ziggy29
Moderator Emeritus
This is true, of course, but naturally different retirees have different situations so some "poisons" are less toxic than others.Yesterday I spent all day in a pre-retirement informational seminar at work. The speaker said something that I thought was pretty perceptive. She said that ALL states have to get their income from somewhere, except for Alaska (due to oil revenues) and Nevada (due to gambling revenues). She suggested that states will generally acquire this revenue through income, property, and/or sales taxes. So, if you are influenced by low property taxes or low/absent income taxes in your choice of location, she said you should realize that at least to some extent you are just "picking your poison".
Here in Texas, for example, there is a high property tax and a high sales tax but no income tax. So a retiree who wants to retire in a modest, low-value home, pulls in a decent income and practices LBYM would do very well here. Someone who wants to live in a big house and spend a lot of money on taxable items would be advised to look elsewhere -- such as Oregon, which has fairly low property tax rates and no sales tax.
In that sense, one state's "poison" might kill one person and barely affect someone else. By examining one's own situation and desired retirement lifestyle, we can make educated choices about which poison to pick. It's true that all states get you one way or another -- but as retirees not tied down by a job, it's easier to vote with one's feet for the state that taxes your particular situation the least -- assuming state taxes are among one's primary considerations for a retirement place.