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.
My choice (I'll make up amounts, to give a sense of it all)::
Retirement city #1 (city of 125,000): House $240,000; Property taxes $2,000 more a year; No freezing of value or taxes at age 65, but an extra $10k exemption; Cost of living about 0.87% of national avg.
Retirement city #2 (city of 100,000): House $275,000 (for a somewhat comparable house); property taxes $2,000 LESS a year than city #1; Value of house frozen at age 65; Cost of living also about 0.90% of national avg. Also has $1,000 higher cost homeowner's insurance, and a small ($500 or less) state income tax.
Health care is less expensive in city #1. This is figured into the COL, but I wanted to single that out, since it's important to seniors. There is also more health care locally w/o going to a nearby big city. So their COL is about the same, but they are pricier or less pricey on different things.
Your choice would be......?????
Last edited by bpollen; 11-20-2016 at 01:07 PM..
Reason: Incorrect Heading
Assuming you are paying cash for the house, #2 would be my choice because of the property tax benefit at age 65 and the lower amount to begin with. If you have no mortgage, your ongoing housing cost into old age will be property taxes.
Not sure what you meant by $1000 homeowners insurance. Did you mean $1000 more for city #2 or that is the total?
BUT, as Slytrix said, which place do you like better? And can you afford either one?
Are you getting more and better services in City #1 for the extra taxes or is it just a matter of compensating for no state tax and maybe better schools (which can be a plus for all ages assuming these are not too high)? My city has higher property taxes than most other towns in my state primarily to pay for services for the less fortunate but at least we have a decent animal control department and some regulations on neutering and treatment of pets. Also the police department is responsive and when I had to call the city to turn off my water due to a leak, they were there in an hour. And good senior centers. Not so in most towns where there are few city ordinances and it is sort of a free for all.
In City #2, are the increased home insurance costs due to high crime or to natural disasters (e.g., flooding)? Will you have to travel to the larger city to see a dermatologist or cardiologist or pulmonary specialist or to get a mammogram and how far is it? Or are you referring to cancer treatment or a neurologist? If I had to drive an hour or more to go see a dermatologist, I would not be pleased (unless I wanted to go shop there anyway). Now it takes me 30 minutes to travel to see a doctor in my city so I don't consider a 45 minute or less drive to be that much of an inconvenience.
If medical is important or if you think you might have major problems driving as you age, I would go with City #1. If money is more of a factor and if any extra services in City #1 are not that important to you, I would go with City #2. But I agree that it is largely a matter of which city and state you prefer. (I can't stand the state for City #1 so would never live there).
Location: We_tside PNW (Columbia Gorge) / CO / SA TX / Thailand
34,584 posts, read 57,536,124 times
Reputation: 45993
none of the above, but go for frozen RE taxes if possible (depending on your wealth index). My property taxes have gone up 300% since I retired, and I am a LONG ways shy of age 65 (usual age for freezing).
For many, that is not even a 'minor' issue. Nor is $2,000/ month for HC with a $20,000 annual OoP. (up from $300/ month when I retired)
Small potatoes for many.
Assuming you are paying cash for the house, #2 would be my choice because of the property tax benefit at age 65 and the lower amount to begin with. If you have no mortgage, your ongoing housing cost into old age will be property taxes.
Not sure what you meant by $1000 homeowners insurance. Did you mean $1000 more for city #2 or that is the total?
BUT, as Slytrix said, which place do you like better? And can you afford either one?
The HO ins. for #2 is $1,000 MORE. HO ins. for #1 is, say, $1,000-$1,200/yr. HO ins for #2 would be $2,000-$2,200. Because of natural disaster risk.
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.
