logo
Once known as ‘Dirty Myrtle,' Myrtle Beach is now the fastest-growing US metro for seniors

Once known as ‘Dirty Myrtle,' Myrtle Beach is now the fastest-growing US metro for seniors

A South Carolina beach town once nicknamed 'Dirty Myrtle' because of its rowdy nightclubs and strip joints has become a magnet for retirees in a nation that continues to age.
The number of residents age 65 years and older in the Myrtle Beach metropolitan area grew by 6.3% last year, making it the fastest-growing metro area for senior citizens in the U.S., according to population estimates the U.S. Census Bureau released last week.
During the 2020s, Myrtle Beach's senior population has grown by more than 22%, also the fastest rate in the United States this decade. Senior citizens now make up more than a quarter of the around 413,000 residents in metro Myrtle Beach, which once was known for being a budget beach destination.
The community with a mile-long boardwalk and 200-foot Ferris wheel used to attract biker rallies which the city tried to end in the late 2000s because of the noise, traffic and rowdiness. But now the noisy streets have had to make room for quiet diners and pickleball courts.
The COVID-19 pandemic played a role in the area's senior boom as people in such places as Ohio and New York who had been vacationing for years in Myrtle Beach realized they could retire early or work from home anywhere, said Mark Kruea, a longtime public information officer for Myrtle Beach who is now running to be mayor.
'Many people converted that thought into action,' Kruea said. 'The climate's great, taxes are low, there's a wealth of opportunities for recreation, dining and shopping.'
A graying United States
The U.S. population age 65 and older rose by 3.1% last year, while the population under age 18 decreased by 0.2%. In the past two decades, seniors have increased from 12.4% to 18% of the U.S. population, while the share of children has dropped from 25% to 21.5%, according to the population estimates.
Maine, Vermont, and Florida were the only three states where older adults outnumbered children as recently as 2020. But four years later, those states were joined by Delaware, Hawaii, Montana, New Hampshire, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and West Virginia.
Maine last year had the oldest median age at 44.8, while Utah's was the youngest at 32.4.
Groups that saw the most growth
The share of the U.S. population that is Hispanic reached 20% last year for the first time, helped by an annual gain of 1.9 million Hispanics mostly through migration. In pure numbers, the Hispanic population grew the most last year in the New York, Houston and Miami metro areas. When it comes to growth rates, the biggest gains were in smaller metros such as Ocala, Florida; Panama City, Florida; and St. Joseph, Missouri.
For Black residents whose growth last year was split between migration and natural increase, the biggest gains were in the Houston, New York and Dallas-Fort Worth metro areas in pure numbers. Bozeman, Montana, and Provo, Utah — metro areas with tiny Black populations to start with — were tops in growth rates.
In pure numbers, the New York, Dallas-Fort Worth and Seattle metro areas had the biggest Asian population gains, and the growth came primarily from migration. The largest growth rates were in three metro areas with small Asian populations: Farmington, New Mexico; Bismarck, North Dakota; and Burlington, North Carolina.
The non-Hispanic white population in the United States declined slightly last year, but it grew the most in the Nashville, Tennessee; New York and Charlotte, North Carolina metro areas in pure numbers. The biggest growth rates for the white population were in the Myrtle Beach; Daphne-Fairhope, Alabama; and Wilmington, North Carolina metro areas.
The decline in the white population was driven by deaths outpacing births.
___
Follow Mike Schneider on the social platform Bluesky:
@mikeysid.bsky.social
.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump's 'big beautiful' budget bill includes a new tax break worth up to $2,000—around 90% of filers could take advantage
Trump's 'big beautiful' budget bill includes a new tax break worth up to $2,000—around 90% of filers could take advantage

CNBC

time10 minutes ago

  • CNBC

Trump's 'big beautiful' budget bill includes a new tax break worth up to $2,000—around 90% of filers could take advantage

House Republicans on Thursday voted to pass President Donald Trump's massive budget bill, making good on a promise to deliver the legislation to the president's desk by July 4. The bill promises continuity for taxpayers by permanently extending the cuts from the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act as well as a raft of new cuts, including breaks for tipped and overtime income. The new law also includes a throwback: an above-the-line deduction on charitable contributions. The bill allows taxpayers who don't itemize to deduct up to $1,000 for single filers and $2,000 for married couples filing jointly. "This could provide some tax savings for folks," says Erica York, vice president of federal tax policy at the Tax Foundation. "That could be something unexpected if you're not currently deducting charitable giving." Most people don't currently deduct charitable contributions — and it's not because they're not generous or don't want a tax break. Other than under the Covid-19 relief bill, taxpayers generally have had to itemize deductions in order to get a break for charitable giving. For most people, that doesn't make sense. Some 9 in 10 taxpayers take the standard deduction, which in 2025 is $15,000 for single filers and $30,000 for joint filers. You'd typically only itemize if the sum of your deductions would save you more money than just taking the standard deduction. In short, the new law allows anyone who donates to charity to get a tax break — not just the mega-philanthropists among us. Because these deductions reduce your taxable income, they're the most beneficial for people in the highest tax brackets. A $1,000 deduction from income is effectively worth $100 to someone in the 10% tax bracket. The same deduction is worth $350 to someone in the 35% bracket. You'll still have to follow the IRS' rules on charitable giving to get the break. Donations must be made to qualifying charitable organizations — donations to political campaigns, crowdfunding efforts and, in the case of the proposed tax break, donor-advised funds won't be eligible. Before you make a donation you plan on deducting, check the IRS' search tool to make sure the organization is tax-exempt. And be sure to get a receipt for your donation; the IRS generally requires written acknowledgement of any donation in excess of $250.

9 Questions About the Republican Megabill, Answered
9 Questions About the Republican Megabill, Answered

New York Times

time27 minutes ago

  • New York Times

9 Questions About the Republican Megabill, Answered

President Trump's sprawling domestic policy bill has passed the House and Senate, and now awaits the president's signature. Below, some answers to questions you may have. This bill is truly enormous, in terms of its: Scope: There is no modern precedent for a bill that simultaneously cuts taxes and the social safety net while providing new spending for priorities like immigration enforcement. Tax cuts: $4.5 trillion over a decade, most with no expiration date. A major goal was to extend the Trump tax cuts that were passed in 2017 and set to expire, but the cost to the government is higher this time. Spending cuts: $1.7 trillion, including a 12 percent cut to Medicaid, an unprecedented reduction in spending on the federal-state health insurance program for poor Americans. New spending: $450 billion, including a 150 percent boost to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement budget over the next five years. Contribution to the federal debt: Nearly $3.4 trillion as written ($4.1 trillion including interest), and $5.5 trillion if temporary provisions are extended. That's more than the combination of the 2022 CHIPS Act, the 2021 infrastructure act and the two largest Covid relief bills. Number of provisions: 309. Among them are a new $250 fee for the issue of student or worker visas and a $1,000 government contribution to tax-advantaged savings accounts for babies called 'Trump accounts.' A lot depends on your individual circumstances. Do you have a parent in a nursing home who uses Medicaid? Do you have a child who is going to need a student loan? Do you make a lot of money in tips? Do you plan to put solar panels on your roof? The bill has provisions that affect all of these things and many more, some positive, some negative. In general, most Americans will pay less in federal income taxes under this bill than they would if the tax cuts passed in 2017 were instead allowed to expire. But Americans at the bottom of the income spectrum will see many of their benefits cut. Most poor Americans don't pay federal income taxes and won't get a boost from the tax cut. The bill reduces spending on food assistance and Medicaid, which many poor Americans rely on. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

Companies caught in digital services tax crossfire as CRA won't issue refunds
Companies caught in digital services tax crossfire as CRA won't issue refunds

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Companies caught in digital services tax crossfire as CRA won't issue refunds

The Canadian government has been introducing tax policy by press release for far too long. Sometimes it's inevitable in order to restore fairness to the system or to curb perceived abuses. Lately, however, these press releases have been the tool du jour. For example, during COVID-19, tax practitioners were often glued to their screens waiting for the next press release affecting the steady stream of tax measures and extensions. An extension to the filing deadline for the 2022 Underused Housing Tax Returns was made by press release. The same for bare trusts in 2023. Then came the capital gains inclusion rate proposals in the 2024 federal budget. Fraught with problems from the start, the proposals were first 'deferred' until Jan. 1, 2026, by a Department of Finance press release on Jan. 31, 2025, and then apparently killed by Prime Minister Mark Carney through an unusual press release through the PM's website. Now, the digital services tax (DST) was rescinded by a press release on Sunday. The DST applies to certain large corporations and was passed into law in June 2024, retroactive to 2022. The first collections of such tax were required to be made by affected corporations on June 30, 2025. Carney, when questioned about the timing of the announcement, said it 'did not make sense to collect a tax and then remit the revenue back.' In other words, if you're going to repeal it, then do so before it requires payments to be made by taxpayers. But what if affected companies had already paid their otherwise required remittances? I'm aware of some companies that made remittances amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars before the June 30 deadline. Can they now get a swift refund? Well, notwithstanding that the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) has said it will not require the filing of DST returns or enforce DST payments, it also said it has no legal authority to refund such amounts until the DST legislation is formally repealed. On its face, that may be correct, given that the DST legislation is still valid law, despite the June 29 press release killing it. However, if correct, on what legal authority does the CRA have to not require filing and collection? Where is the symmetry? More importantly, is that fair? It isn't. Why? Let's start with CRA's long-standing policy to administer proposed tax legislation as if it were law. This approach was recently debated during the capital gains debacle: the proposals were on life support, but the CRA was still administering them as if they were law. This caused havoc amongst taxpayers and their advisers. Earlier this month, the proposed one per cent personal tax rate reduction was introduced as a bill to Parliament, but did not pass before it recessed for the summer. In other words, the cut still has substantial legislative hurdles to overcome before it becomes law, retroactive to July 1, 2025. But the CRA is administering this as if it were law and the government is trumpeting the reduction. One of the common threads is that the CRA will administer proposed tax laws if there is legislative intent before Parliament, such as a Notice of Ways and Means Motion or a bill. But a press release? No. It's apparently not good enough when it comes to refunding amounts paid before the press release, but good enough to not require filing and remittance after the press release. Sometimes, common sense needs to prevail, and that was part of the problem with the capital gains debacle. With respect to the DST, we need some common sense. Parliament won't sit again until mid-September, so by the time a bill is presented for repeal, it could be months before the refunds are finally issued. Some solutions? The Digital Services Act provides a refund mechanism under subsection 60(1) as follows: 'If a person, otherwise than because of an assessment, has paid any moneys in error to His Majesty in right of Canada, whether by reason of mistake of fact or law or otherwise, and the moneys have been taken into account by His Majesty in right of Canada as taxes, penalties, interest or other amounts under this act, then an amount equal to the amount of the moneys must, subject to this act, be refunded to the person …' This would seem to give the CRA some wiggle room, but it doesn't seem to agree. Perhaps it is fussed with the opening language of the provision since it is debatable whether such amounts have been paid 'in error,' given the act is still valid law. But if that is the reason, why not continue to enforce filing and collection? This appears to be inconsistent. One tax practitioner has suggested the government should grant a remission order that would instruct the CRA to swiftly refund amounts remitted by those companies. That's a great idea. A remission order is an order issued under the Financial Administration Act that requires the government to pay back taxes and other amounts where the collection of those amounts is unreasonable or unjust or not in the public interest. Given the late June 29 announcement and Carney's apparent agreement that remittance and refunds don't make sense, it would be logical for the government to find a quick solution for those companies that diligently complied with the DST and made their required remittances before the government's press release. Tax by press release may be convenient, but it breeds confusion, undermines confidence and leads to inconsistent tax administration. The CRA's rigid application of its administrative policy doesn't always serve fairness. It's time for both to be re-evaluated. It's just common sense. Kim Moody, FCPA, FCA, TEP, is the founder of Moodys Tax/Moodys Private Client, a former chair of the Canadian Tax Foundation, former chair of the Society of Estate Practitioners (Canada) and has held many other leadership positions in the Canadian tax community. He can be reached at kgcm@ and his LinkedIn profile is __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store