to carefully look at the full situation before making long-term decisions.
I'm not a huge fan of the word "equitable" because it's not a synonym for equality but people use it that way.
I'll be honest, I looked at the list and saw California as the most "equitable" state for taxes and just closed the link (figure 5). Because all that tells me is that tax rates mean absolutely nothing in this ranking. Only that the poor and rich pay close to the same percentage of income. And that's just nonsense. Apparently as long as you tax everyone 50% across the board, that's better than a state that taxes the rich 5% but the poor 10%.
You know what’s nonsense? Announcing on the internet that a study is nonsense without having actually read the study :P
@2sk22 brought up a good point about how taxation might not necessarily be favorable for middle or lower income people in these retirement magnet states.
The most regressive state (Washington!), by having no income tax, needs higher taxes in other areas to support the state. This results in effectively taxing the lowest income 20% of the population at 17.8% while the richest 1% income earners effectively get taxed at 3%. And the middle 60% of earners get taxed at 10.9%. Contrast that with California that effectively taxes the poorest 20% at 10.4%, the middle 60% of earners at 8.9% and the richest 1% at 12.4%. So as long as your income is in the bottom 80% of your state, you’re paying less taxes relative to your income in California than in Washington.
Given the Mustacian emphasis on frugality, most of us are planning on living on lower than average income in retirement. So looking at what a state’s effective tax rates are for the low and middle income earners will likely be more applicable to us than what the top 1% incomes are paying.
-
I spent too many years in Florida during my Navy career. Fun to visit, but a 10 month summer and giant mosquitoes gets real old real quick. You can have all that.
-
You know what’s nonsense? Announcing on the internet that a study is nonsense without having actually read the study :P
@2sk22 brought up a good point about how taxation might not necessarily be favorable for middle or lower income people in these retirement magnet states.
The most regressive state (Washington!), by having no income tax, needs higher taxes in other areas to support the state. This results in effectively taxing the lowest income 20% of the population at 17.8% while the richest 1% income earners effectively get taxed at 3%. And the middle 60% of earners get taxed at 10.9%. Contrast that with California that effectively taxes the poorest 20% at 10.4%, the middle 60% of earners at 8.9% and the richest 1% at 12.4%. So as long as your income is in the bottom 80% of your state, you’re paying less taxes relative to your income in California than in Washington.
Given the Mustacian emphasis on frugality, most of us are planning on living on lower than average income in retirement. So looking at what a state’s effective tax rates are for the low and middle income earners will likely be more applicable to us than what the top 1% incomes are paying.
I think you're missing the point I was making. This "study" isn't about total taxation for an individual, nor effective rates, and not even marginal rates. It's only looking at the delta between what the highest income earners and lowest income earners have as their effective rates.
How is that a useful metric for an individual?
If that difference is 20% in one state, but I end up paying 10% effective tax, and it's 2% in another state, but I have a 20% effective tax, you know what state I'm living in? The less "equitable" one.
And it's essentially saying that's somehow "better." I live in California. It's apparently super "equitable." In fact, it's the most equitable state in their list! But all that means is that everyone is getting screwed by the government with high tax rates. But the reality is I don't care if the rich are paying the same tax rate as I am. Awesome, we're in the same boat of getting screwed. I feel so much better now!
Equity doesn't care that California wastes all that tax income, nor does it care that I'd rather pay a lower rate even if it means the rich are paying a lower effective rate (but higher raw dollar amount).
-
You know what’s nonsense? Announcing on the internet that a study is nonsense without having actually read the study :P
@2sk22 brought up a good point about how taxation might not necessarily be favorable for middle or lower income people in these retirement magnet states.
The most regressive state (Washington!), by having no income tax, needs higher taxes in other areas to support the state. This results in effectively taxing the lowest income 20% of the population at 17.8% while the richest 1% income earners effectively get taxed at 3%. And the middle 60% of earners get taxed at 10.9%. Contrast that with California that effectively taxes the poorest 20% at 10.4%, the middle 60% of earners at 8.9% and the richest 1% at 12.4%. So as long as your income is in the bottom 80% of your state, you’re paying less taxes relative to your income in California than in Washington.
Given the Mustacian emphasis on frugality, most of us are planning on living on lower than average income in retirement. So looking at what a state’s effective tax rates are for the low and middle income earners will likely be more applicable to us than what the top 1% incomes are paying.
I think you're missing the point I was making. This "study" isn't about total taxation for an individual, nor effective rates, and not even marginal rates. It's only looking at the delta between what the highest income earners and lowest income earners have as their effective rates.
How is that a useful metric for an individual?
If that difference is 20% in one state, but I end up paying 10% effective tax, and it's 2% in another state, but I have a 20% effective tax, you know what state I'm living in? The less "equitable" one.
And it's essentially saying that's somehow "better." I live in California. It's apparently super "equitable." In fact, it's the most equitable state in their list! But all that means is that everyone is getting screwed by the government with high tax rates. But the reality is I don't care if the rich are paying the same tax rate as I am. Awesome, we're in the same boat of getting screwed. I feel so much better now!
Equity doesn't care that California wastes all that tax income, nor does it care that I'd rather pay a lower rate even if it means the rich are paying a lower effective rate (but higher raw dollar amount).
Again, if you actually read the study, you’d have seen at the very beginning that it listed the average effective tax rates for all states and that California’s effective taxes are lower than the average for the people making the bottom 80% of income. And that is because the richest 20% aren’t paying significantly less taxes than everybody else, so effective tax rates can stay lower than the national average for the majority of residents.
Your hypothetical example of a state charging 20% effective tax rate across the board is not based in any reality. If there was a state that did that, you’d be welcome to call them out for it, but implying that California is doing this is unacceptably misleading.
-
No wonder so many retirees are moving to Florida.
...which is why those who enjoy four seasons can find lower cost of living, better healthcare, and lower crime rates in states on top of the list.
Don't be like the folks we knew for a while that moved here to escape taxes and discovered everyone they ever knew lived back in their home state and did not frequently come to visit. After a lonely couple of years they moved home.
-
I'd take a winter in New England over a summer in Florida anytime.
No way. The heat may be uncomfortable, but the cold is painful.
Just adopt the siesta lifestyle and you're good.
RE: That Outside magazine article? I would not pick any of those cities. A few I know as expensive places, a few others I know as complicated high traffic, crowded cities. Is Chicago or NYC a TOWN? No, they are mega-cities.
Want a town? Athens, GA or Asheville, NC or Auburn, AL, or Salem, VA or Fayettesville, AR. All those places have outdoorsy things to do and don't involve massive sprawl with loooong commutes.
-
Don't be like the folks we knew for a while that moved here to escape taxes and discovered everyone they ever knew lived back in their home state and did not frequently come to visit. After a lonely couple of years they moved home.
This is something that's very much on my mind. I would much rather be with friends and family in a less than ideal climate than a stranger in paradise. We are social animals after all.
-
Don't be like the folks we knew for a while that moved here to escape taxes and discovered everyone they ever knew lived back in their home state and did not frequently come to visit. After a lonely couple of years they moved home.
This is something that's very much on my mind. I would much rather be with friends and family in a less than ideal climate than a stranger in paradise. We are social animals after all.
That's true, but anyone who plans on moving is going to face that issue. I think it is by far the most difficult thing about moving. And my personal opinion is that it's even tougher when you're single. If you're married, then you'll know at least one person in your new town very well.
-
You know what’s nonsense? Announcing on the internet that a study is nonsense without having actually read the study :P
@2sk22 brought up a good point about how taxation might not necessarily be favorable for middle or lower income people in these retirement magnet states.
The most regressive state (Washington!), by having no income tax, needs higher taxes in other areas to support the state. This results in effectively taxing the lowest income 20% of the population at 17.8% while the richest 1% income earners effectively get taxed at 3%. And the middle 60% of earners get taxed at 10.9%. Contrast that with California that effectively taxes the poorest 20% at 10.4%, the middle 60% of earners at 8.9% and the richest 1% at 12.4%. So as long as your income is in the bottom 80% of your state, you’re paying less taxes relative to your income in California than in Washington.
Given the Mustacian emphasis on frugality, most of us are planning on living on lower than average income in retirement. So looking at what a state’s effective tax rates are for the low and middle income earners will likely be more applicable to us than what the top 1% incomes are paying.
I think you're missing the point I was making. This "study" isn't about total taxation for an individual, nor effective rates, and not even marginal rates. It's only looking at the delta between what the highest income earners and lowest income earners have as their effective rates.
How is that a useful metric for an individual?
If that difference is 20% in one state, but I end up paying 10% effective tax, and it's 2% in another state, but I have a 20% effective tax, you know what state I'm living in? The less "equitable" one.
And it's essentially saying that's somehow "better." I live in California. It's apparently super "equitable." In fact, it's the most equitable state in their list! But all that means is that everyone is getting screwed by the government with high tax rates. But the reality is I don't care if the rich are paying the same tax rate as I am. Awesome, we're in the same boat of getting screwed. I feel so much better now!
Equity doesn't care that California wastes all that tax income, nor does it care that I'd rather pay a lower rate even if it means the rich are paying a lower effective rate (but higher raw dollar amount).
Nailed it. I came here to say this.
California is wasteful, arbitrary, and interfering - but they always do fabulous on surveys with manipulable results.
-
Vermont has awesome summers (and arguably spring, mud and all, and of course fall). Winter is a bit tough...unless you ski, snowshoe, winter fat tire bike, ice skate or any of those things that people go to VT just for the winter for.
-
My grandparents traveled several years following birds. They "settled" in an over 55 community in McAllen, TX (lots of birds apparently). They stayed for less than five years before moving back to the Midwest where they were from and their children live. Their place was ridiculously cheap, like 55 grand for a seemingly well-built bungalow. Their biggest complaint was that all their neighbors kept dying.
-
My grandparents traveled several years following birds. They "settled" in an over 55 community in McAllen, TX (lots of birds apparently). They stayed for less than five years before moving back to the Midwest where they were from and their children live. Their place was ridiculously cheap, like 55 grand for a seemingly well-built bungalow. Their biggest complaint was that all their neighbors kept dying.
I've heard that the constant ambulance traffic can also be disconcerting, even if you don't personally know many of the people.
-
I'd take a winter in New England over a summer in Florida anytime.
I completely agree with this. I grew to love winter in the upper midwest, especially when it came with a cabin and woodstove. Much better than the bugs and heat!
-
I'd take a winter in New England over a summer in Florida anytime.
I completely agree with this. I grew to love winter in the upper midwest, especially when it came with a cabin and woodstove. Much better than the bugs and heat!
Me too! I grew up in the south but sure wouldn't want to live somewhere that routinely saw 100ºF days in the summer. Easier to heat than cool, and winter apparel has gotten so good that you can go outside in the winter and be comfortable (for a while at least) whereas even slight exertion in triple-digit, humid heat is physically taxing and potentially dangerous for the elderly.
To each their own, but we're planning on retiring someplace with snow each winter.
-
I'd take a winter in New England over a summer in Florida anytime.
I completely agree with this. I grew to love winter in the upper midwest, especially when it came with a cabin and woodstove. Much better than the bugs and heat!
Me too! I grew up in the south but sure wouldn't want to live somewhere that routinely saw 100ºF days in the summer. Easier to heat than cool, and winter apparel has gotten so good that you can go outside in the winter and be comfortable (for a while at least) whereas even slight exertion in triple-digit, humid heat is physically taxing and potentially dangerous for the elderly.
To each their own, but we're planning on retiring someplace with snow each winter.
There's pros and cons to both. Growing up and spending time each summer in Chicago, when a/c was rare, I felt like those summers were brutal. At least here in Miami, we rarely see 100ºF days, and the ubiquitous a/c means there is always the option to stay comfortably indoors. Plus, having access to the ocean within 20 minutes or a backyard pool allows us to enjoy being outside even on the worst days. I see lots of "elderly" folks walking the beaches whenever I'm able to get to the beach of a morning. Not saying it's for everyone, sure, and I miss the cooler seasons sometimes. But I enjoyed an outdoor holiday get-together last night and it was lovely outside, no scarf, gloves, or jackets needed.
-
Who says you have to pick one place? I'd love to live in Ft. Lauderdale or Tampa from October-March and somewhere a little less uncomfortable during the summer months.
I actually have no idea where to live during the warm months, as I've never lived any farther north than the TN/KY border, and summers were still uncomfortably humid there.
-
Who says you have to pick one place? I'd love to live in Ft. Lauderdale or Tampa from October-March and somewhere a little less uncomfortable during the summer months.
Round here we call these people "snow-birds". They show up sometime around May and stay until the leaves change, when they head south to avoid the cold winters and very short day-length here.
Not a bad way to do it if your goal is to avoid temperature extremes, though it takes some money and/or creativity to run two-location existence. The other big downfall I see is the 'snow-birds' aren't fully integrated into the community, but viewed more as repeat vacationers.
-
I'd take a winter in New England over a summer in Florida anytime.
I completely agree with this. I grew to love winter in the upper midwest, especially when it came with a cabin and woodstove. Much better than the bugs and heat!
Winter hobbies. Develop some. Build a grandfather clock and sell it in the spring. Restore an old car. Learn to play a musical instrument. Lots of indoor activities for winter. Or join a gym so your best self is ready for outdoor weather.
Or - move somewhere in between where winter is 45F and the winters still delivers an occasional snow. AND - bonus - you are eight hours closer driving to your WI/MN/MI relatives. Summers in the southeast are bearable. Like cold winters, hot summers in the south requires technique. Right kind of clothes, a siesta lunch in air conditioning or a shady porch with a fan, get your outdoors activities done earlier in the day. Screened-in-porch for the evenings.
We've been watching: https://www.pbs.org/food/shows/a-chefs-life/
There is a peek at the south. New south AND the old - but good people all over nonetheless
-
The other big downfall I see is the 'snow-birds' aren't fully integrated into the community, but viewed more as repeat vacationers.
I used to live in a small town that experienced a huge influx of snowbirds in the winter. As in, the population more than doubled. What I found is they tend to form relationships with other snowbirds and are either distantly friendly or outright hostile toward the year round population. All their real community was back in their permanent residence. It's something to think through if someone genuinely wants to be a snowbird.
-
I think if you are a younger active FIREee you'd be better off checking out "Outside" magazine's (online) various "Best Place for...(fill in your activities etc)". They do an annual Best Places list which not only shows housing costs, taxes and general COL but earmarks all the cool and interesting things there are to do in those places. I think most FIREd types will be less suited for the traditional retirement lists. Here's a 2019 example of Best Places to live: https://www.outsideonline.com/2398647/outside-best-towns-2019
I gave up on Outside magazine where it seemed every story was geared toward where to drink craft beer. Or activities to do before you drink craft beer.
I moved to Florida at age 28 in 1997 because I was sick of cold weather and traffic in the DC area, where I grew up. I love it here for the weather, of course, but more so because it's perfect for my active lifestyle of swimming, paddle boarding, fishing, triathlon, etc. If you don't have an active lifestyle and/or post-retirement life plotted out when you move here, you'll be just bored sitting around watching TV here as you would be up north.
-
Florida weathers sucks, IMO, and at least in the summers. I've visited in June, July, Oct, etc., and every time I have sweat dripping off the tip of my nose within 3 minutes of being outside. My t-shirt sticks to my back, and my cap feels like it was dipped in the Atlantic. No thanks to walking around drenched in sweat for 9 months of the year. I don't understand the appeal of such horrific climate. (yes I know everyone's mileage varies on that sort of thing)
An a side issue to anyone who drives a car down there. It has to be one of the most corrupt states in the country when it comes to insurance and personal injury stuff. Just look at all the Ask Gary BS. And there's no required minimal liability insurance for FL drivers? That is insane. Again, couldn't pay this cool weather-loving fella enough to live down there.
-
I think if you are a younger active FIREee you'd be better off checking out "Outside" magazine's (online) various "Best Place for...(fill in your activities etc)". They do an annual Best Places list which not only shows housing costs, taxes and general COL but earmarks all the cool and interesting things there are to do in those places. I think most FIREd types will be less suited for the traditional retirement lists. Here's a 2019 example of Best Places to live: https://www.outsideonline.com/2398647/outside-best-towns-2019
I gave up on Outside magazine where it seemed every story was geared toward where to drink craft beer. Or activities to do before you drink craft beer.
Interesting. I gave up on Outside magazine when it seemed like every article was about selling me yet more outdoor gear, and less about where to go/do/see in the actual outside. That and a lot of night-life articles, which I also didn't much care for.
-
Who says you have to pick one place? I'd love to live in Ft. Lauderdale or Tampa from October-March and somewhere a little less uncomfortable during the summer months.
Round here we call these people "snow-birds". They show up sometime around May and stay until the leaves change, when they head south to avoid the cold winters and very short day-length here.
Not a bad way to do it if your goal is to avoid temperature extremes, though it takes some money and/or creativity to run two-location existence. The other big downfall I see is the 'snow-birds' aren't fully integrated into the community, but viewed more as repeat vacationers.
I know people who do this. May through December at "home" in New England, where they have family and friends and rent an apartment.
Jan through April in Florida (where they own a condo), and also have friends.
-
I moved to Florida at age 28 in 1997 because I was sick of cold weather and traffic in the DC area
Traffic - sure, but cold weather? Snow is on the ground five days per year tops, and even then it is barely below freezing. Heat and humidity hold you indoors for longer than the cold around here.
...although maybe it was colder in 1997.
-
I moved to Florida at age 28 in 1997 because I was sick of cold weather and traffic in the DC area
Traffic - sure, but cold weather? Snow is on the ground five days per year tops, and even then it is barely below freezing. Heat and humidity hold you indoors for longer than the cold around here.
...although maybe it was colder in 1997.
Well for context, there was a massive blizzard in 1996 which might color LiveLean's perspective
Having lived in the DC area what I found frustrating (other than the traffic) was how unable the city was able to deal with actual snow events. And DC does occasionally get snow - just not every year. 3" will shut down all the businesses and government offices. Roughly every third year a foot would fall during a single storm and the grocery stores would get cleared out. And then once a decade or so 18"+ and you might as well lock yourself inside for several days. And it's all because snow is so inconsistent year-to-year that there's no great way for munipalities to budget snow-clearing, and almost no one has proper winter tires or even experience driving in inclimate weather.
Contrast that to Boston or any other New England (or midwestern) city and a few inches isn't even worth talking about.
-
I moved to Florida at age 28 in 1997 because I was sick of cold weather and traffic in the DC area
Traffic - sure, but cold weather? Snow is on the ground five days per year tops, and even then it is barely below freezing. Heat and humidity hold you indoors for longer than the cold around here.
...although maybe it was colder in 1997.
Well for context, there was a massive blizzard in 1996 which might color LiveLean's perspective
Having lived in the DC area what I found frustrating (other than the traffic) was how unable the city was able to deal with actual snow events. And DC does occasionally get snow - just not every year. 3" will shut down all the businesses and government offices. Roughly every third year a foot would fall during a single storm and the grocery stores would get cleared out. And then once a decade or so 18"+ and you might as well lock yourself inside for several days. And it's all because snow is so inconsistent year-to-year that there's no great way for munipalities to budget snow-clearing, and almost no one has proper winter tires or even experience driving in inclimate weather.
Contrast that to Boston or any other New England (or midwestern) city and a few inches isn't even worth talking about.
You should try snow down here in AL. We do get several inches of snow, just not every year. Pretty much if any snow sticks to the road the city shuts down. As you pointed out it's just not worth it at all for us to spend all the money that a place like Boston spends to carry on normal life in the snow. Snow tires, snow removal equipment, plowable road reflectors, etc. all cost money. It just makes more sense for non-essential services to shut down for a few days every few years. DC is technically in the South.
These articles are always so laughable because what people want in a retirement destination is going to be completely different from person to person. That top ten list is reasonably close to a list of states I would least like to live in because I personally can tolerate plenty of bugs and humidity if it means I don't have to own a snow shovel.
-
Outside's list is pretty funny, calling those 'towns'. Tucson is the only one I'd ever consider (and am in fact seriously considering). But I love the Tucson area, and love heat. And I know what I'd be giving up weather-wise, b/c I'm from WI, which I also really love. But the long dark gloomy winters....ugh. My sister just messaged me yesterday that she is fully into her regular winter depression already, b/c winter weather came early this year to the Midwest. I had no idea how negatively the weather up there affected my own mood until I moved to the sunny southwest and magically became much mentally healthier.
Snowbirding is my dream (though the biogeek in me would call us "neotropical migrants" LOL). I'm not certain we will be able to afford it, but I'm sure inclined to try. We are seriously considering buying a little place over there during the next recession, even though it's a 10 hour drive from our current location.
-
I moved to Florida at age 28 in 1997 because I was sick of cold weather and traffic in the DC area
Traffic - sure, but cold weather? Snow is on the ground five days per year tops, and even then it is barely below freezing. Heat and humidity hold you indoors for longer than the cold around here.
...although maybe it was colder in 1997.
Well for context, there was a massive blizzard in 1996 which might color LiveLean's perspective
Having lived in the DC area what I found frustrating (other than the traffic) was how unable the city was able to deal with actual snow events. And DC does occasionally get snow - just not every year. 3" will shut down all the businesses and government offices. Roughly every third year a foot would fall during a single storm and the grocery stores would get cleared out. And then once a decade or so 18"+ and you might as well lock yourself inside for several days. And it's all because snow is so inconsistent year-to-year that there's no great way for munipalities to budget snow-clearing, and almost no one has proper winter tires or even experience driving in inclimate weather.
Contrast that to Boston or any other New England (or midwestern) city and a few inches isn't even worth talking about.
I was there in 1996 for that blizzard. Fed Govt shut down for 9/10 straight work days (2 back to back blizzards). It was all fun and games for a few days, then the studio apartment got a little old. And Pentagon City Mall was closed for a part of that too (a block away from my apartment), so I couldn't even "get out".
-
I was in school then. 11 straight snow days off. As you said, fun at first, but it got old quick. Then the schools were required to meet a minimum threshold for an academic year, so they added something like 14 minutes to every school day, which impacted all after school activities (e.g. instead of athletic practice being an hour, it was 46 minutes, and what was lost was entirely playing time).
-
I was in school then. 11 straight snow days off. As you said, fun at first, but it got old quick. Then the schools were required to meet a minimum threshold for an academic year, so they added something like 14 minutes to every school day, which impacted all after school activities (e.g. instead of athletic practice being an hour, it was 46 minutes, and what was lost was entirely playing time).
That's such a weird way to make up the lost time. I always thought that schools would just extend the school year by a few days if needed.
-
I was in school then. 11 straight snow days off. As you said, fun at first, but it got old quick. Then the schools were required to meet a minimum threshold for an academic year, so they added something like 14 minutes to every school day, which impacted all after school activities (e.g. instead of athletic practice being an hour, it was 46 minutes, and what was lost was entirely playing time).
That's such a weird way to make up the lost time. I always thought that schools would just extend the school year by a few days if needed.
Our school system was limited by the number of days it could extend (i think it was 3). Basically too many local businesses relied on summer workers and too many employees had their contracts end by a certain date (e.g. teachers had already planned their summer vacations, and the custodial staff did not go past a certain date).
IIRC there are federal requirements for the total number of minutes a schoolyear must be, but not on teh total number of days.
I remember even then as a kid I thought it was useless, because only some of your periods were extended, and those by just a few minutes. The teachers didn't want one class to get way ahead of the others so mostly you would just get 5-10 minutes to "study".
-
I was in school then. 11 straight snow days off. As you said, fun at first, but it got old quick. Then the schools were required to meet a minimum threshold for an academic year, so they added something like 14 minutes to every school day, which impacted all after school activities (e.g. instead of athletic practice being an hour, it was 46 minutes, and what was lost was entirely playing time).
On the other hand, there were no weather events like this in at least 18 years.
Like, I'll be the last to claim that DC has an ideal climate, but to complain that it's unbearably cold or unlivable because of snow is a bit over the top. The whole reason (as others pointed out) that snow is disruptive is that we don't get a lot of it.
-
I was in school then. 11 straight snow days off. As you said, fun at first, but it got old quick. Then the schools were required to meet a minimum threshold for an academic year, so they added something like 14 minutes to every school day, which impacted all after school activities (e.g. instead of athletic practice being an hour, it was 46 minutes, and what was lost was entirely playing time).
On the other hand, there were no weather events like this in at least 18 years.
No...? What about "snowpocalypse in 2009, where DC got 18"? Or "Snowmaggedon' in 2010 where Dulles airport had a two-day total of 32"? Or in 2016 when 17" fell in less than 18 hours? For the record both 2010 and 2016 eclipsed the blizzard of '96 both inside the city and at Dulles Airport. 2004 was also anotrher big storm (
I mean... there have been multiple times over the last 18 years when schools and the government were shut down for multiple days because of snowfalls that were well into the double-digits. It's certianly not every year, but it happens on average a couple times a decade.
here's a nice graphic showing the storm totals over 6" over the last 100+ years. Many years there won't be anything - but foot+ snowfalls happen on average every few years
(https://www.weather.gov/images/lwx/climate/TopDCSnowfalls(1).png)
source: NWS
-
No...? What about "snowpocalypse in 2009, where DC got 18"? Or "Snowmaggedon' in 2010 where Dulles airport had a two-day total of 32"?
"Like this" in terms of human life disruption (based on your description of late 90's), not inches of snow. Neither "snowpocalypse", nor "snowmaggedon" - through both of which I lived - even registered in my head as anything but "great, let's make some Gluehwein and play in the snow!"
I also have to say that this is the perfect illustration that this forum keeps its focus on financial independence, but "through badassity" is completely out of the window. Like, a foot of snow every couple of years, which gets cleared promptly or melts on its own most of the time. Big effing deal. I could understand if a homeless person complained - but I suspect they are not the ones who move to Florida because it snowed once.
-
I retired to SW Florida 6 years ago. It took a little getting use to at first, but we like it down here much more than the Midwest. I just don’t like the cold and being stuck inside for much of the winter.
We do plan our vacations around July and August, but many times the places we visited were hotter than Florida, so we try and go farther north now.
And one of our kids family moved down here last year, so that definatly makes it nicer. No need to worry about help in our old age. My wife helps a lot with the grandkids, one of the reasons that they moved, and my daughter in law has always liked Florida.
The biggest problem is it’s getting crowded.
-
No...? What about "snowpocalypse in 2009, where DC got 18"? Or "Snowmaggedon' in 2010 where Dulles airport had a two-day total of 32"?
"Like this" in terms of human life disruption (based on your description of late 90's), not inches of snow. Neither "snowpocalypse", nor "snowmaggedon" - through both of which I lived - even registered in my head as anything but "great, let's make some Gluehwein and play in the snow!"
I also have to say that this is the perfect illustration that this forum keeps its focus on financial independence, but "through badassity" is completely out of the window. Like, a foot of snow every couple of years, which gets cleared promptly or melts on its own most of the time. Big effing deal. I could understand if a homeless person complained - but I suspect they are not the ones who move to Florida because it snowed once.
I wasn't aware that the pursuit of FI required people to live in climates they didn't like (while also having a much higher cost of living).
Continuing to live in a northern climate when a beach climate is preferred doesn't make someone a badass. It makes them a dumbass.
-
No...? What about "snowpocalypse in 2009, where DC got 18"? Or "Snowmaggedon' in 2010 where Dulles airport had a two-day total of 32"?
"Like this" in terms of human life disruption (based on your description of late 90's), not inches of snow. Neither "snowpocalypse", nor "snowmaggedon" - through both of which I lived - even registered in my head as anything but "great, let's make some Gluehwein and play in the snow!"
I also have to say that this is the perfect illustration that this forum keeps its focus on financial independence, but "through badassity" is completely out of the window. Like, a foot of snow every couple of years, which gets cleared promptly or melts on its own most of the time. Big effing deal. I could understand if a homeless person complained - but I suspect they are not the ones who move to Florida because it snowed once.
My husband was on travel during one of those and got stuck in Dulles, they canceled his flight home. So it registered for me!
-
I wasn't aware that the pursuit of FI required people to live in climates they didn't like (while also having a much higher cost of living).
Continuing to live in a northern climate when a beach climate is preferred doesn't make someone a badass. It makes them a dumbass.
"I like Florida better" is totally fine. "It snows too much in DC" is a tiny problem exaggeration symptom at it's worst.
-
I wasn't aware that the pursuit of FI required people to live in climates they didn't like (while also having a much higher cost of living).
Continuing to live in a northern climate when a beach climate is preferred doesn't make someone a badass. It makes them a dumbass.
"I like Florida better" is totally fine. "It snows too much in DC" is a tiny problem exaggeration symptom at it's worst.
Why? If you really hate snow and/or having disruptions in services then DC is probably not the place you want to permanently retire to. Seems just as valid as "I like Florida better" or "I don't like the heat/cold/bugs/humidity in _____". FWIW snow-based disruptions in DC are more common than they are where I live in northern New England.
if you're going to evoke 'tiny problem exaggeration' I'll evoke 'position of strength' - as in someone who is FI can chose where they want to end up.
-
I wasn't aware that the pursuit of FI required people to live in climates they didn't like (while also having a much higher cost of living).
Continuing to live in a northern climate when a beach climate is preferred doesn't make someone a badass. It makes them a dumbass.
"I like Florida better" is totally fine. "It snows too much in DC" is a tiny problem exaggeration symptom at it's worst.
There's too much wind and crime for my liking in west Texas, which are strong reasons why I moved away.
I guess I'll never be a badass because I chose to move away from a place I disliked.
-
No way in hell I’m retiring to where it’s cold.
Hell is generally considered to be warm. You should be fine.
:)
-
No way in hell I’m retiring to where it’s cold.
Hell is generally considered to be warm. You should be fine.
:)
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/82/34/7c/82347c25c94ea85d57da52b20c942c24.jpg)
-
The heat, humidity and bugs aren't bad - you just have to manage them. Start early, quit before it gets hot, come back out later when it is cooler. 3PM is usually peak temps. Wear bug spray. Own a screened in porch. Air conditioning is a must for part of the summer. Have a summer kitchen if you must simmer or boil - or something like an instant pot.
-
A great retirement state is AZ. reasonable cost of living/housing, friendly retirement tax structure, cheerfully sunny weather
-
Now that I live in dry heat I cannot stand humidity at all. I love our mild 4 seasons.
-
Thing that puzzles me is- why is it so awful to live in a place where it's too COLD* to venture outdoors 3 or 4 months of the year, and yet desirable to live in a place where it's too HOT to venture outdoors 3 or 4 months of the year?
* especially since, thanks to the revolutionary invention of something called "clothing", one can actually safely venture outdoors during those months!
-
Thing that puzzles me is- why is it so awful to live in a place where it's too COLD* to venture outdoors 3 or 4 months of the year, and yet desirable to live in a place where it's too HOT to venture outdoors 3 or 4 months of the year?
* especially since, thanks to the revolutionary invention of something called "clothing", one can actually safely venture outdoors during those months!
Personal preference, but my thoughts are one can always dress for the cold (and I’ve lived and happily spent hours outside in temps down to -30ºF/-35ºC) - but there’s far less one can do in extreme heat (arbitrarily defined here as “well above body temp (98.6ºF/37ºC). I’ve also lived in areas where temps > 104ºF/40ºC occur, and about all you can do it take it slow and avoid exertion (or hide inside or in the water).
Both ends of the spectrum there is a risk of dying - but I can be active in the cold, not so much in the heat.
-
My thoughts exactly.
-
Thing that puzzles me is- why is it so awful to live in a place where it's too COLD* to venture outdoors 3 or 4 months of the year, and yet desirable to live in a place where it's too HOT to venture outdoors 3 or 4 months of the year?
* especially since, thanks to the revolutionary invention of something called "clothing", one can actually safely venture outdoors during those months!
Personal preference, but my thoughts are one can always dress for the cold (and I’ve lived and happily spent hours outside in temps down to -30ºF/-35ºC) - but there’s far less one can do in extreme heat (arbitrarily defined here as “well above body temp (98.6ºF/37ºC). I’ve also lived in areas where temps > 104ºF/40ºC occur, and about all you can do it take it slow and avoid exertion (or hide inside or in the water).
Both ends of the spectrum there is a risk of dying - but I can be active in the cold, not so much in the heat.
I think the whole thing about it being too hot to go outside is overblown. Besides a few places in Florida and Arizona I don't think it's that hot or humid for long stretches. The afternoon heat index here runs in the 90s most of the summer. I bike or walk even on days when it gets over 100. It's not exactly fun when it gets that bad, but it's doable if you pace yourself. I'd much rather go out in the heat than in the cold because I don't like feeling like I'm wearing a space suit.
I think some people tolerate heat better, and some tolerate cold better.
Then I think there are a lot of snowbirds who just take the best of both worlds.
-
Thing that puzzles me is- why is it so awful to live in a place where it's too COLD* to venture outdoors 3 or 4 months of the year, and yet desirable to live in a place where it's too HOT to venture outdoors 3 or 4 months of the year?
* especially since, thanks to the revolutionary invention of something called "clothing", one can actually safely venture outdoors during those months!
Because you haven't really tried to live somewhere warm to see how it really is.
I have relatives in really cold places and in really hot places. In the really cold places it is pretty miserable, shoveling snow gets to be old, salt on roads everywhere gets everything dirty, rust on cars, external work on houses come to a stop except for emergency repair, roads break down due to the salt / freezing / moisture.
For my relatives who live in sunny places like AZ, the heat can be annoying but it's easy to work around. You don't have to shovel sunshine, nor scrape sunshine off the windows. The weather is still pleasant in the morning. You can easily jump into a pool to cool off in the afternoon / evening. Joints don't ache as much in the heat. Carry an insulated thermos full of ice with your favorite beverage of choice and stay hydrated to avoid any illness from the heat. Plus there is a monsoon season with seasonal rains that cool things off fairly well. The streets are in much better condition due to lack of salt / snow. It's really easy to deal with the heat compared to all the misery that is snow and ice.
You really need to live in both to understand how heat is much easier for older folks.
-
I think the whole thing about it being too hot to go outside is overblown. Besides a few places in Florida and Arizona I don't think it's that hot or humid for long stretches. The afternoon heat index here runs in the 90s most of the summer. I bike or walk even on days when it gets over 100. It's not exactly fun when it gets that bad, but it's doable if you pace yourself. I'd much rather go out in the heat than in the cold because I don't like feeling like I'm wearing a space suit.
I think some people tolerate heat better, and some tolerate cold better.
Then I think there are a lot of snowbirds who just take the best of both worlds.
100% spot on. I recall last summer when it was 100+ degrees in Chicago, Minneapolis, DC, etc., along with high humidity to boot. That was a lot more miserable than Phoenix at 115 degrees with no humidity. People seem to over-state the heat based on the temperature number, but don't realize how easy it is due to the lack of humidity and the numerous ways to cool down (some delicious ways including refreshing smoothies / ice drinks).
Having lived in both climates, I'll never understand how people can compare extreme cold with extreme heat. One is definitely harder than the other to deal with.
-
Thing that puzzles me is- why is it so awful to live in a place where it's too COLD* to venture outdoors 3 or 4 months of the year, and yet desirable to live in a place where it's too HOT to venture outdoors 3 or 4 months of the year?
* especially since, thanks to the revolutionary invention of something called "clothing", one can actually safely venture outdoors during those months!
Because you haven't really tried to live somewhere warm to see how it really is.
I have relatives in really cold places and in really hot places. In the really cold places it is pretty miserable, shoveling snow gets to be old, salt on roads everywhere gets everything dirty, rust on cars, external work on houses come to a stop except for emergency repair, roads break down due to the salt / freezing / moisture.
For my relatives who live in sunny places like AZ, the heat can be annoying but it's easy to work around. You don't have to shovel sunshine, nor scrape sunshine off the windows. The weather is still pleasant in the morning. You can easily jump into a pool to cool off in the afternoon / evening. Joints don't ache as much in the heat. Carry an insulated thermos full of ice with your favorite beverage of choice and stay hydrated to avoid any illness from the heat. Plus there is a monsoon season with seasonal rains that cool things off fairly well. The streets are in much better condition due to lack of salt / snow. It's really easy to deal with the heat compared to all the misery that is snow and ice.
You really need to live in both to understand how heat is much easier for older folks.
I love the way you put this.
-
Personal preference, but my thoughts are one can always dress for the cold (and I’ve lived and happily spent hours outside in temps down to -30ºF/-35ºC) - but there’s far less one can do in extreme heat (arbitrarily defined here as “well above body temp (98.6ºF/37ºC). I’ve also lived in areas where temps > 104ºF/40ºC occur, and about all you can do it take it slow and avoid exertion (or hide inside or in the water).
Both ends of the spectrum there is a risk of dying - but I can be active in the cold, not so much in the heat.
People are far more active in the hot summers than in freezing winters than you think. Many people go hiking, fishing, swimming, tubing in rivers, camping, etc. You seem to think the hot places are like the sahara, where nothing lives but snakes and lizards and lots of sand dunes. You really need to travel more and see how it really is.
-
I think the whole thing about it being too hot to go outside is overblown. Besides a few places in Florida and Arizona I don't think it's that hot or humid for long stretches. The afternoon heat index here runs in the 90s most of the summer. I bike or walk even on days when it gets over 100. It's not exactly fun when it gets that bad, but it's doable if you pace yourself. I'd much rather go out in the heat than in the cold because I don't like feeling like I'm wearing a space suit.
I think some people tolerate heat better, and some tolerate cold better.
Then I think there are a lot of snowbirds who just take the best of both worlds.
100% spot on. I recall last summer when it was 100+ degrees in Chicago, Minneapolis, DC, etc., along with high humidity to boot. That was a lot more miserable than Phoenix at 115 degrees with no humidity. People seem to over-state the heat based on the temperature number, but don't realize how easy it is due to the lack of humidity and the numerous ways to cool down (some delicious ways including refreshing smoothies / ice drinks).
Having lived in both climates, I'll never understand how people can compare extreme cold with extreme heat. One is definitely harder than the other to deal with.
Even with humidity the heat's not as bad as it can be made out to be.
And also humidity makes things worse on both ends. It can be humid here sometimes in the winter, and that damp cold is tough to deal with because it just seems like it penetrates as many layers as you can put on.
-
Personal preference, but my thoughts are one can always dress for the cold (and I’ve lived and happily spent hours outside in temps down to -30ºF/-35ºC) - but there’s far less one can do in extreme heat (arbitrarily defined here as “well above body temp (98.6ºF/37ºC). I’ve also lived in areas where temps > 104ºF/40ºC occur, and about all you can do it take it slow and avoid exertion (or hide inside or in the water).
Both ends of the spectrum there is a risk of dying - but I can be active in the cold, not so much in the heat.
People are far more active in the hot summers than in freezing winters than you think. Many people go hiking, fishing, swimming, tubing in rivers, camping, etc. You seem to think the hot places are like the sahara, where nothing lives but snakes and lizards and lots of sand dunes. You really need to travel more and see how it really is.
I don't think you've spent much time reading my posts. I have lived in hot climates, including Mexico and the US South. I've also lived in Québec and worked north of the Arctic circle. I've clearly stated that it's my own personal preference, yet you tell me that people's activity levels are "more than think" and then insist I "need to travel more to see how it really is".
Some people prefer one over the other. That's fine. No need to shit on other people and their opinions, and imply that they don't know what they are talking about when it comes to their preferences. FWIW I've burned my feet on asphalt baking in the sun and had my dashboard delaminate. Just there are 'numerous ways to cool down" - there are numerous ways of staying warm and warming up.
-
Personal preference, but my thoughts are one can always dress for the cold (and I’ve lived and happily spent hours outside in temps down to -30ºF/-35ºC) - but there’s far less one can do in extreme heat (arbitrarily defined here as “well above body temp (98.6ºF/37ºC). I’ve also lived in areas where temps > 104ºF/40ºC occur, and about all you can do it take it slow and avoid exertion (or hide inside or in the water).
Both ends of the spectrum there is a risk of dying - but I can be active in the cold, not so much in the heat.
People are far more active in the hot summers than in freezing winters than you think. Many people go hiking, fishing, swimming, tubing in rivers, camping, etc. You seem to think the hot places are like the sahara, where nothing lives but snakes and lizards and lots of sand dunes. You really need to travel more and see how it really is.
I don't think you've spent much time reading my posts. I have lived in hot climates, including Mexico and the US South. I've also lived in Québec and worked north of the Arctic circle. I've clearly stated that it's my own personal preference, yet you tell me that people's activity levels are "more than think" and then insist I "need to travel more to see how it really is".
Some people prefer one over the other. That's fine. No need to shit on other people and their opinions, and imply that they don't know what they are talking about when it comes to their preferences. FWIW I've burned my feet on asphalt baking in the sun and had my dashboard delaminate. Just there are 'numerous ways to cool down" - there are numerous ways of staying warm and warming up.
I'm sorry if my post came across that way, but I took issue with your statement "but there’s far less one can do in extreme heat" which is definitely not true. There are plenty of snow days where schools and businesses are closed due to the extreme cold and weather. There are virtually no "sunny days" where schools or businesses are closed due to the heat. Life generally doesn't come to a halt in the hotter places, people still can get business and personal things done and even enjoy the perks of the heat with pools, etc.
Not seeing the sun for weeks with only gloomy weather can wear on people. Seeing blue skys and sunny weather generally is not an issue for most people. There are multitude of reasons why most people would be happier with the heat than the cold. Many of them can't move due to family ties, but those that have the option to move to a sunny place generally love it.
-
I forgot about the time that our gps (Garmin on the dashboard) melted in the car. No garage here.
We don't have snow days, but here in South Florida we do have hurricane days.
-
I forgot about the time that our gps (Garmin on the dashboard) melted in the car. No garage here.
We don't have snow days, but here in South Florida we do have hurricane days.
Ouch! The one thing I always have in my car is a sun shade, regardless of where I am. The sun shade reduces UV and heat, making it much more enjoyable to get in the car after it's been in the sun for a while.
-
Personal preference, but my thoughts are one can always dress for the cold (and I’ve lived and happily spent hours outside in temps down to -30ºF/-35ºC) - but there’s far less one can do in extreme heat (arbitrarily defined here as “well above body temp (98.6ºF/37ºC). I’ve also lived in areas where temps > 104ºF/40ºC occur, and about all you can do it take it slow and avoid exertion (or hide inside or in the water).
Both ends of the spectrum there is a risk of dying - but I can be active in the cold, not so much in the heat.
I had a drill sergeant who took the opposite view.
As long as you drink enough water, the heat won't kill you (at least anywhere on Earth). But the cold? The cold will absolutely kill you if it gets low enough.
-
I forgot about the time that our gps (Garmin on the dashboard) melted in the car. No garage here.
We don't have snow days, but here in South Florida we do have hurricane days.
Ouch! The one thing I always have in my car is a sun shade, regardless of where I am. The sun shade reduces UV and heat, making it much more enjoyable to get in the car after it's been in the sun for a while.
That's a good idea.
-
Today's high in Edmonton is -23F (-31C). It apparently feels like -47F, per the Weather Channel.
No amount of clothing is going to make that bearable, whereas I can just keep a steady supply of fluids when in 100 degree, hot & humid summers in the south and get by just fine.
-
Today's high in Edmonton is -23F (-31C). It apparently feels like -47F, per the Weather Channel.
No amount of clothing is going to make that bearable, whereas I can just keep a steady supply of fluids when in 100 degree, hot & humid summers in the south and get by just fine.
I frequently ski at those temperatures, as well as drill ice cores. The trick is layering. Base layer, mid layer, loft layer and wind-stopping outer layer. Technology has also made some nice cheats, like heated insoles and mid layers.
Is it for everyone? No. But given the millions who live and work in such condtions it’s a bit of hyperbole to say nothing can make that ‘bearable’ - eh?
-
Today's high in Edmonton is -23F (-31C). It apparently feels like -47F, per the Weather Channel.
No amount of clothing is going to make that bearable, whereas I can just keep a steady supply of fluids when in 100 degree, hot & humid summers in the south and get by just fine.
I frequently ski at those temperatures, as well as drill ice cores. The trick is layering. Base layer, mid layer, loft layer and wind-stopping outer layer. Technology has also made some nice cheats, like heated insoles and mid layers.
Is it for everyone? No. But given the millions who live and work in such condtions it’s a bit of hyperbole to say nothing can make that ‘bearable’ - eh?
Correction: bearable for me
-
Thank you :-)
I fully realize I’m in the minority opinion here, but expressing it so forcefully here simply because I want others to realize that, yes, you can enjoy being outdoors in sub-zero temperatures, and for some of us that’s preferable than being outdoors in 100ºF+ (particularly with high humidity).
Getting back to the OP - just as many retire to Florida or Phoenix for the warmer temperatures, there are many that retire to Maine or Vermont or Alaska because they like cold over heat.
-
Don't forget all the inbetween places. Places where the winter gets really cold (teens) overnight but most of the winter is above freezing spiced up with 50F-60F bonus days.
And summer isn't 100F+, it's 80s and 90s with cool mornings and comfortable evenings if you have a screened porch to keep the mosquitoes away. And a/c makes it even better come bedtime.
-
Thank you :-)
I fully realize I’m in the minority opinion here, but expressing it so forcefully here simply because I want others to realize that, yes, you can enjoy being outdoors in sub-zero temperatures, and for some of us that’s preferable than being outdoors in 100ºF+ (particularly with high humidity).
Getting back to the OP - just as many retire to Florida or Phoenix for the warmer temperatures, there are many that retire to Maine or Vermont or Alaska because they like cold over heat.
Agree you are in the minority. I just got back from a really cold place, and am sick of the chapped lips, cold / dried hands, grime over everything - shoes, clothing, hair, etc. That salt residue gets everywhere. Being outside scraping ice off the car just to go grocery shopping, gets real old, real fast. Even more fun when it's freezing rain. Constantly having a running nose due to my sinuses trying to deal with the cold, weary of other sick people with colds or flus due to the cold weather. Not my idea of fun for retirement, especially when my body gets more vulnerable to illness and arthritis in the future.
There were several huge deadly pile-ups due to the cold weather in the news recently, with dozens of people dying who did nothing wrong other than trying to get to work or school or shopping and ended up being crushed by tractor trailers and other vehicles. Driving is deadly enough without the element of black ice, no thanks...I'll happily drive in my air conditioned car in the extreme heat with zero risk of deadly car slides and freezing weather accidents even after the roads have been plowed and salted.
The majority of people do prefer warmer, safer climates. That and being in shorts, chilling with ice cold drinks, with misters outside, or in the pool as time allows. Even just taking a plain cold shower sometimes feels invigorating and fun. It's a lot more enjoyable and fun to be in warm places.
-
Not seeing the sun for weeks with only gloomy weather can wear on people. Seeing blue skys and sunny weather generally is not an issue for most people. There are multitude of reasons why most people would be happier with the heat than the cold. Many of them can't move due to family ties, but those that have the option to move to a sunny place generally love it.
Gloominess isn't really related to cold or hot weather. Maybe in your area gray weather is associated with winter, but here we occasionally get spells of hot humid gloomy weather in the summer, too.
Thank you :-)
I fully realize I’m in the minority opinion here, but expressing it so forcefully here simply because I want others to realize that, yes, you can enjoy being outdoors in sub-zero temperatures, and for some of us that’s preferable than being outdoors in 100ºF+ (particularly with high humidity).
Getting back to the OP - just as many retire to Florida or Phoenix for the warmer temperatures, there are many that retire to Maine or Vermont or Alaska because they like cold over heat.
Yes, the big takeaway is that people really are different. Some people will don't mind bundling up and dealing with the cold if it means not having to deal with sweating non-stop for months on end. Other people don't mind sweating all summer if it means not having to shovel snow or dress like Randy in "A Christmas Story". Then some people don't mind paying a stiff premium to live in that small strip of California that's always nice. That's why these lists are so ridiculous because they're going to look completely different for different people.
-
And whatever your environment, a person can acclimate - somewhat. Back when I worked outside all the time I coped better than now when I work inside more often.
-
Talking about preferred weather - I must surely be the only such person in the world, but I absolutely hate places that are always sunny. I don't mind a little sun every now and then but definitely not on a daily basis. This is probably the result of spending my childhood in a very hot and sunny climate :-)
I generally love overcast conditions. I lived in upstate New York for many years and loved the weather there!
-
Today's high in Edmonton is -23F (-31C). It apparently feels like -47F, per the Weather Channel.
No amount of clothing is going to make that bearable, whereas I can just keep a steady supply of fluids when in 100 degree, hot & humid summers in the south and get by just fine.
I frequently ski at those temperatures, as well as drill ice cores. The trick is layering. Base layer, mid layer, loft layer and wind-stopping outer layer. Technology has also made some nice cheats, like heated insoles and mid layers.
Is it for everyone? No. But given the millions who live and work in such condtions it’s a bit of hyperbole to say nothing can make that ‘bearable’ - eh?
How am I gonna' swing a golf club dressed like that? ;)