Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeNigh
Does it financially make sense to retire in NYC? Location wise I mean retiring in the same home you bought that let you work 30 minutes from the lower half of Manhattan. It seems that if you are within 30 minutes of the lower part of Manhattan either taxes or maintenance fees are high enough that retiring there doesn't make sense. Therefore I guess, working in manhattan is only for people who will be there during their prime and leave when they retire?
|
If you live wiithin 30 minutes, it means you have lived and worked in the most expensive areas of Manhattan, and/or in the most expensive areas of Brooklyn and NJ (there are rich areas beyond 30 minutes).
Queens, most rich areas are beyond 30 minutes, with some exception, most areas within 30 minutes are relatively low income, and the majority do not own homes.
But, the real reality is that there is nowhere in Queens which allows 30 minute access to BOTH midtown, downtown, and the area in between.
So Queens does not meet the criteria. (Though, there are a few *young* newly developed areas of some prosperity, which have the potential to be *rich* neighborhoods, but it is too soon to include in any retirement scenarios. Still, these *new* areas may be beyond the 30 minute perimeter.)
Staten Island, also, does not meet the criteria, for the same reason. 30 minutes access to BOTH downtown and midtown is not feasible.
The Bronx is similarly eliminated, and w/b the worst case scenario for 30 minute access.
****
So, generally, with some exception, most everyone within 30 minutes of midtown and downtown, would fall into the HIGHEST income brackets in NYC.
An adult having lived a lifetime in such an area, is likely to be NYC upper middle class to outright rich!
So, the prospect of "retirement" for such people would, indeed, include not only a NYC *home*, but also a second *home*. Likely to be located anywhere on the east coast and/or the Carribean.
Many would also have a THIRD *home*.
So, retirement for the vast majority of these folks does NOT fall within the typical parameters within which TAXES are an issue; or, such that the affordability of such would dictate where one retires.
Of course, there is *some* exception, but I do not think, it is the "exception" which you had in mind.
****
It would appear that you are quite unfamilar with NYC and the surrounding area, and the level of wealth therein.
You, also, appear to think of the tax burden of NYC, residents of the five boroughs, as being similar to that of typical localities outside of NYC, near and far.
The bulk of NYC's tax burden, unlike most localities, is borne NOT by its residents, BUT by the business and commercial entities within its borders. The collective tax receipts from Business and Commerical real estate is so vast, that residential real estate taxes are, comparative with EVERYWHERE else in the US, very LOW!
NYC has LOW residential real estate taxes, but NYC does have a progressive income tax. NYC, unlike most locales, is NOT dependant upon residential real estate taxes in order to provide services; and, the progressive tax burden, is also, relatively low. Though, the richer you are the more onerous it *appears*; and, in some cases, more a matter of principle, causes a few of the wealthy to abandon the city, as primary residence. Generally, retreating to nearby counties, wherein they have secondary homes (and are generally within 30 to 60 minutes of midtown). These folks are likely LESS than 1% of the subject population.
NYC does have a level of *social* services and consequent revenue burden, which FAR exceeds virtually all other locales with the exception of Chicago, Boston, and a few locales in California. In that regard, California and Illinois are virtually, if not liiterally, BANKRUPT! Which does and will create an onerous tax burden upon retirees.
Boston is still in the midst of determing which way it will fall in the face of a huge budget consequent to the cost of its social services.
NYC, in addition to business/commerical RE taxes, also taxes BUSINESS income. It is *this* revenue, which varies according to the fortunes year to year, and business cycle to business cyle, which determines the level of prosperity of Government and the city itsel! Lean years, generally hail calls for tax increas (usually upon the *rich*), and social service cutbacks. The specter of raising 'residential real estate taxes' is a political football, which rarely gets passed. NYC, normally muddles through, with much political consternation, until the next upturn in the business cycle, and revenue is restored!
At present, despite the onerous social services budget, due to good government by its present and former Mayor and administration, is the BEST financially positioned large muncipality in the US. At the moment, NYC is FAR from going broke.
Specifically, during this Great Recession, which has come to break the budgets of MANY other locales and States, NYC has faired WELL!
That said, there is NO guarantee upon the future; and the present good financial prospect could *easily* and *quickly* become undone. The choice of Mayor and adminstration to follow Bloomberg will be CRUCIAL in determining the future financial course of this city!
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.
