Early Retirement Extreme Forums

It took me 6 months but I finally remembered the earth awaits. You can put in your criteria (monthly expenses etc) and it will show cities around the world that match. I did it with my home town and it seemed accurate.

James_0011 wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 14, 2016 1:26 pm

Why not retire abroad? Much cheaper and countries like Thailand basically have everything that the US does.

I second that. I don't like Thailand myself very much as a place due to relatively poor infrastructure and traffic (and especially after a former colleague ended up being jailed there for a month due to a car accident because he didn't pay a large bribe) but Malaysia is working out pretty well for me. The only city I have lived in the west is Chicago so I will use it as the base of comparison. The public transport is spades better than Chicago, the parks are just as good, the food is way better and cheaper if you like Asian food though Chicago is slightly cheaper and better for western food (duh!), it is safer than Chicago, the weather is also much better but, on the flipside, bike friendliness and general civic sense are much better in Chicago. Finally, the fact that the cost of living is less than a third of Chicago is what makes it so attractive. $500 per month for a 3 br, 1200 sf condo with nice pool and gym and right next to a train station 10 minutes to the city center (the Petronas towers) is pretty amazing value for money.

This is a great collection of resources! Thanks.

This is an old thread but I did want to point out that the state tax rate data can be deceiving. It is important to look at the specific rate for your projected income.

California's average 13.3% looks terrible compared to Oregon's 9.9, but at lower incomes Oregon is far and away worse since there are fewer brackets and no excluded income. It is punishing. But on the other hand, no sales tax (how much doe ERE folks buy anyhow?). CA is a much lower tax rate for low income, and there are superior social supports.

At least for now.

CS wrote: ↑

Sat Jul 20, 2019 10:40 am

This is an old thread but I did want to point out that the state tax rate data can be deceiving. It is important to look at the specific rate for your projected income.

California's average 13.3% looks terrible compared to Oregon's 9.9, but at lower incomes Oregon is far and away worse since there are fewer brackets and no excluded income. It is punishing. But on the other hand, no sales tax (how much doe ERE folks buy anyhow?). CA is a much lower tax rate for low income, and there are superior social supports.

At least for now.

I ran the same calculation for my own upcoming retirement along with Colorado which has a 4.63% flat rate. CA is much less expensive than OR or CO if you can keep your income below a certain point.

In-depth review of all 50 states by the American Legislative Exchange Council-Laffer Economic Outlook (has a federalist bent).

PDF, 56 pages. Rankings aside (I think they're highly politically motivated and sketchy... Kentucky seems much closer to collapse than Vermont does to me), this document has an excellent one page overview for each state about tax rates, state debt, etc.

Great resource if you want current data about a particular state.

I had'nt realised just how much variation there is between the tax and spending of US states. They're really like different countries.

chenda wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 10, 2019 6:04 pm

I had'nt realised just how much variation there is between the tax and spending of US states. They're really like different countries.

They really are.

What I found most interesting, from a macro-narrative perspective, was looking at the Absolute Domestic Migration number (2008-2017). You see masses of people moving out of high tax states, and masses moving into low tax states, during the period that the housing crash occurs and the Boomers (forcibly or voluntarily) start to retire. The actual numbers are there.

GandK wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 10, 2019 6:56 pm

They really are.

What I found most interesting, from a macro-narrative perspective, was looking at the Absolute Domestic Migration number (2008-2017). You see masses of people moving out of high tax states, and masses moving into low tax states, during the period that the housing crash occurs and the Boomers (forcibly or voluntarily) start to retire. The actual numbers are there.

Yes but not so much to low tax states that have cold climates and minimal to no urban areas. Alaska has net loss over the past 10 years while New Hampshire and Wyoming have multiple years of people moving out of state and remain near neutral over the period measured. Warm climate seems to play just as large a role.

theanimal wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 10, 2019 7:40 pm

Yes but not so much to low tax states that have cold climates and minimal to no urban areas. Alaska has net loss over the past 10 years while New Hampshire and Wyoming have multiple years of people moving out of state and remain near neutral over the period measured. Warm climate seems to play just as large a role.

And Wyoming has the highest insurance and medical care costs in the US. We surpassed Alaska last year! Combined with the falling state economy and asinine remedies, leaving makes sense, especially for young middle-class families.

The performance of the Live Free or Die state is impressive when considering that people have been leaving New York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut en masse. If you have marketable skills, they have to pay you in southern part of the state what you could make in Boston. Only one place in the northeast where you can make good money, not pay state income tax, open or conceal carry an instrument of self-defense without a license, and go from the beach to the mountains or vice-versa in an hour. The White Mountains are a great place to retreat when SHTF or eventually sea levels rise.....

Live Free or Die baby

NH ftw

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/10/new-ham ... light.html

I would love to move to New Hampshire/Vermont, but our main issue is climate. While I am from a place with even harsher conditions, so blizzards and little daylight is not a big deal for me, my DW and MIL are much less interested in that part. Also, we need a somewhat big house, and property taxes eventually will outweigh no income tax (assuming that work span is pretty short).

I was looking hard into various places where we could move and I think we'll stay in Oregon. It is very expensive here (I think it is #6 by costs), but the climate makes it for us, plus it has tons of beautiful outdoors, and it is fairly liberal (important for DW). If all did not matter to me, I think Tennessee would win, or North Carolina.

My two cents (worth +/- $0.02) as I'm somewhat in the same boat. Smaller towns have HUGE variance in actual living conditions compared to collected stats as compared to urban areas. I once lived in an area with 17 different municipalities in a 30-mile straight drive along an Interstate and the conditions were vastly different on paper, but all areas were impacted by the same issues in reality. My plan, is to "live local" in a few places before making any permanent decision.

For example, I currently live in an area that is as perfect on any visual/weather measure but probably the least desirable area for long term stays I've ever lived. Although the crime statistics are minimal, this is mostly due to locals reluctance to report crimes, so any crime statistic are vastly understated.

Given the potential water shortages over the coming decades, I am going to consider buying land with natural water sources in the Great Lakes region, Michigan is I believe on of the safest places in the US when it comes to natural disasters.