Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not necessarily. Vermont, for example, has quite a safety net for seniors and low income (including subsidized health ins), and the state is doing okay. They have enough wealth to remain stabilized.
Agreed, but they also have the third lowest poverty rate in the country. Yes they have enough wealth because they have done a good job of either keeping people above the poverty level or in keeping poor people out. Needless say just by location California has a much different challenge.
Perhaps the states that are in decent shape are that way because they are NOT spending as much money on social programs
That's definitely the case in VA; that's why taxes are fairly low here. We have the basics covered but we're a conservative state when it comes to finances. Also, ironically, the high expensive of living here has made us fortunate. We do a good job taking care of the people who are already here, but don't tend to attract people moving here for low rent or social services--so we don't have the same expenses a lot of other states like CA have.
That's definitely the case in VA. We have the basics covered but we're a conservative state when it comes to finances. Also, ironically, the high expensive of living here has made us fortunate. We do a good job taking care of the people who are already here, but don't tend to attract people moving here for low rent or social services--so we don't have the same expenses a lot of other states have.
Not wanting to get political but your conservative state has a very liberal neighbor to the North. Some folks find it easier to locate in PG and Baltimore etc.
The "youngest state" - Utah - says it's in great shape. Public education is not good here... social programs are way underfunded... and they've not yet even addressed how they will support the aging population...so much time spent on "the young".
Not wanting to get political but your conservative state has a very liberal neighbor to the North. Some folks find it easier to locate in PG and Baltimore etc.
Yup, it's a very symbiotic relationship; a win-win situation for both states. We're very happy to have a high percentage of the people who need social programs live in MD; and people in MD seem to think it works out well for them, too. Plus MD has somewhat of the same situation, so their expenses aren't as high as a state like CA. The people who move to the DC metro area tend to be in good health, have college educations already in hand, and have solid job offers before they arrive. People don't move here for the sunshine or the beach.
Not sure what any of this has to do with the OP's question. He's moving to from VA to CA, no from VA to MD.
Agreed, but they also have the third lowest poverty rate in the country. Yes they have enough wealth because they have done a good job of either keeping people above the poverty level or in keeping poor people out. Needless say just by location California has a much different challenge.
People come to MA and VT (and perhaps ME) from other states and other countries for the social service programs; these states are carrying. Maine will be hurting most because they do not have the broad based wealth that MA and VT have. I would like to see info on the "poorer" and "mismanaged" states and the level of social services they have and what must now be cut. In the meantime, there are people in noted cities in the abovementioned states that you can bet will not lose their benefits, b/c these states can do it (for now). In a state like VA, the northern area is carrying the state, possibly.
I am a native Californian -so are my husband and kids.
We currently live in the DC metro area and even though there is a lot of interesting things to do and see on this coast, I get sooo homesick.
When we look at retiring, we always end up back in San Diego. We can afford a home there but we are worried abut the the tax picture eating away at our retirement income.
How bad is it?
Is any way to have your "permanent" residence listed in a retirement friendly state like South Dakota while spending a majority of your time in San Diego?
Thy have the same initials!
If you are not working in any state- and sometimes even if you are, you state of residence is really your choice. I know people that are "residents" of Nevada and spend about 300 days a year here in California.
M
The topic is moving to CA, not the politics of states on the other side of the country. Just reminding everyone before this thread gets hijacked.
That would not be a good thing, to get a thread hijacked.
On topic, moving to CA would be, for those who have the means and the interests that the state of CA provides, not a bad thing. The topic is general, and the specifics many. No one can generalize about the state. As to the OP, San Diego costs could be balanced by savings on such things as transportation. State residency requirements may be found online.
As to the OP's question...It was easier said than done to find one good website with primary resident info. Maybe someone has a better link. This one may have some good info. "Majority of the year" might constitute six months and a day, I would imagine. How to primary residence to the IRS?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
