Americans face vastly different retirement costs across states as Social Security cuts loom
How much money a person needs to have saved to retire without financial stress is an important consideration in the retirement preparation process, and that can vary depending on various factors, including where someone intends to live and their retirement income sources.
Advertisement
A study released this week by GOBankingRates calculated the amount of money that a 'comfortable' retirement would require without income from Social Security factored in and the associated yearly expenses a retiree would face in each U.S. state.
The analysis comes as Social Security, a common source of retirement income, is looking at potential financing issues with its trust funds in the future.
8 Pompano Beach, Florida.
Matthew Tighe – stock.adobe.com
The trustees for Social Security and Medicare recently found that if Social Security's Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Disability Insurance trust funds were combined, the trust funds would be able to pay 100% of scheduled benefits until 2034, one year earlier than reported last year. After that, the trust funds would be able to pay only 81% of scheduled benefits, meaning Social Security recipients would see a mandatory 19% cut automatically.
Advertisement
For the GOBankingRates study, the benchmark for a 'comfortable' retirement was a person holding twice the amount of money as the cost of living expenses.
Hawaii tops the list of where the most savings would be necessary to retire 'comfortably' at 60 years old without Social Security, while West Virginia, nicknamed the Mountain State, required the least, it said.
8 For the GOBankingRates study, the benchmark for a 'comfortable' retirement was a person holding twice the amount of money as the cost of living expenses.
InsideCreativeHouse – stock.adobe.com
GOBankingRates found the nest egg that a person would need to accommodate a comfortable retirement at 60 years old sans Social Security in each state.
Advertisement
Alabama ($70,492 cost of living per year): $1,409,839
Alaska ($110,457 cost of living per year): $2,209,137
Arizona ($100,281 cost of living per year): $2,005,627
Arkansas ($67,502 cost of living per year): $1,350,045
Advertisement
California ($155,117 cost of living per year): $3,102,333
Colorado ($114,744 cost of living per year): $2,294,882
Idaho ($101,912 cost of living per year): $2,038,236
8 Aerial view of Nantucket Island.
Kevin – stock.adobe.com
Illinois ($79,736 cost of living per year): $1,594,716
Indiana ($74,029 cost of living per year): $1,480,575
Iowa ($71,373 cost of living per year): $1,427,463
Kansas ($71,534 cost of living per year): $1,430,672
Advertisement
Kentucky ($71,410 cost of living per year): $1,428,204
Louisiana ($67,482 cost of living per year): $1,349,639
Maryland ($101,991 cost of living per year): $2,039,812
8 Downtown Birmingham, Alabama, from Vulcan Park
Robert Hainer – stock.adobe.com
Advertisement
Maine ($98,612 cost of living per year): $1,972,231
Massachusetts ($136,626 cost of living): $2,732,517
Michigan ($73,780 cost of living per year): $1,475,595
Minnesota ($88,321 cost of living per year): $1,766,414
Advertisement
Mississippi ($65,523 cost of living per year): $1,310,451
Missouri ($73,667 cost of living per year): $1,473,335
Montana ($102,916 cost of living per year): $2,058,322
8 Waikiki Beach and Diamond Head, Oahu, Hawaii.
tomas del amo – stock.adobe.com
Advertisement
Nebraska ($76,792 cost of living per year): $1,535,846
Nevada ($103,661 cost of living per year): $2,073,215
New Hampshire ($110,761 cost of living per year): $2,215,216
New Jersey ($118,338 cost of living per year): $2,366,765
New Mexico ($81,627 cost of living per year): $1,632,542
New York ($105,619 cost of living per year): $2,112,384
North Carolina ($86,857 cost of living per year): $1,737,146
8 The Brooklyn Bridge and the Manhattan skyline.
jakartatravel – stock.adobe.com
North Dakota ($78,734 cost of living per year): $1,574,682
Ohio ($73,120 cost of living per year): $1,462,391
Oklahoma ($69,161 cost of living per year): $1,383,214
Oregon ($111,541 cost of living per year): $2,230,814
Pennsylvania ($78,582 cost of living per year): $1,571,642
Rhode Island ($109,811 cost of living per year): $2,196,222
South Carolina ($81,586 cost of living per year): $1,631,721
South Dakota ($81,949 cost of living per year): $1,638,979
8 Teton Village homes at sunrise with fog in the valley.
Nicole – stock.adobe.com
Tennessee ($81,474 cost of living per year): $1,629,482
Texas ($81,985 cost of living per year): $1,639,693
Utah ($110,623 cost of living per year): $2,212,458
Vermont ($97,999 cost of living per year): $1,959,971
Virginia ($96,141 cost of living per year): $1,922,813
Washington ($126,952 cost of living per year): $2,539,048
West Virginia ($64,715 cost of living per year): $1,294,300
8 The analysis comes as Social Security, a common source of retirement income, is looking at potential financing issues with its trust funds in the future.
lordn – stock.adobe.com
Wisconsin ($84,485 cost of living per year): $1,689,700
Wyoming ($88,792 cost of living per year): $1,775,841
In early June, a Gallup survey found 50% of non-retired U.S. adults that own a retirement savings account felt they 'expect to have enough to live comfortably in retirement.'
Confidence was lower among those that lacked a retirement savings account, with only 31% reporting they anticipated having sufficient funds for comfortable golden years.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
28 minutes ago
- Fox News
Employees across America shaken by deadly office attack: What to know to stay safe
When a gunman opened fire at 345 Park Avenue, panic spilled out of the Manhattan skyscraper, reaching many Americans working far from the glass towers of corporate New York. Patrick Timlin, CEO of SilverSEAL Corporation and a veteran of both law enforcement and private security, told Fox News Digital that security "is not just for skyscrapers, but for the town hall in a small county, a school, or a mom-and-pop grocery store." Timlin wants everyday professionals, from software engineers in suburban office parks to receptionists in distribution centers, to realize that the most effective defense starts with simplicity, consistency, and awareness. "Stress-free, not fear-based," he said. "You empower people when you train them." For Timlin, the most effective workplace security measures don't come from fear-driven protocols or flashy gadgets. "It's not about paranoia," he says. "It's about awareness." He points to one of the most overlooked safety gaps: employees not knowing their own office layout. "You'd be surprised how many people take the elevator to the third floor every day, grab coffee, and don't have any clue where the emergency exits are," Timlin explains. "That's a problem." He advised employees to know your exits, know your options if forced to exit and walk the space to keep an eye on potentially hiding spots. He recommended that organizations adopt the "Run, Hide, Fight" framework from the Department of Homeland Security and tailor it to their office. "You might not get to choose the order," he adds, "but you should know the principles." "Training doesn't need to frighten people. It just needs to stick," Timlin says. "Done right, it's stress-free, not fear-based. That's how you empower people." Before investing the latest in the tech space, Timlin encouraged companies to invest in a risk assessment of the office space and create a measured plan to accommodate safety gaps. "Don't start buying widgets off the shelf that you don't need," he said. "They're going to gather dust, and people are going to forget about it." He shared that he's created a risk assessment plan and often companies miss the obvious — and free — options. "If you fortify three sides of the house and the back door is still open, you missed something," he said. "Just by locking the doors—something that costs nothing—you can close major gaps. You'd be surprised how often we see that." Timlin emphasized that a security program should be a "living, breathing thing." "Security mitigation services should be evidence-based, not cookie-cutter," he said. "It needs to be meaningful and manageable. That's what I call M&M." Whether in a Manhattan skyscraper or a suburban office park, safety starts with awareness, preparation, and compassion. "You empower people when you train them," Timlin said. "This isn't about paranoia. It's about knowing your exits, locking the back door, and looking out for one another." Two high-profile acts of violence, less than a year apart, have dramatically reshaped how corporate America thinks about workplace safety. On Monday, a gunman opened fire at 345 Park Avenue in Manhattan, killing four and injuring several others. The attacker, 27-year-old Shane Devon Tamura, entered the office tower with an assault rifle and body armor, fatally shooting a security guard, a Blackstone executive, a Rudin Management associate, and an off-duty NYPD officer before taking his own life. Surveillance footage showed employees barricading themselves in offices. Just eight months earlier, on Dec. 4, 2024, UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson was ambushed and shot outside a hotel ahead of an investor event. The gunman, identified as Luigi Mangione, allegedly planned the attack in advance. Authorities described it as a targeted assassination. In Chesapeake, Virginia in 2022, Andre Marcus Bing, a 31-year-old Walmart supervisor, opened fire in a break room, killing six coworkers before turning the gun on himself. Bing had complained of harassment and left behind a manifesto filled with resentment. A few months later, in Half Moon Bay, California in 2023, Chunli Zhao, a 66-year-old farmworker, killed seven colleagues at two agricultural sites after expressing grievances over mistreatment and wages. That attack, carried out in a rural setting with limited oversight, highlighted how even small, tight-knit operations are not immune to internal violence. Then in Louisville, Kentucky in 2023, Connor Sturgeon, a 25-year-old bank employee facing termination, walked into a staff meeting and killed five coworkers while live-streaming the assault.
Newsweek
39 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Wealthy Americans Buy Up London Mansions Amid Price Slump
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Wealthy Americans are taking advantage of the ongoing slump in London's luxury home market to snap up properties in the city for a significantly lower price than these mansions would have fetched a few years ago. According to data from Beauchamp Estates, a luxury real-estate agent in the U.K. capital, U.S. nationals accounted for 25 percent of prime purchases in the city last year, up from 18 percent in 2023. In the first six months of the year, American and Middle Eastern buyers together were behind 50 percent of all high-value transactions in London, up from 45 percent in 2024, which include deals totaling more than £15 million ($20 million). Swimming Against the Tide American buyers are flocking to the London luxury home market at the same time as many so-called non-doms—U.K. residents whose permanent home, for tax purposes, is outside the U.K.—are leaving the capital. The Labour government, which has led the U.K. since last year's general elections, has announced plans to abolish the non-dom tax status. Under current laws, non-doms pay taxes in the U.K. only on the money they earn in the country. They do not pay taxes made anywhere else in the world. This offers an incredible advantage to wealthy individuals who can choose to pay duties in states with lower taxes than the U.K. while effectively still living in the U.K. According to the latest data by the country's HM Revenue & Customs, some 74,000 people claimed non-dom status in 2022-2023. A general view of large residential town houses in Green Street, Mayfair, in London on January 9. A general view of large residential town houses in Green Street, Mayfair, in London on January changes announced by the British government, the non-dom status would be abolished and replaced with a residence-based regime. Non-doms living in the U.K. have been given a three-year period of transition to bring their foreign wealth onshore. Non-doms' recent exodus from the U.K. has caused London's luxury home market to wobble, with sales and prices falling in recent months. According to Beauchamp Estates, there has been a 13 percent drop in the number of deals for the sale of $20 million-plus homes in the capital between January and June compared to a year earlier. The company said 70 percent of the vendors of these high-end homes were non-doms moving overseas to places such as Miami, Dubai, Milan and Monaco. "The top of the market has lost momentum—and much of that comes down to the government's stance on non-doms," Becky Fatemi, the executive partner at Sotheby's International Realty U.K., told Newsweek. "The message couldn't be clearer: International wealth isn't as welcome as it once was. Predictably, some of the biggest global buyers have backed off, pulling out of deals or funneling their money into more tax-friendly markets like Italy, Monaco, and Dubai," she added. That's left a noticeable hole in the high-end home market. "Trophy homes that once sparked bidding wars are now sitting—not because the appetite has vanished completely, but because buyers are more selective, price-sensitive, and wary," Fatemi said. "Deals are still happening, but they're slower, tougher, and take serious effort to get over the line. Behind every sale, there's a lot heavier lifting." But as the superrich leave London and slash prices on the properties they are leaving behind to attract new buyers, wealthy individuals who previously could not have afforded these luxury homes are finally swooping in—including many Americans. Why Are Wealthy Americans Seeking Properties in London? "Americans were never eligible for non-dom perks—the IRS taxes them globally, wherever they live—so the U.K.'s reforms are largely irrelevant," Fatemi said. "While other international buyers reassess, Americans are charging in. With Trump back in the White House, we're seeing a spike in U.S. clients who want out—not just for political reasons, but for lifestyle ones, too," she added. "London offers everything they want: relative stability, culture, top schools, and prime property that still looks like a bargain thanks to the strong dollar. These aren't speculative purchases; they're buying real homes, with real intent," Fatemi said. The London properties that wealthy Americans are buying are concentrated in some of the most expensive and exclusive neighborhoods in the city—such as Chelsea, Mayfair, Kensington, Notting Hill, Belgravia, St. John's Wood and Hampstead—according to data from Beauchamp Estates. They include homes averaging 9,230 square feet and apartments spreading over an average 5,397 square feet—notably bigger properties than those purchased in 2024. For Beauchamp Estates, this means that buyers are looking at these homes as primary residences "with lateral space and long-term livability." Rising living costs and growing crime rates in the U.S., combined with political uncertainty and tax-driven wealth increases, are behind the surge in interest for London's luxury homes among American buyers, according to Beauchamp Estates. Even with a softer dollar, "the pound is still weak compared to pre-Brexit days, and prime prices haven't rebounded to 2014 levels, so there's value on the table" for American homebuyers, Fatemi said. "But the bigger driver is mindset. When someone's ready to leave the U.S.—for politics, lifestyle, or a sense of security—they're not waiting for the perfect exchange rate. They want somewhere livable, stable, and globally connected. London ticks every box," she said. "Currency helps, but it's not the full story. What we're seeing is a deeper, more personal shift, and it's not going anywhere."
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
We're Lying to Ourselves About Taxes, Spending, and the Debt
Having extended most of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and added even more tax breaks, Congress is once again punting on the central fiscal question of our time: What kind of government do Americans want seriously enough to pay for? Yes, the "Big Beautiful Bill" avoided a massive tax increase and includes pro-growth reforms. It also adds to the debt—by how much is debatable—and that's before we get to the budgetary reckoning of Social Security and Medicare's impending insolvency. Against that backdrop, it's infuriating to see a $9 billion rescission package—one drop in the deficit bucket—met with cries of bloody murder. The same can be said of the apocalyptic discourse surrounding the Big Beautiful Bill's reduction in Medicaid spending. In spite of the cuts, the program is projected to grow drastically over the next 10 years. In fact, the reforms barely scratch the surface considering its enormous growth under former President Joe Biden. Maybe we wouldn't keep operating this way—pretending like minor trims are major reforms while refusing to tackle demographic and entitlement time bombs ticking beneath our feet—if we stayed focused on the question of what, considering the cost, we're willing to pay for. Otherwise, it's too easy to continue committing a generational injustice toward our children and grandchildren. That's because all the benefits and subsidies that we're unwilling to pay for will eventually have to be paid for in the future with higher taxes, inflation, or both. That's morally and economically reprehensible. Admitting we have a problem is hard. Fixing it is even harder, especially when politicians obscure costs and fail to recognize the following realities. First, growing the economy can, of course, be part of the solution. It creates more and better opportunities, raising incomes and tax revenue without raising tax rates—the rising tide that can lift many fiscal boats. But when we're this far underwater, short of a miracle produced by an energy and artificial intelligence revolution, growth alone simply won't be enough. Raising taxes on the rich will fall short too. Despite another round of loud calls to do so, like those now emanating from the New York City mayoral campaign, remember: The federal tax code is already highly progressive. Here's something else that should be common knowledge: Higher tax rates do not automatically translate to more tax revenue. Not even close. Federal revenues have consistently hovered around 17 percent to 18 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) for more than 50 years—through periods of high tax rates, low tax rates, and every combination of deductions, exemptions, and credits in between. This remarkable stability is no fluke. It reflects a basic reality of human behavior: When tax rates go up, people don't simply continue what they've been doing and hand over more money. They work less, take compensation in nontaxable forms, delay selling assets, move to lower-tax jurisdictions, or increase tax-avoidance strategies. Meanwhile, higher rates reduce incentives to invest, hire, and create or expand businesses, slowing growth and undermining the very revenue gains legislators expect. It's why economic literature shows that fiscal-adjustment packages made mostly of tax increases usually fail to reduce the debt-to-GDP ratio. Real-world responses mean that higher tax rates rarely generate what static models predict as we bear the costs of less work, less innovation, and less productivity leading to fewer opportunities for everyone, rich or poor. If the underlying structure of the system doesn't change, no amount of rate fiddling will sustainably result in more than 17-18 percent in tax collections. Political dynamics guarantee further disappointment. When Congress raises taxes on one group, it often turns around and cuts taxes elsewhere to offset the backlash. Then, when the government does manage to collect extra revenue—through windfall-profits taxes, inflation causing taxpayers to creep into higher brackets, or a booming economy—that money rarely goes toward deficit reduction. It gets spent, and then some. It's long past time to shift the conversation away from whether tax cuts should be "paid for." Instead, ask what level of spending we truly want with the money we truly have. I suspect that most people aren't willing to pay the taxes required to fund everything our current government does, and that more would feel this way if they understood our tax-collection limitations. That points toward the need to cut spending on, among other things, corporate welfare, economically distorting subsidies, flashy infrastructure gimmicks, and Social Security and Medicare. Until we align Congress' promises with what we're willing and able to fund, we'll continue down this dangerous path of illusion, denial, and intergenerational theft—as we cope with economic decline. COPYRIGHT 2025 The post We're Lying to Ourselves About Taxes, Spending, and the Debt appeared first on Solve the daily Crossword
