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.
It helps to read the article..."One reason is that 28 percent of Vermonters under the age of 65 are on Medicaid compared to 20 percent nationally. That difference translates into a higher cost out of the state budget. The state has enacted programs and policies over the past several decades to encourage people to enroll in Medicaid. But that has not significantly reduced the number of uninsured Vermonters. Many of the non-poor people on Medicaid were formerly on their employers’ health care plans or bought health insurance on the private market. Over time that number has fallen and the number on Medicaid has increased."
It helps to read the article..."One reason is that 28 percent of Vermonters under the age of 65 are on Medicaid compared to 20 percent nationally. That difference translates into a higher cost out of the state budget. The state has enacted programs and policies over the past several decades to encourage people to enroll in Medicaid. But that has not significantly reduced the number of uninsured Vermonters. Many of the non-poor people on Medicaid were formerly on their employers’ health care plans or bought health insurance on the private market. Over time that number has fallen and the number on Medicaid has increased."
That doesn't change the fact of the matter. (Btw, I definitely agree that our national healthcare system is a disgrace.)
A problem arises when these rating articles encounter geographically large states, where the majority of the population is centered around one area. The evaluation, climate and cost-of-living, focus on the densely populated metro areas, and fail to acknowledge that the climate and COL may be considerably different in other areas of the state. The only constant that has any value in these ratings, is state taxes.
This is most apparent with midwestern states that border the Great Lakes in the north, and the Ohio River in the south.
Well your worst state might be my favorite state, as your favorite state is probably my worst state. Good and bad in everyplace. These lists, made up by 20 somethings sitting in their New York coffee shops, amuse me.
I'd be surprised if they could pick out all 50 states on a map. Many can't even read a road map, unless it's moving with a pointer on their phone.
That said, I agree with what they said about New Mexico. Not only is the state poor, their lack of senior services was glaring. Very pretty there, but scary.
We have our housing covered here in California and know how to live here cheaply....so we’re good.
At least they put the list on one page. Most of these usually have you click to the next page for each ranking. And you wait while all the ads load.
The CA state taxes are progressive but increase very rapidly at even modest incomes - at just above 44K in CA you are in the 8% bracket - NY doesn't hit 8% till well over $1M. CA is OK if have a modest income.
That's for singles. It's double that for marrieds. A married couple with 100k in retirement income and 30k of that being social security is not going to come close to an 8% tax on the highest dollar earned. Its going to end up being about the same as Arizona, or about half as much as in Oregon.
That is crazy!!! But then again, people who can afford to live in home where they pay $6,000/month for property taxes to them that amount of money is equivalent $600/month to me, $300/month to someone else, etc.
Like usual, even Vermont is "it depends". Vermont has a stiff statewide school property tax. It's means tested. The state income tax bottom bracket extends up to $64,600 on a joint return. If you're around $60K, Vermont doesn't tax Social Security benefits. Married and retired with $60K mixed between 401(k) distributions and Social Security, you're not paying much tax. If you're within 30 miles of Burlington or Dartmouth-Hitchcock, you have really good health care access.
There is a flip side. I have friends who retired to Vermont and lived fairly low tax until 401(k) RMDs kicked in at 70 1/2 and all the means tested stuff vanished. It was cheaper for them to buy a condo in Florida, declare residence there, and let the tax savings pay for the condo. They're at Beaver Creek for the 2 or 3 prime ski months so their Vermont place is mostly a summer house these days.
I have a NYS pension that is taxable in Vermont. It would be better for me just to move to the NY side of the Vermont border. I am not married and my pension is around $80k before federal taxes. I am 61 so no SS yet.
Went to a wedding in northern Vermont one late summer. It was held at a country B&B. I’ve got a photo of my son and his cousins kicking a soccer ball around the grounds. In it you can see the rays of sunshine coming down from a deep, almost navy, blue sky. Crazy beautiful place. Winters can be very tough, though, and long, long.
There is a writers retreat in an old inn that I've gone to a few times. I have been there in winter, fall, and spring, aka Mud Season, and it is just a beautiful place to be. Well, the mud is kind of messy.
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.
