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.
One commonality of the ten cities - except for Memphis: They are all fairly small - around 100,000 give or take. But that stands to reason if the main criteria was low cost of living. I continue to maintain that the cost of housing is the biggest single determinant in the cost of living, and that cost is going to be higher in the bigger places (allowing for a few exceptions such as Detroit).
One commonality of the ten cities - except for Memphis: They are all fairly small - around 100,000 give or take. But that stands to reason if the main criteria was low cost of living. I continue to maintain that the cost of housing is the biggest single determinant in the cost of living, and that cost is going to be higher in the bigger places (allowing for a few exceptions such as Detroit).
Pretty much. In your state, Sacramento would likely be a decent example of a lower cost, big city. At the risk of generalizing, and I am anyway, cities are usually more liberal than rural areas and seem to delight in taxing everything they can without much, if any, dissent from their denizens.
Pretty much. In your state, Sacramento would likely be a decent example of a lower cost, big city. At the risk of generalizing, and I am anyway, cities are usually more liberal than rural areas and seem to delight in taxing everything they can without much, if any, dissent from their denizens.
I would agree that urban areas tend to be more liberal than rural. Urban areas place a greater demand on services and people that live in those areas are more willing to pay for those services. I am not sure that it is strictly a "lets tax the crap out of everyone".
Rural areas don't have the demand for things like public transportation, massive infrastructure costs, etc. so their taxes would, logically, be lower.
As to the housing point, it's all about supply and demand. 8 million people competing for housing will naturally drive the costs higher than 50k people competing for housing.
One commonality of the ten cities - except for Memphis: They are all fairly small - around 100,000 give or take. But that stands to reason if the main criteria was low cost of living. I continue to maintain that the cost of housing is the biggest single determinant in the cost of living, and that cost is going to be higher in the bigger places (allowing for a few exceptions such as Detroit).
It won't be long and Detroit will be a ghost town. Property there will go for a song and dance.
Housing is a huge part of living even before retirement. If you put money to an apartment that is money gone. If you buy a house that is money that will have at the base of it some return albeit at an actual loss due to intrest payments minus deductions on taxes so loss is less. But if the house increases in value well it is actually something for later. The point though is wether in retirement or in working housing is that elephant in the room.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iagal
I've read that Winston-Salem has excellent medical care associated with Wake University. That is one place on the list that I would consider.
Winston Salem is a very pretty area. It has been said it is a top place to live retired or not.
It is a good idea for everyone to make a list of what they want in retirement and why. Check that against whatever location you want to consider (current home or far away). See what it is that you really want and where it will best be served.
Yes. At one time it seemed that most of those retirement communities were where it was at. But most were located in the middle of nowhere, where taxes were cheap for the owners of the complex. The low taxes also bought low services, poor or no medical facilities, air and ground transportation services, etc. Just great golf courses.
Now there is not so much of a demand for golf and people seem to prefer to be in areas with those services.
Sometimes, when you are working, you dream of a stress free life in the country somewhere, but after you retire for a few years you realize that that might be exceedingly boring. Some people need a bit of excitement and need to stay plugged in and involved.
So, it's good not to commit until you are sure.
Bernie Meltzer (anyone remember him?) used to advise folks to, if they could afford it, travel to the area they'd like to live in and rent for a year before buying.
Location: Chapel Hill, NC, formerly NoVA and Phila
9,781 posts, read 15,802,795 times
Reputation: 10894
Quote:
Originally Posted by goldengrain
.
Bernie Meltzer (anyone remember him?) used to advise folks to, if they could afford it, travel to the area they'd like to live in and rent for a year before buying.
Yes, I remember Bernard Meltzer! My dad used to listen to him on the radio all the time (in the Philadelphia area). I, being a child, thought it was so so boring and would beg him to turn it off.
Yes, I remember Bernard Meltzer! My dad used to listen to him on the radio all the time (in the Philadelphia area). I, being a child, thought it was so so boring and would beg him to turn it off.
I can see it not appealing to kids.
If you work and are a property owner, though, and did not have an attorney on retainer, he gave good practical information on how to cope with the mostly economic daily ups and downs. Most of this were things you could only learn from experience or if you had a good network of friends. I felt a lot more confident after listening to Uncle Bernie for a while.
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.