Map Shows Cheapest and Most Expensive States to Retire Comfortably
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.
As large swaths of Americans are dipping into their savings to combat increased costs and economic tensions, living in some states as opposed to others could provide better long-term financial security.
Why It Matters
Financial instability has roiled countless Americans, some of whom are now more fearful of running out of money than dying. Simultaneously, people short on cash or worried about the stock market are dipping into their retirement accounts at higher levels than previously seen.
What To Know
Americans' economic anxieties come from different places, including fears of recessions, inflation, health issues, grocery and gas prices, tariffs, and fears of government cuts to Social Security and Medicaid.
Kiplinger, a publisher of business forecasts and personal finance advice, devised a list of the states where money will go the longest in retirement without breaking the bank.
The top 10 states where you need the least savings to retire are as follows:
West Virginia – $712,913
– $712,913 Kansas – $741,455
– $741,455 Mississippi – $753,472
– $753,472 Pennsylvania – $864,633
– $864,633 South Carolina – $869,140
– $869,140 Minnesota – $870,642
– $870,642 Wyoming – $872,144
– $872,144 Illinois – $873,646
– $873,646 North Carolina – $905,192
– $905,192 Maryland – $924,720
The top 10 most expensive states where you need savings to retire are as follows:
Hawaii – $2,212,084
– $2,212,084 Massachusetts – $1,645,764
– $1,645,764 California – $1,612,716
– $1,612,716 Alaska – $1,292,753
– $1,292,753 New York – $1,292,753
– $1,292,753 New Jersey – $1,163,566
– $1,163,566 Vermont – $1,153,051
– $1,153,051 Washington – $1,145,540
– $1,145,540 Maine – $1,144,038
– $1,144,038 Arizona – $1,133,522
A recent AARP survey found that about 20 percent of adults age 50 and older have no retirement savings, and roughly 61 percent are worried they will not have enough money to support themselves in retirement.
While Americans are 15 times more likely to save for retirement when they have access to a plan through their employer, AARP reports that nearly 57 million people do not have access to a work-based retirement plan.
John Tamny, founder and president of the Parkview Institute and senior fellow at the Market Institute, told Newsweek that the nation is in a "pivotal moment" following general inaction on behalf of multiple presidential administrations and countless lawmakers in Washington, D.C.
He said the Trump administration is taking steps required to stabilize long-term fiscal sustainability by addressing structural deficits, rebalancing global trade relationships, and initiating housing reforms that prioritize supply-side incentives.
"There are tensions," Tamny said. "Tariffs, housing affordability, concerns around entitlement spending—but these issues didn't begin today. What is new is the willingness to confront them head-on. That means Americans should reframe retirement planning not around fear, but around resilience.
"In this environment, retirement preparation should be more dynamic, incorporating inflation-protected investments (like Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities, or TIPS), flexible retirement age expectations, and diversified income streams. Social Security may see adjustments, but by acting now, decades before any potential shortfall hits, this administration is likely protecting the program's future viability."
A study by Vanguard that examined data from nearly 5 million people with retirement accounts found a record 4.8 percent of account holders took hardship withdrawals from their 401(k) accounts in 2024, up from 3.6 percent in 2023.
He also said that geography certainly plays a role in how Americans of different ages and financial backgrounds are affected, and in turn their retirement prospects.
For example, Americans in high-cost areas should plan more carefully as should those in coastal cities with high housing costs and climate-related infrastructure pressures, like California and Florida.
"For Americans in high-cost states, that means thinking seriously and strategically about location," he said. "It's practical to think this way. Remote work, more portable benefits, and expanding infrastructure make relocation more feasible than ever.
"Retirement security is no longer just about how much you save; it's also about where you spend those savings."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
What the business world has to like (and not) in the Senate version of Trump's 'big, beautiful bill'
The business community has some clear wins in a Senate version of President Trump's "big, beautiful bill" but it isn't getting everything it wants. The Senate's Finance Committee's 549-page blueprint contains significant changes, especially on taxes, Medicaid funding, and clean energy. One proposal was quickly embraced by the business community: a Senate-side push to make corporate tax deductions permanent around things like interest payments and new capital investments. But a less popular idea is the survival of the so-called revenge tax that would allow the government to levy new duties on foreign nations and their businesses. That idea was introduced in the House version and sparked fears of reduced foreign investment. The version released last Monday pares back the tax but doesn't eliminate it entirely, as corporate lobbyists had asked. Specific industries also have plenty at stake from Senate changes if they make it into law. Businesses that work in clean energy will have more time to adjust to the phase-out of Biden-era credits. Restaurants and gig economy companies have more limited tax breaks for tips and overtime. Healthcare providers will also have to adjust to even steeper cuts to Medicaid's provider tax structure — perhaps the most surprising and significant overall change in the Senate version. What the Senate version of the bill doesn't appear to have — as Elon Musk and others had pushed for — is a significant change in the final price tag. Both versions are expected to add trillions of dollars to the debt. The Senate version also raises the debt ceiling by $5 trillion, compared with $4 trillion in the House version. The bill does have one clear cost-saving measure: slashing the annual deduction for individual state and local taxes (SALT) from $40,000 to $10,000. But that provision is described even in the bill's official summary as "the subject of continuing negotiations," with defenders of the deduction pledging to restore the full credit forthwith. The Senate version earned a quick flurry of Republican pledges — from fiscal hawks to defenders of those SALT deductions to those who object to the Medicaid cuts — to vote no if the final version isn't changed to their liking. "We're not seriously addressing our long-term deficit and debt," Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin told reporters soon after the unveiling, reiterating that he remains a no. The back and forth comes just weeks ahead of Republicans' self-imposed deadline to get the bill to the president's desk by July 4. Senate Majority Leader John Thune has said sticking to that timeline means Senate passage by the end of this coming week. Ed Mills of Raymond James offered in a note that "we continue to view the July 4 target as ambitious" — suggesting that SALT and Medicaid provisions in particular could be under continued debate in the days ahead. Here is a closer look at some of the major business world changes being proposed by the Senate: A key focus for business owners is a series of tax deductions that will reinstate credits for corporations around things like property depreciation, capital investments, new factory construction, interest expenses, and research and development costs. These provisions were present in the House version but only temporarily. Permanency was a key Senate priority once they took over, even as it is expected to increase the price tag. The bill "powers the economy by permanently extending critical pro-growth provisions and introduces new incentives for domestic investment, providing certainty for American job creators to spur domestic economic activity and invest in their workers," offered Senate Finance Committee Chairman Mike Crapo as he unveiled these provisions. The Senate version also enhances credits for "opportunity zones," which provide tax relief in rural and distressed communities. The bill also includes Trump's campaign promises of no taxes on tips and overtime, but in a more limited form. Employees would be able to deduct up to $25,000 annually for tips and overtime, in contrast to the House's approach of 100% deductibility under certain income limits. The Senate blueprint also includes a rollback of clean energy credits for things like solar panels and electric vehicles. The changes in the Senate would make that phaseout slower — zeroing out some key credits by 2028 — but with a bottom line that Republicans across the spectrum are united in eliminating these benefits entirely. Amy Hanauer, executive director of the left-leaning Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, reacted to the released proposal by saying that "the emerging clean energy economy will be curtailed and for what?" "Our communities will be worse off as a result of this legislation,' she added. On the fossil fuel side, the Senate bill continues to include changes to make permitting less laborious, open up new lease sales, and reverse a fee on excess methane emissions. The Senate bill also includes a controversial plan to limit the ability of states to regulate artificial intelligence. The Senate's provisions are less airtight, stopping short of the outright ban proposed by the House, but are expected to remain a point of contention and potentially an issue for the Senate parliamentarian, given the Senate's complex reconciliation rules. Other changes in the bill appear to cut against business interests at least slightly. The Senate bill makes permanent the so-called pass-through deduction — formally called a 199A deduction for small businesses — but at the current rate of 20%. The House version also had permanency, but at a higher rate of 23%. Meanwhile, a clear focus of business lobbyist ire has remained in the bill, but in a slightly diminished form: the so-called revenge tax. This idea would allow a president to punish companies and countries if they adhere to foreign laws that policymakers find objectionable. In Trump's case, things like the digital services taxes that often hit tech companies overseas. The Senate version, in a nod to the flurry of concerns, set a maximum rate of 15% and delayed implementation until 2027 but kept the concept intact. In addition to that tax, the SALT and Medicaid changes are likely to be most in focus in the days and weeks ahead. Tobin Marcus of Wolfe Research noted Tuesday morning that "SALT changes underscore the reality that this is another step forward in negotiations, not the final answer." He added that "we still view late July as the real deadline." This story has been updated. Ben Werschkul is a Washington correspondent for Yahoo Finance. Click here for political news related to business and money policies that will shape tomorrow's stock prices Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Is It Worth Delaying Claiming Social Security If It Means Withdrawing More From Your 401(k)?
One of the most common dilemmas people face as they near retirement is whether to start collecting Social Security or delay it for a higher monthly benefit. But delaying Social Security often means relying more heavily on other resources, like a 401(k) or other savings, to fill the gap. Is it worth it? Read More: Find Out: 'When it comes to decisions about money, it is a matter of feeling in control and not feeling anxious or stressed,' said Trevor Houston, CEO at ClearPath Wealth Strategies in Frisco, Texas. 'One of the most common questions is whether to wait for the Social Security payments or to take money out of the 401(k) plan early.' Here's what to consider before tapping your 401(k). Delaying your Social Security retirement benefits beyond full retirement age (FRA) results in a higher monthly benefit amount until age 70. 'If you delay taking Social Security, the monthly check will increase by about 8% each year until you reach age 70. That's equivalent to getting a salary increase every year,' Houston explained. 'Pretty nice, right? However, the strategy of waiting only makes sense if you have enough in savings, investments or your 401(k) to cover your bills while you are waiting.' Here are some important factors to consider: Life expectancy: Do you have any serious health conditions? Have your parents and grandparents lived long lives? If you're in good health, waiting could give you a bigger monthly check. On the other hand, Houston explained that if your health or family history suggests a shorter life expectancy, it may make sense to claim Social Security early and use the money while you can. Monthly living expenses: How much money do you need every month to pay your basic living expenses? 'If you start taking out your 401(k) too early, you could end up short later on, especially if the market declines,' Houston said. This is called sequence risk, which could disrupt your retirement plan. A 2024 Vanguard report found that the average 401(k) balance for those age 65 and older is $272,588. However, the average is often skewed by high earners, and the median balance is $88,488. Taxes: Money from your 401(k) is taxed as ordinary income. According to Houston, taking out large sums of money could push you into a higher tax bracket. Safety and security: A stable monthly income provides a feeling of safety and security. 'Some people like to have the Social Security check coming into their account each month. It feels like a regular paycheck, and that provides a great deal of peace of mind during retirement,' he pointed out. Discover More: To show when this strategy might work, Houston provided an example: Let's say David reaches age 66, is in good health, and his parents are in their 90s. His 401(k) balance is around $400,000, and he doesn't need Social Security to pay bills or meet other financial needs. David chooses to delay Social Security and withdrawal from his 401(k) instead. Also, because of his conservative risk tolerance, his 401(k) generates a 5% annual growth rate, less than the 8% annual increase he'd get by waiting on Social Security. 'At the end of the day, waiting for Social Security and using your 401(k) could be a smart strategy if you have enough savings, and you expect to live a long time. But everyone's situation is different,' Houston wrote. 'A financial professional should evaluate your personal goals to determine the best course of action for your specific situation.' More From GOBankingRates 9 Downsizing Tips for the Middle Class To Save on Monthly Expenses This article originally appeared on Is It Worth Delaying Claiming Social Security If It Means Withdrawing More From Your 401(k)? Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Miami Herald
24 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Donald Trump's SNAP Benefit Cut Plans Suffer Blow
A plan by Republicans to shift a portion of federal food stamp costs to state governments suffered a major setback after the Senate parliamentarian found it would violate chamber rules. The blocked provision was an attempt to reduce federal spending on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), affecting more than 40 million low-income Americans who rely on food aid. The shift would have transferred major SNAP costs to the states, requiring them to pay at least 5 percent—and potentially more—of benefit costs, which analysts warned could result in significant cuts to nutrition support. The parliamentarian's decision places additional pressure on the bill's champions to find alternative means to fund tax cuts without imperiling food assistance, Medicaid, or other federal support programs. The provision, a cornerstone of Republican efforts to offset the costs of President Donald Trump's multitrillion-dollar tax and spending legislation, has been ruled inadmissible under Senate rules, sending GOP leaders scrambling to revise the mega bill. The ruling, issued by Senate parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough, came as the package prepared for a vote. While her opinions are advisory, they are rarely ignored in lawmaking practice. Republican lawmakers are now searching for new savings as they continue to advance Trump's legislative priorities despite the setback. MacDonough declared the SNAP cost-sharing plan noncompliant with the chamber's budget reconciliation rules, specifically the Byrd Rule, which bars certain policy measures from being attached to budget bills. The proposal would have shifted billions of dollars in SNAP costs from the federal government to the states, creating a new fiscal obligation for state governments and threatening coverage for millions. House Passes Bill with GOP SNAP Cuts The House passed the broader tax and spending package along party lines in May 2025, including a provision to require states to fund at least 5 percent of SNAP benefits and more for high error rates. The House-passed measure's SNAP provision was projected to save about $128 billion. Republican leaders had hoped these savings would help offset the bill's $4.5 trillion in tax cuts and new spending. Other Key Provisions Beyond SNAP, the package includes an extension and expansion of individual and business tax cuts, new work requirements for Medicaid recipients, cuts to federal health and nutrition programs, increased military and border security funding, and the elimination of taxes on tips for service workers. GOP Paths Forward Republican leaders, including Senate Agriculture Committee Chair John Boozman of Arkansas, said they were exploring options to keep the legislation on track while still delivering savings elsewhere. Options range from modifying the disputed SNAP provision to removing it entirely or risking a procedural vote requiring 60 votes—an unlikely scenario in the current Senate. Impact on SNAP Recipients The plan would have expanded work requirements to older adults (up to age 65), a component that remains in the bill for now. Democrats and anti-hunger advocates warned of significant harm to those in need, with more than 3 million individuals projected to lose food stamp access based on Congressional Budget Office estimates. Additional Rulings Expected The Senate parliamentarian is also expected to rule on other elements in the bill, including limits on immigrant eligibility for nutrition aid and changes to federal agencies, with further decisions likely to shape the final legislation. Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar, the top Democrat on the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee, said: "We will keep fighting to protect families in need," opposing shifts in SNAP costs to states, which she said would result in significant benefit cuts. Arkansas Senator John Boozman, chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee, said Republicans are "exploring options" to comply with Senate rules, while supporting those reliant on SNAP. Senate Republicans are expected to revise the bill to comply with the parliamentarian's rulings or drop the contested SNAP provisions. Further decisions from the adviser on other elements of the megabill are anticipated before any final Senate vote. This article contains reporting from The Associated Press. Related Articles When Are July 2025 SNAP Payments Coming?Republicans Out Of Step With Voters On Medicaid FundingNew York State Facing Lawsuit Over SNAP BenefitsSNAP Recipients Get Extra Money This Month in California 2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
