Gyroscopic Investing

Wyoming? No income tax or estate tax. One of lowest states for debt per capita ($78 vs 3k for California). 9.5% fractional assessment of property values. Great outdoors opportunities.

I would think a discussion such as this would merit people's individual situations. Perhaps it it was broken down into categories such as estate tax, inheritance tax, property taxes, etc. and the best state for each. Someone might prefer a very high property tax and no inheritance tax if they intend to live in a very small home and give a bunch of wealth to they children when they die.

This could be opposed to the other direct to say very low if not zero property tax and higher inheritance tax if they want to live in a giant mansion and give buttons to their offspring.

1NV35T0R (Greg) wrote: Someone might prefer a very high property tax and no inheritance tax if they intend to live in a very small home and give a bunch of wealth to they children when they die.

Not only that,  they might prefer that their children visit them once in a while while they're still alive. If you're in Wyoming...
Then again, it works for Mr Cheney.

1NV35T0R (Greg) wrote: I would think a discussion such as this would merit people's individual situations. Perhaps it it was broken down into categories such as estate tax, inheritance tax, property taxes, etc. and the best state for each. Someone might prefer a very high property tax and no inheritance tax if they intend to live in a very small home and give a bunch of wealth to they children when they die.

Not exactly what you're talking about, but pretty close: http://freedom.robocourt.com/

From this data set: http://mercatus.org/freedom-50-states-2011

One could pretty easily download and examine their excel spreadsheets full of granular data about the individual taxes.

1NV35T0R (Greg) wrote: I would think a discussion such as this would merit people's individual situations. Perhaps it it was broken down into categories such as estate tax, inheritance tax, property taxes, etc. and the best state for each. Someone might prefer a very high property tax and no inheritance tax if they intend to live in a very small home and give a bunch of wealth to they children when they die.

Very true indeed. Was just trying to get other's general impressions. I was also thinking that state debt per capita might be important in predicting whether or not current tax laws were stable going forward. Make sense?

BearBones wrote:

1NV35T0R (Greg) wrote: I would think a discussion such as this would merit people's individual situations. Perhaps it it was broken down into categories such as estate tax, inheritance tax, property taxes, etc. and the best state for each. Someone might prefer a very high property tax and no inheritance tax if they intend to live in a very small home and give a bunch of wealth to they children when they die.

Very true indeed. Was just trying to get other's general impressions. I was also thinking that state debt per capita might be important in predicting whether or not current tax laws were stable going forward. Make sense?

Along those same lines of debt per capita, it almost might be worthwhile to know the demographics of the population. I would think of this if you said you had a high population of older residents, that the state would have to spend more money to cater towards those needs and you might not want to live somewhere like this if you're still in the younger stages of life.

New York. Definitely!

Florida feels like the right choice.  favorable taxes, great weather, and a funny nickname: "Heaven's waiting room".

Other considerations should also be taken into account.

1. Unemployment levels.
2. Poverty levels.
3. Crime.
4. Access to culture or things you enjoy doing.
5. Life expectancy.
6. Access to quality medial care.
7. Cost of living.
8. Proximity to family and or friends.

Reub wrote: New York. Definitely!

Not quite so silly as it sounds.  Some expensive places (including NYC) can let you live car-free, which is worth a LOT.  I pay $104/month (pretax) for a metro card which covers everything except occasional train trips to NJ to visit family.  That has to work out cheaper than buying a car, insuring it, repairing it, and buying gas.  And, getting old in the suburbs is no joke.  I've seen how people literally get trapped in their houses.  Factor in the lower living expenses of a small apartment compared to a house, and you end up doing better than break-even despite the high taxes and rents.

Also, New York state no longer checks assets for most welfare programs, so you'd have a good chance at qualifying for food stamps.

But, I second dualstow's comment - living near family counts for a lot too.

BearBones wrote: Wyoming? No income tax or estate tax. One of lowest states for debt per capita ($78 vs 3k for California). 9.5% fractional assessment of property values. Great outdoors opportunities.

Best place is the WA/OR border.  WA no income tax.  OR no sales tax. 

You can also do it along the WY/MT border too but you're gonna suffer in the winter when it hits -40F and frankly, its a whole radically different culture (i.e. not progressive).  Wyoming is also flat and VERY windy (and noisy).

As much as I dislike crowds, congestion, suburbia, etc. you do not want to be stuck in the literal middle of nowhere when the SHTF.

South Texas is nice.  Being close to Mexico is great for certain types of medical tourism and helps keep the cost of living down.

WiseOne wrote:

Reub wrote: New York. Definitely!

Not quite so silly as it sounds.  Some expensive places (including NYC) can let you live car-free, which is worth a LOT.  I pay $104/month (pretax) for a metro card which covers everything except occasional train trips to NJ to visit family.  That has to work out cheaper than buying a car, insuring it, repairing it, and buying gas.  And, getting old in the suburbs is no joke.  I've seen how people literally get trapped in their houses.  Factor in the lower living expenses of a small apartment compared to a house, and you end up doing better than break-even despite the high taxes and rents.

Also, New York state no longer checks assets for most welfare programs, so you'd have a good chance at qualifying for food stamps.

But, I second dualstow's comment - living near family counts for a lot too

The cost of living in NYC is extremely high relative to almost anywhere else in the lower 48. But there are advantages as you pointed out. Being able to ditch the car is a huge +. And there aren't many places with more culture and opportunities to have fun than a big city like NY. If I had the money I'd seriously consider NYC, San Francisco (Rueb will now have a seizure) or Boston. But when it comes down to it, the choice of retirement domicile is probably going to be a balance between what you want and what you can afford.

Ad Orientem wrote:

WiseOne wrote:

Reub wrote: New York. Definitely!

Not quite so silly as it sounds.  Some expensive places (including NYC) can let you live car-free, which is worth a LOT.  I pay $104/month (pretax) for a metro card which covers everything except occasional train trips to NJ to visit family.  That has to work out cheaper than buying a car, insuring it, repairing it, and buying gas.  And, getting old in the suburbs is no joke.  I've seen how people literally get trapped in their houses.  Factor in the lower living expenses of a small apartment compared to a house, and you end up doing better than break-even despite the high taxes and rents.

Also, New York state no longer checks assets for most welfare programs, so you'd have a good chance at qualifying for food stamps.

But, I second dualstow's comment - living near family counts for a lot too

The cost of living in NYC is extremely high relative to almost anywhere else in the lower 48. But there are advantages as you pointed out. Being able to ditch the car is a huge +. And there aren't many places with more culture and opportunities to have fun than a big city like NY. If I had the money I'd seriously consider NYC, San Francisco (Rueb will now have a seizure) or Boston. But when it comes down to it, the choice of retirement domicile is probably going to be a balance between what you want and what you can afford.

It depends.  I've compared costs with people living in suburban and rural areas, and my costs are among the lowest.  If you try to replicate a suburban lifestyle here your expenses will indeed be breathtakingly high.  The trick is to realize that this is a different way to live, and plan accordingly.  If you seriously want to move to NY or San Francisco, then go for it!  Reub will survive :-)

You might want to check out "The Cheap Bastard's Guide to New York City" - it has lots of useful tips.

WiseOne wrote: I pay $104/month (pretax) for a metro card which covers everything except occasional train trips to NJ to visit family.  That has to work out cheaper than buying a car, insuring it, repairing it, and buying gas.

That's actually pretty close what I pay for my car on a monthly basis:

$40-50 for gas
$52 for insurance
Average $10 for repairs (I go years without any repair costs)

Granted, my car is mechanically sound and paid off, and I drive it somewhat infrequently and not like a maniac so it doesn't break or guzzle gas. I could go even lower if I replaced it with a nice 35+ MPG hatchback.

Thanks to Wisconsin for this great comparative guide to state taxes.

Number 1 for me is climate.  No longer want to deal with cold weather or snow. A small part for me would be economics and culture.  I don't care how much money I could save if I'm freezing my rear end off.

No 1 for me is climate too. I do not want to sweat my rear end off most of the year. Ha. Second is geography. I need hills or mountains and quiet, pristine lakes, rivers or coast. So, Colorado and Washington are looking good. I love Portland, so I like the Oregon/Washington border that you mentioned MG. I also like my original Wyoming idea, but I suspect I would do better in the more "progressive culture" that you alluded to.

So, Colorado and Washington are looking good.

I'll be retiring in Washington and leaving California behind.  I look much better in a sweater than a speedo at this point.

Pointedstick wrote:

WiseOne wrote: I pay $104/month (pretax) for a metro card which covers everything except occasional train trips to NJ to visit family.  That has to work out cheaper than buying a car, insuring it, repairing it, and buying gas.

That's actually pretty close what I pay for my car on a monthly basis:

$40-50 for gas
$52 for insurance
Average $10 for repairs (I go years without any repair costs)

Granted, my car is mechanically sound and paid off, and I drive it somewhat infrequently and not like a maniac so it doesn't break or guzzle gas. I could go even lower if I replaced it with a nice 35+ MPG hatchback.

It's dishonest to compare $104 in gas, maintenance, and insurance expense with a metro-card.  You didn't factor in the purchase price of the car, major repairs like brakes, tires, etc. ($10 a month just covers an oil change every 3 months).  The cost is probably closer to $200 a month, at least.

WiseOne wrote: It depends.  I've compared costs with people living in suburban and rural areas, and my costs are among the lowest.  If you try to replicate a suburban lifestyle here your expenses will indeed be breathtakingly high.  The trick is to realize that this is a different way to live, and plan accordingly.  If you seriously want to move to NY or San Francisco, then go for it!  Reub will survive :-)

You might want to check out "The Cheap Bastard's Guide to New York City" - it has lots of useful tips.

You're absolutely right, WiseOne.  In Flushing/Queens, I can buy enough groceries to feed a family of 4 at the Great Wall Chinese market for about $60 a week.  It's unbelievable - I don't know how it can be so cheap.  And, I'm eating vegetables that are healthier than any you can find at your run of the mill American grocery store.  There are a lot of ways to save money in NYC, but there are also a lot of ways to waste money on expensive restaurants, etc.  You just have to be frugal though, and you can live pretty cheaply.

WildAboutHarry wrote: I'll be retiring in Washington and leaving California behind.  I look much better in a sweater than a speedo at this point.

+1
That one cracked me up!

Storm wrote: It's dishonest to compare $104 in gas, maintenance, and insurance expense with a metro-card.  You didn't factor in the purchase price of the car, major repairs like brakes, tires, etc. ($10 a month just covers an oil change every 3 months).  The cost is probably closer to $200 a month, at least.

I admit I didn't factor in the purchase price, and that's big. But I didn't buy a $35,000 SUV, I bought a $14,000 used sedan, and that cost is all in the past (If I were doing it over again, I'd have gone with a $9,000 manual transmission hatchback and paid in cash). The ongoing costs really depends on how you drive it. I drive less than 6,000 miles a year. My car uses synthetic oil, so that's an oil change maybe once a year, and I do it myself. Tires last for upwards of 50,000 miles (about 8 years) and brakes last darn near forever at the rate I drive it. I'm just trying to show that car ownership really doesn't have to be a significant ongoing expense if you play your cards right. The worst thing you can do to your car is drive it. The more time it spends sitting around, the more gold coins you can afford. 

But I love driving my car!  Especially this time of year.  Saving is all well and good, but the money doesn't exist for its own sake, you know?  Putting the top down and wasting somebody at a stoplight is hard to beat.  :-)

BearBones wrote: No 1 for me is climate too. I do not want to sweat my rear end off most of the year. Ha. Second is geography. I need hills or mountains and quiet, pristine lakes, rivers or coast. So, Colorado and Washington are looking good. I love Portland, so I like the Oregon/Washington border that you mentioned MG. I also like my original Wyoming idea, but I suspect I would do better in the more "progressive culture" that you alluded to.

I live in the Socal desert. Two hours from the coast and two hours from the mountains (10k to 12k ft.) without all the Socal traffic.  Extremely hot in the summer but beautiful the rest of the year. I love the Portland area (brother in law lives there) but a little too cool and rainy. Wyoming is way too cold and windy. Jackson Hole is nice if you ski. Can't seem to find a place that meets my needs better than this. Also, the PP works just fine in this area.