How Much Money Do You Need to Retire Comfortably in Your State?
Regardless of where you spend your golden years, it pays to be realistic about the cost of living.
Americans consider $1.46 million the minimum for a comfortable retirement, a Northwestern Mutual study found. However, the threshold of savings required to retire well varies considerably across states.
No matter where you spend your golden years, it's important to be realistic about how much cash you'll need to fund the future.
People should try living on their expected retirement budget for a few years and factor inflation into long-term money goals, financial expert Stacey Black told Entrepreneur last year.
Related: Here Are the Best and Worst States for Retirement in 2025, According to a New Report
A new study from online lender NetCredit reveals how much money Americans need to retire comfortably in every U.S. state in 2025. Researchers calculated the average length of retirement (nearly 15 years per U.S. life expectancy and retirement age) and multiplied it by each state's cost of living, then increased it by 20% to allow for a more "comfortable" retirement.
The study found that West Virginia, Arkansas and South Dakota are the least expensive states in which to retire comfortably in 2025, requiring $712,921, $715,126 and $724,669, respectively.
Hawaii ($1,097,790), Massachusetts ($1,059,811) and California ($1,053,814) rounded out the top three most expensive states in which to retire well, per the data.
Related: Early Retirement vs. Delayed Retirement: Which Is Right for You?
Check out NetCredit's map below for the full state-by-state breakdown of just how much a comfortable retirement costs across the U.S.:
Image Credit: Courtesy of NetCredit
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Entrepreneur
36 minutes ago
- Entrepreneur
Get Microsoft 365 for Six People a Year for Just $100
Your small business or family can now have 1TB of storage, maximum security, all the latest Office features, an AI-powered assistant and more for a year. Disclosure: Our goal is to feature products and services that we think you'll find interesting and useful. If you purchase them, Entrepreneur may get a small share of the revenue from the sale from our commerce partners. Gusto, the payroll and benefits company, found that SMBs that are fully remote tend to have higher scores across almost all performance indicators. Of course, it would probably help if everyone used the same software. Right now, the best office suite option for small businesses has to be this one-year subscription to Microsoft Office 365 for family or up to six users that's on sale for just $99.99. That's 23% off the normal $129 subscription price. The best thing about a Microsoft 365 subscription is that you know the programs are always up to date with the newest innovative features because you get them as soon as they are released. Communication is a breeze; up to 300 people can join group video calls on Microsoft Teams and talk for up to 30 hours. Also, each user gets 1TB of secure cloud storage and can use up to five devices of their own simultaneously, including computers, phones, and tablets. Applications include Excel, Word, Outlook, PowerPoint, OneNote, OneDrive, Clipchamp, MS Edito,r and Microsoft Defender. They can help you with spelling and grammar, offer royalty-free creative content, and so much more. The real gamechanger, though, is Microsoft's AI-powered productivity assistant Copilot. Its AI features are integrated seamlessly into the Office programs to save you time and effort by helping you work smarter and more efficiently. Microsoft Copilot can even automate tasks! Security is another huge perk of Microsoft 365. Advanced features protect all of your files, and all of the Outlook features that help you stay organized are backed by the most robust security tools. Plus, you can't beat the flexibility of this suite of programs. You can use it on almost any type of PC, Mac, Android phones and tablets, iPads, and iPhones. Not only can you collaborate in real-time, but you can also work offline. It's no wonder Microsoft 365 has a 4.7 out of 5 stars rating on both GetApp and Capterra. Get a one-year subscription to Microsoft 365 for a family, or up to six users, while it's available for only $99.99, a 23% discount. StackSocial prices subject to change.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
How Trump's Tariffs and Immigration Policies Could Make Housing Even More Expensive
President Donald Trump owes his second electoral victory, in no small part, to voter frustration over the rising cost of living. Over the course of Joe Biden's presidency, the price of a typical American house increased by nearly 40 percent, and rents followed a similar trajectory. As of 2024, approximately 771,480 Americans lack reliable shelter—at once a new high and a new low. All of these issues are most acute in states governed by Biden's fellow Democrats. In California, the median home price is now more than 10 times the median household income. Economists generally view three to five as a healthy ratio. Polling data suggest that many key voting blocs in the 2024 presidential election were primarily motivated by the rising cost of living and by out-of-control housing costs in particular. For all the network news preoccupation with transgender athletes and campus protests, it was mortgages and rents—the single largest line items in a typical household's budget—that moved voters to toss out incumbents. On April 2, after months of empty threats and false starts, the administration finally launched its global trade war, including a 25 percent tariff on various goods from Canada and Mexico. But Canadian softwood lumber and Mexican gypsum used for drywall—the (literal) pillars of a typical American single-family home—would be exempt. The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) was quick to celebrate it as a win: Canada accounts for 85 percent of all U.S. lumber imports. If the tariffs had taken effect as planned, the per-unit cost of a home might have increased by as much as $29,000. In a sector characterized by thin margins, that would have meant a lot of idle construction sites. And yet the partial rollback will offer only a temporary reprieve. Tariffs already in effect will increase the cost of a new home by $10,900 on average, according to an April 2025 estimate by the NAHB—an increase of $1,700 over its March estimate. This is on top of a 41.6 percent increase in building materials since 2020, brought on by pandemic-related supply chain disruptions. Those cost increases could hit renters hardest. After a decade of underbuilding in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, America is short roughly 5 million homes—most of them apartments. Perhaps the most robust finding in urban economics is that when vacancy rates increase, rents fall. But driving up vacancy rates requires cities to build more housing. Thanks to the YIMBY ("yes in my backyard") movement, a handful of cities—including Austin and Minneapolis—have recently had building booms that have brought prices back down. But those cities have been the exception. Meanwhile, a new wave of tariffs is about to make it a lot more expensive to build. On February 11, the administration imposed a 25 percent tariff on steel and aluminum—much of it imported from allies such as Brazil and Germany. On February 25, the administration announced an investigation into copper imports, presumably with future tariffs in the works. Depending on their country of origin, other key inputs like iron and cement are also now subject to steep tariffs. Even if you can get new housing built, the appliances needed to make all these new homes livable could soon cost hundreds of dollars more. Not only are microwaves, refrigerators, and air conditioners now more expensive to import, but tariffs on key inputs mean they are also more expensive to produce domestically. Uncertainty around tariffs has put many construction projects on pause, sending homebuilder stocks plummeting. Many small, local developers are exiting the market altogether. Following in the mold of autarkic Cuba—where international trade is strictly limited and medical doctors drive taxis for a living—your next Uber driver could very well be an out-of-work former developer. Never mind that the typical American city desperately needs them to build. If tariffs weren't bad enough, the administration's program of mass deportations could kick the housing crisis into overdrive. As things stand, the construction industry is already short 250,000 workers. This is partly a legacy of Trump's first term, in which an immigration clampdown suppressed what might have been an overdue housing construction boom. Even today, approximately 30 percent of construction workers are immigrants, many of them undocumented. In California, which is already a basket case on housing affordability, immigrants make up 41 percent of all construction labor. In Texas—one of the few bright spots for housing affordability in recent years, thanks to an ongoing construction boom—nearly 60 percent of all immigrant construction workers are undocumented. If 2024 was any indication, expecting voters to put up with all this in 2026 is a risky gamble. On some level, the Trump administration must appreciate that this is an existential threat. And yet its current proposals are out of sync with the scale of the housing crisis: Releasing more federally owned lands for housing development remains the only proposal the administration has seriously offered up to address the housing shortage. It's a fine enough idea if properly designed. But it would, at best, provide only modest relief to a handful of Western cities. Worse yet, the administration seems to have regressed to the implicitly regulatory "protect the suburbs" rhetoric that so failed Trump in the 2020 election. In February, Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) chief Scott Turner announced that he would be scrapping the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) rule in order to "cut red tape" and "advance market-driven development." Except the rule was essentially just a reporting exercise that required local governments to disclose—and ideally remove—local red tape standing in the way of housing. In 2018, then–HUD Secretary Ben Carson embraced the AFFH rule as a way of nudging cities to remove regulatory barriers to housing production, as part of his brief flirtation with YIMBYism. In a move that would make Orwell blush, Carson joined Trump in a Wall Street Journal op-ed two years later announcing that they would "protect America's suburbs" and scrap the rule if reelected. Trump lost that election. It's all a very strange state of affairs—a developer in chief with evidently little interest in getting America building again. It didn't need to be this way. Over the course of the first Trump administration, housing production recovered at a steady clip, with a muted increase in housing costs as a result. The administration's deregulating zeal could have been focused on unnecessary federal mandates that increase costs. Instead, the United States is poised to experience a run-up in housing prices through 2028 that could make the pandemic-era increases like a minor blip. So what could the federal government do? From a constitutional perspective, not much. The bulk of the blame for America's housing crisis lies with local governments that maintain onerous zoning regulations and unpredictable permitting processes—and the state governments that control them. The federal government has little role to play in zoning, even if it once did a lot of the heavy lifting to promote it. But that isn't to imply there is nothing the federal government could do. In recent years, the idea of tying federal dollars to local deregulation has gained acceptance within the Beltway. Bills with unsubtle names like the "Build More Housing Near Transit Act" or the "Yes In My Backyard Act" would variously condition money for transit or other public facilities on local jurisdictions cutting back on red tape. At the same time, the federal government could turn up the tax pressure. If homeowners in cities with high costs and low production were suddenly ineligible for benefits like the mortgage interest deduction or the state and local tax credit, it would transform the local politics of housing. Homeowners who might otherwise be fully bought into government constraints on housing production could flip their script. More likely, however, the onus will fall on state and local legislators to pull out all the stops on housing production. State and local elected officials can't control tariffs or immigration policy. But they can control "make or break" factors such as zoning regulations, permitting timelines, and impact fees. According to a recent RAND study, variations in these policies explain why it's nearly twice as expensive to build housing in California as in Texas. At least some state legislators are rising to the occasion. In recent months, states as diverse as Republican-supermajority Montana and Democratic-supermajority Washington have moved forward legislation restricting the right of local governments to block housing. Even California is starting to see the light. All these bills will help to get more housing built, no matter what's happening at the federal level. The Trump administration had better hope those state-level efforts are successful—and scrap the trade and immigration policies that could plunge America into another housing crisis. The post How Trump's Tariffs and Immigration Policies Could Make Housing Even More Expensive appeared first on
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Should You Buy ChargePoint While It's Trading Below $1?
High prices could hurt electric vehicle adoption rates. Tariffs are adding more pressure to the electric vehicle (EV) industry. ChargePoint's sales are falling, and the company isn't profitable. 10 stocks we like better than ChargePoint › The electric vehicle (EV) industry is facing a multitude of headwinds right now. Tariffs, rising EV prices, and a worsening political environment for electric vehicles are causing turmoil among automakers. And the effects are being felt among the broader EV industry, including for electric vehicle charging company ChargePoint (NYSE: CHPT). The company's share price has fallen 60% over the past year and is now priced below $1. The pullback has some investors wondering whether they should buy the beaten-down EV stock. Here's why you shouldn't. EV sales are increasing in the U.S., but it's been slow going. Electric vehicles accounted for 8.1% of vehicle sales last year, a modest increase from 7.8% in 2023. One of the biggest hurdles to their adoption is that they're far too expensive for many buyers. The average transaction cost for a new electric vehicle was $59,200 in April, up nearly 4% from the same time last year, and 23% more expensive than the average selling price for gas-powered vehicles. ChargePoint doesn't sell EVs, but for the company's electric vehicle charging station business to do well, it needs Americans to begin adopting EVs at a much higher rate -- and they won't do that if prices continue rising. ChargePoint does operate in Europe, Mexico, and Canada, but the vast majority of its business is in the U.S., making it very dependent on American EV adoption rates. The political climate isn't exactly conducive to further EV growth, and as an EV investor myself, I think this is one of the biggest problems for the industry right now. Tariffs on automotive imports are already negatively impacting U.S.-based EV makers, including Rivian and Lucid. Both companies said on their recent earnings calls that tariffs are making the cost of vehicle production rise, sometimes by thousands of dollars. While some tariffs are paused and others are being negotiated, investors need to understand that uncertainty around them couldn't be any higher. Ford Motor Company, Stellantis, and General Motors all recently pulled their 2025 guidance because of uncertainty around tariffs. What's more is that Republicans in the House recently passed a bill that rolls back tax credit incentives for electric vehicle purchases, which are currently worth up to $7,500 for new bill is headed to the Senate, and there are differing views on whether it'll pass, but the point is that the party currently in power is inhospitable toward EV credits. With ChargePoint dependent on a strong EV industry, high tariffs, and the potential for EV tax credit elimination are significant problems. It's not just outside EV forces that are hurting ChargePoint; the company has its own problems as well. ChargePoint's sales dropped by 18% in fiscal 2025 to $417 million, and things don't seem to be getting better, considering that management says first-quarter 2026 sales will be $100 million at the midpoint of guidance, a nearly 7% drop from the year-ago quarter. ChargePoint was able to increase its subscription sales by 20% last year, but its largest revenue segment -- networked charging system sales -- fell by 35%. It's also important to note that ChargePoint isn't profitable. The company reported a non-GAAP (generally accepted accounting principles) net loss of about $159 million last year. That was an improvement from its loss of about $297 million in 2024, but with sales falling, it's going to be very difficult for ChargePoint to continue narrowing its losses. ChargePoint's stock is technically cheap right now, with the company's price-to-sales multiple just 0.75. But just because it's cheap doesn't make it a good value. I think the company and the broader EV industry will continue to face serious headwinds over the next few years that could slow growth further. With ChargePoint already seeing sales falling before some of the outside hurdles like tariffs and political turmoil showed up, I think it has too many obstacles to overcome right now for investors to hope for market-beating returns from its stock any time soon. Before you buy stock in ChargePoint, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and ChargePoint wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $651,049!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $828,224!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 979% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 171% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join . See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of May 19, 2025 Chris Neiger has positions in Rivian Automotive. The Motley Fool recommends General Motors and Stellantis. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Should You Buy ChargePoint While It's Trading Below $1? was originally published by The Motley Fool 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
