U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 05-19-2014, 07:28 AM
 
Location: Los Angeles area
14,018 posts, read 17,759,876 times
Reputation: 32309

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robyn55 View Post
I think it all depends. On our part - we'd be paying a lot more in income taxes in California (more and different kinds of income than you have - IIRC - your pension may get preferential tax treatment). Also - we'd be paying a lot more for housing. Especially in one of the higher priced spread parts of California I like . Or - we'd be living in that 50 year old 500 sf bungalow instead of our current house.

We have some neighbors who moved here from California (for job-related reasons). Most are happy to find out they can buy a nicer house for a heck of a lot less money. Robyn
No my pension does not get preferential tax treatment in California - nobody's pension does, except that Calif. does not tax Social Security income, which may be what you are thinking of. My SS is negligible, about $150 gross and $50 net monthly (after the Medicare Part B premium is deducted).

People with adjusted gross incomes over $1,000,000 pay a whooping 13% marginal rate, which is the highest in the nation. Hawaii used to have the highest rate, but Calif. raised its rates on higher incomes a couple of years ago.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-19-2014, 10:17 AM
 
Location: Orlando
2,010 posts, read 2,647,409 times
Reputation: 7686
Quote:
Originally Posted by tiluha View Post
I wonder..do people originally from Florida relocate when they retire? If so, where to? (hopefully my question is not considered thread hijacking, sorry in advance if it is )
Although I'm not originally from Florida, I've lived here since 1974. When I retired in 2009, I did relocate -- to another part of Florida.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-19-2014, 11:40 AM
 
Location: Lakewood OH
21,698 posts, read 23,692,507 times
Reputation: 35450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Submariner View Post
Ouch

...........

Getting what you pay for, is difficult to quantify.
Very, very true. In my case, I am getting the same of what I have been getting for the past 25 years but I am paying quadruple for it as the COL in my neighborhood alone continues to rise. And yes, I know COL does not remain static over the years in anyplace but I have seen comparisons of my neighborhood to other neighborhoods both in my city and in comparable cities in other states and the rise has been much greater in my area.

The only changes have been more expensive stores coming in to replace Ma and Pa stores along with upscale restaurants and housing. I don't get to indulge in any of those things but I am in effect paying for them when my rent in my non-updated apartment goes up. This is true of all the older apartment buildings; rents go up every year but improvements are made only when absolutely necessary. My grocery bills are higher than they are in other neighborhoods in other cities. My neighborhood was gentrified decades ago even though there was nothing really much wrong with it. But it was "discovered" and that made it desirable. It reaches a level in which the present residents can no longer afford to live here and then the next wave moves in until they can no longer afford the high rents or homes.

And so it goes. But the amenities remain the same except for the cost. So we are back to getting what one pays for and I don't feel I am getting that here now and will continue to lose out if I remain. In contrast, the neighborhood to which I am moving in Cleveland Heights has every amenity as the one in which I am living in Portland and is just a pretty and just as nice. The only main difference that I can see is the weather.

Regarding the crime situation, as in any city or suburban area, there are areas a bit more dicey than others. Mine in CH is in a more safe neighborhood but it's still not a great issue for me. I don't feel it's any more dangerous than where I am living now or where I have ever lived before and I have lived in some pretty dicey areas both in Chicago and Portland.

I will be moving to a place where I will be getting a lot more for my money. Someone else's budget might be different. No two stories are exactly the same. One would be foolish to make comparisons between people whose circumstances are entirely different. As you said, "Getting what you pay for, is difficult to quantify." To that I would add, determining what anyone else is getting what they are paying for is not really feasible.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-19-2014, 12:18 PM
 
Location: Forests of Maine
30,698 posts, read 49,495,894 times
Reputation: 19146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Escort Rider View Post
... However, you did not address my main point, which was that local and state income taxes are NOT the main component of cost of living, but rather that housing costs are.
That sounded out of place to me also.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-19-2014, 12:24 PM
 
Location: Forests of Maine
30,698 posts, read 49,495,894 times
Reputation: 19146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minervah View Post
... Regarding the crime situation, as in any city or suburban area, there are areas a bit more dicey than others. Mine in CH is in a more safe neighborhood but it's still not a great issue for me. I don't feel it's any more dangerous than where I am living now or where I have ever lived before and I have lived in some pretty dicey areas both in Chicago and Portland.
I do not like big crime. I would hate to live anywhere that I needed to lock our cars or remove the keys from them. We have never locked our front door. The sheriff deputy drives through our town once a week, that is plenty.

We have a Forest Ranger that lives here, he is actually assigned somewhere else. But he stops to check on hunters, trappers and fishermen.

Biggest 'crime' here is boating without a vest or tipping fir [to make wreaths] without land-owner permission.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-19-2014, 12:27 PM
 
29,812 posts, read 34,900,894 times
Reputation: 11730
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohio_peasant View Post
I'm single, which in California means nearly double the marginal state income tax rate, relative to married folks. It's a curious oddity that California is supposed to be the lefty-liberal, free-love, socially depraved locale (whatever that means), yet their tax code is strongly pro-marriage. Meanwhile, in the staid and "family-oriented" Midwest, the married and single tax-rates are very similar.

But that's not my main point. My main point is that the $500K house in Los Angeles will be $1M in 15 or 20 years. The $250K house in Tennessee will be $300K in 15 or 20 years. I concede that my prognostics may be unrealistic, but they are an extrapolation of what I've seen in the past 25 or 30 years. Expensive places grow ever more expensive, because people actually want to move there. Inexpensive places stay inexpensive, because demand is muted. So when I finally join the choir-eternal, my estate reaps a handsome capital-gain in the California market, but far less in the Tennessee market.

Of course it's entirely possible that my analysis is simplistic. People might give up on Los Angeles, San Francisco, Boston, DC and NYC. Millennials perhaps can't afford to live there, and when the Silent Generation passes on, the glamor-cities will empty out in droves. The Knoxvilles and Savannahs and Peorias and Springfields everywhere will rise in relation, so that nation-wide real estate prices regress to what they were (in relative terms) in 1950. Maybe. But somehow I doubt that. Somehow it seems to me that in vast swaths of our country, housing will permanently cost less than its "real" construction-price (about $100-$200 per square foot), while in other parts, it will permanently cost more. If these trends persist, they are powerful incentive to move precisely where housing is MORE expensive, not less.

Just my two-cents....
Your last paragraph is probably closer to what the future holds. Well educated and often with family money first and second generation immigrants are flocking to where the high paying jobs are. Consider the Asian/Indian populations in many high cost areas. Contrast that with other lower cost areas. there are enough well educated and financially well off young people to sustain much of the more expensive areas. Birds of a feather do tend flock together and money begets money.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-19-2014, 12:56 PM
 
14,266 posts, read 24,021,014 times
Reputation: 20101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minervah View Post
Very, very true. In my case, I am getting the same of what I have been getting for the past 25 years but I am paying quadruple for it as the COL in my neighborhood alone continues to rise. And yes, I know COL does not remain static over the years in anyplace but I have seen comparisons of my neighborhood to other neighborhoods both in my city and in comparable cities in other states and the rise has been much greater in my area.

I will be moving to a place where I will be getting a lot more for my money. Someone else's budget might be different. No two stories are exactly the same. One would be foolish to make comparisons between people whose circumstances are entirely different. As you said, "Getting what you pay for, is difficult to quantify." To that I would add, determining what anyone else is getting what they are paying for is not really feasible.

I will agree with your post completely.

I will say the following things about the Cleveland area:

1) There is a lot of very affordable housing throughout the metropolitan area. Even if an area "gets hot" there is going to be a major upswing of rents (or purchase prices) that will force a lot of residents out.

2) Food prices - both groceries and restaurants - are very reasonably priced and will remain so as there are a lot of places where you can buy surplus and bulk goods as the community is surrounded by MAJOR Amish communities. In addition, the West Side Market offers a constant source of inexpensive produce.

3) In general, if your are a pleasant person, it is an easy place to make a lot of friends.

Some Cleveland area residents would bash me for saying this but I will. The city does not have the weather or the views or the personality that it is going to attract mobs of people and become the next hot spot. I have always said that "Cleveland is a great place to live, but you don't want to visit there." It has just about ANYTHING that you could want in a city but you have to look for it.

I came close to moving back a couple years back as I bid on a foreclosure that I used to own 1995-2000. However, my offer was not accepted.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-19-2014, 01:56 PM
 
Location: Lakewood OH
21,698 posts, read 23,692,507 times
Reputation: 35450
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlawrence01 View Post
I will agree with your post completely.

I will say the following things about the Cleveland area:

1) There is a lot of very affordable housing throughout the metropolitan area. Even if an area "gets hot" there is going to be a major upswing of rents (or purchase prices) that will force a lot of residents out.

2) Food prices - both groceries and restaurants - are very reasonably priced and will remain so as there are a lot of places where you can buy surplus and bulk goods as the community is surrounded by MAJOR Amish communities. In addition, the West Side Market offers a constant source of inexpensive produce.

3) In general, if your are a pleasant person, it is an easy place to make a lot of friends.

Some Cleveland area residents would bash me for saying this but I will. The city does not have the weather or the views or the personality that it is going to attract mobs of people and become the next hot spot. I have always said that "Cleveland is a great place to live, but you don't want to visit there." It has just about ANYTHING that you could want in a city but you have to look for it.

I came close to moving back a couple years back as I bid on a foreclosure that I used to own 1995-2000. However, my offer was not accepted.
That is a huge plus for me. I moved to Portland long before if became a hot spot to which all the little lemmings began to flock in mobs. It was unique and had it's own personality then and was different from other places to which I had been. The "Simpsons" episode, "The Day The Earth Stood Cool," ‘The Simpsons’ Hipster Episode Was Everything That’s Wrong With ‘The Simpsons’ Now – Flavorwire got it right. I think, I hope, that at my age, if Cleveland and/or the surrounding areas ever fall to this fate, I will be long gone to the next other worldly neighborhood and I won't have to live through it again.

Last edited by Minervah; 05-19-2014 at 02:06 PM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-19-2014, 08:04 PM
 
7,953 posts, read 5,058,504 times
Reputation: 13624
Quote:
Originally Posted by Escort Rider View Post
...you did not address my main point, which was that local and state income taxes are NOT the main component of cost of living, but rather that housing costs are. Do you still maintain that state and local income taxes are more important than housing prices in the cost of living?
For most people with a mortgage, I fully concede that their annual housing cost will exceed their state/local income taxes.

As we've all forthrightly admitted in this thread, everyone's situation is different. I won't pose as some mega-ultra-millionaire, though I've done OK. But because I choose to be extremely frugal, my income taxes far exceed ALL of my other expenses (combined) by a substantial margin. For persons without a mortgage, who own outright a fairly modest house, in an area with fairly modest property tax (not, for example, New Jersey), it is entirely possible that their state/local income taxes exceed their annual housing expenses, even if they're less frugal.

However, if the house appreciates in value, and is sold upon the owner's death, the estate makes a nice profit. If the house does not appreciate much, the estate might actually suffer a loss. It's important to note this gain vs. loss when calculating annual costs. A house might be "expensive" to carry from year to year, but if it happens to appreciate nicely, in the end this annual cost is washed away by profit upon selling.

My overarching point is that taxes are charged annually. Other costs are also ostensibly charged annually, but they represent assets and liabilities, whose real cost defies annual reckoning. This is why somebody's house might cost them more in annual cash-flow than their taxes, but when they (or their estate) divest themselves of this asset, the cumulative out-of-pocket expenses are obviated by the net-sum windfall (minus, I hasten to add, capital gains tax).

I don't want to sound like some Tea Party curmudgeon who asserts that all taxes are anathema all of the time, how government absolutely never does anything right, how we have a god-given right to retain 100% of our profits, and so forth. I don't believe that. Taxes do have their place. But it is important to realize that a person doesn't have to be all that affluent before the cost of taxes gobbles up the cost of his/her other expenses. So if we're going to compare cost-of-living, what we're really comparing is cost-of-taxes, and not real estate, transportation, food, or anything else.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-19-2014, 08:22 PM
 
Location: Forests of Maine
30,698 posts, read 49,495,894 times
Reputation: 19146
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohio_peasant View Post
... Taxes do have their place. But it is important to realize that a person doesn't have to be all that affluent before the cost of taxes gobbles up the cost of his/her other expenses. So if we're going to compare cost-of-living, what we're really comparing is cost-of-taxes, and not real estate, transportation, food, or anything else.
No mortgage here, I paid cash for our current home.

I can see where it would be possible for all taxes to be a large portion of your cost-of-living. I have lived in places where taxes were very high, and if it were not for the mortgage, then taxes would have possibly been a major part of the cost-of-living.

However in low tax areas, it is also possible for your tax-burden to be 10% or less of your cost-of-living.

I pay no income taxes, our property taxes for a very large new house and lots of acreage are fairly low [under $800/year].
Quick reply to this message
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 update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top