Americans face vastly different retirement costs across states as Social Security cuts loom
Retirement remains top of mind for many Americans, whether they are approaching their so-called 'golden years' or have many years to go before leaving the workforce.
How much money a person needs to have saved to retire without financial stress is an important consideration in the retirement preparation process, and that can vary depending on various factors, including where someone intends to live and their retirement income sources.
Advertisement
A study released this week by GOBankingRates calculated the amount of money that a 'comfortable' retirement would require without income from Social Security factored in and the associated yearly expenses a retiree would face in each U.S. state.
The analysis comes as Social Security, a common source of retirement income, is looking at potential financing issues with its trust funds in the future.
8 Pompano Beach, Florida.
Matthew Tighe – stock.adobe.com
The trustees for Social Security and Medicare recently found that if Social Security's Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Disability Insurance trust funds were combined, the trust funds would be able to pay 100% of scheduled benefits until 2034, one year earlier than reported last year. After that, the trust funds would be able to pay only 81% of scheduled benefits, meaning Social Security recipients would see a mandatory 19% cut automatically.
Advertisement
For the GOBankingRates study, the benchmark for a 'comfortable' retirement was a person holding twice the amount of money as the cost of living expenses.
Hawaii tops the list of where the most savings would be necessary to retire 'comfortably' at 60 years old without Social Security, while West Virginia, nicknamed the Mountain State, required the least, it said.
8 For the GOBankingRates study, the benchmark for a 'comfortable' retirement was a person holding twice the amount of money as the cost of living expenses.
InsideCreativeHouse – stock.adobe.com
GOBankingRates found the nest egg that a person would need to accommodate a comfortable retirement at 60 years old sans Social Security in each state.
Advertisement
Alabama ($70,492 cost of living per year): $1,409,839
Alaska ($110,457 cost of living per year): $2,209,137
Arizona ($100,281 cost of living per year): $2,005,627
Arkansas ($67,502 cost of living per year): $1,350,045
Advertisement
California ($155,117 cost of living per year): $3,102,333
Colorado ($114,744 cost of living per year): $2,294,882
Idaho ($101,912 cost of living per year): $2,038,236
8 Aerial view of Nantucket Island.
Kevin – stock.adobe.com
Illinois ($79,736 cost of living per year): $1,594,716
Indiana ($74,029 cost of living per year): $1,480,575
Iowa ($71,373 cost of living per year): $1,427,463
Kansas ($71,534 cost of living per year): $1,430,672
Advertisement
Kentucky ($71,410 cost of living per year): $1,428,204
Louisiana ($67,482 cost of living per year): $1,349,639
Maryland ($101,991 cost of living per year): $2,039,812
8 Downtown Birmingham, Alabama, from Vulcan Park
Robert Hainer – stock.adobe.com
Advertisement
Maine ($98,612 cost of living per year): $1,972,231
Massachusetts ($136,626 cost of living): $2,732,517
Michigan ($73,780 cost of living per year): $1,475,595
Minnesota ($88,321 cost of living per year): $1,766,414
Advertisement
Mississippi ($65,523 cost of living per year): $1,310,451
Missouri ($73,667 cost of living per year): $1,473,335
Montana ($102,916 cost of living per year): $2,058,322
8 Waikiki Beach and Diamond Head, Oahu, Hawaii.
tomas del amo – stock.adobe.com
Advertisement
Nebraska ($76,792 cost of living per year): $1,535,846
Nevada ($103,661 cost of living per year): $2,073,215
New Hampshire ($110,761 cost of living per year): $2,215,216
New Jersey ($118,338 cost of living per year): $2,366,765
New Mexico ($81,627 cost of living per year): $1,632,542
New York ($105,619 cost of living per year): $2,112,384
North Carolina ($86,857 cost of living per year): $1,737,146
8 The Brooklyn Bridge and the Manhattan skyline.
jakartatravel – stock.adobe.com
North Dakota ($78,734 cost of living per year): $1,574,682
Ohio ($73,120 cost of living per year): $1,462,391
Oklahoma ($69,161 cost of living per year): $1,383,214
Oregon ($111,541 cost of living per year): $2,230,814
Pennsylvania ($78,582 cost of living per year): $1,571,642
Rhode Island ($109,811 cost of living per year): $2,196,222
South Carolina ($81,586 cost of living per year): $1,631,721
South Dakota ($81,949 cost of living per year): $1,638,979
8 Teton Village homes at sunrise with fog in the valley.
Nicole – stock.adobe.com
Tennessee ($81,474 cost of living per year): $1,629,482
Texas ($81,985 cost of living per year): $1,639,693
Utah ($110,623 cost of living per year): $2,212,458
Vermont ($97,999 cost of living per year): $1,959,971
Virginia ($96,141 cost of living per year): $1,922,813
Washington ($126,952 cost of living per year): $2,539,048
West Virginia ($64,715 cost of living per year): $1,294,300
8 The analysis comes as Social Security, a common source of retirement income, is looking at potential financing issues with its trust funds in the future.
lordn – stock.adobe.com
Wisconsin ($84,485 cost of living per year): $1,689,700
Wyoming ($88,792 cost of living per year): $1,775,841
In early June, a Gallup survey found 50% of non-retired U.S. adults that own a retirement savings account felt they 'expect to have enough to live comfortably in retirement.'
Confidence was lower among those that lacked a retirement savings account, with only 31% reporting they anticipated having sufficient funds for comfortable golden years.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
37 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Justice Jackson Warns of 'Reputational Cost' to Supreme Court After Ruling
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. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson criticized the majority's ruling in a case over fuel providers challenging the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) approval of California's vehicle emissions regulations, writing in a Friday dissent that the decision comes at a "reputational cost" for the court, according to documents reviewed by Newsweek. She added that the decision gives "fodder" to the perception that "moneyed interests, enjoy an easier road to relief in this Court than ordinary citizens." Why It Matters In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court reversed the D.C. Circuit and sided with fuel producers, ruling they have Article III standing to challenge the EPA's approval of California's vehicle emissions regulations. California's regulations "require automakers to limit average greenhouse-gas emissions across their vehicle fleets and manufacture a certain percentage of electric vehicles," the lawsuit reads. Several fuel producers sued the EPA over its approval of California's regulations, arguing the agency exceeded its authority under the Clean Air Act by approving regulations that target "global climate change rather than local California air quality problems." Jackson's dissent raised concerns about public perception of favoritism and the court being swayed by powerful interests. Confidence in the Supreme Court has steadily declined for decades, with 47 percent of Americans viewing the court favorably and 51 percent unfavorably, according to a 2024 Pew Research Center survey. In 1987, 76 percent held a favorable view, while just 17 percent viewed the court unfavorably. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson at her Senate confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill on March 22, 2022. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson at her Senate confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill on March 22, 2022. AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster What To Know In Diamond Alternative Energy v. Environmental Protection Agency, Justice Brett Kavanaugh issued the majority opinion, joined by Justice Elena Kagan, one of the court's liberals, holding that fuel producers have standing to challenge the EPA's approval of the California regulations. In her dissent, Jackson called out the majority's application of "standing doctrine," writing that "When courts adjust standing requirements to let certain litigants challenge the actions of the political branches but preclude suits by others with similar injuries, standing doctrine cannot perform its constraining function." She argued that "Over time, such selectivity begets judicial overreach and erodes public trust in the impartiality of judicial decision making." Jackson's dissent says the court is "setting us down that path." "I worry that the fuel industry's gain comes at a reputational cost for this Court, which is already viewed by many as being overly sympathetic to corporate interests," she said later in the opinion. Jackson argues that this perception, and even a mere "'appearance' of favoritism, founded or not," can undermine public confidence in the highest court. Justice Sonia Sotomayor also dissented, filing a separate opinion and not joining Jackson's. What People Are Saying Jonathan Adler, a professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law, told NBC on Friday: "I don't think this case is an example of the court being inconsistent or somehow more favorable to moneyed interests than other sorts of interests. It's not like the court has closed the door on environmental groups." Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in the majority opinion: "Justice Jackson separately argues that the Court does not apply standing doctrine 'evenhandedly'...A review of standing cases over the last few years disproves that suggestion." Beth Milito, vice president of the National Federation of Independent Business' Small Business Legal Center, which filed an amicus brief in the case, said in a Friday press release: "Small businesses have the right to challenge overreach by government agencies and seek relief from harmful regulatory actions. The D.C. Circuit's opinion set an unreasonable standard for plaintiffs to prove that the court can remedy their injury. This would have made it nearly impossible for indirectly regulated parties to challenge regulating agencies. NFIB applauds the Court for reversing the lower court's opinion and ensuring that small businesses have a clear course of action and a fair chance at proving that the court can provide suitable relief." Kristen Waggoner, president and chief counsel of Alliance Defending Freedom, who filed an amicus brief in the case, said Friday on X (formerly Twitter): "The ruling in Diamond Alternative Energy v. EPA has significant implications beyond just environmental SCOTUS ruling will help plaintiffs, like these churches, hold the government accountable when its regulations have the downstream effect of violating their fundamental rights. An important win." What Happens Next The Supreme Court is expected to release a slew of opinions in the coming weeks, with the term scheduled to end in late June.
Yahoo
38 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Corporations Have A 'Shady New Way To Charge You More.' It's Called Surveillance Pricing, And It's Weaponizing Your Own Data Against You
Imagine buying a TV online and paying $500, only to find out someone else paid $400 for the exact same one, and another person got it for $350. No discounts. No loyalty cards. Just different prices for different people. 'You'd be outraged,' said former Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan in a new video posted by economist and former Labor Secretary Robert Reich. 'You would demand to know why you were being charged more than someone else for the exact same TV, on the exact same day.' Don't Miss: Maker of the $60,000 foldable home has 3 factory buildings, 600+ houses built, and big plans to solve housing — Deloitte's fastest-growing software company partners with Amazon, Walmart & Target – Many are rushing to As Reich said, it's a 'shady new way to charge you more for something than anyone else is paying,' and according to Khan, that scenario isn't hypothetical. It's already happening, quietly and behind the scenes. The tactic is called surveillance pricing, and it uses your personal data to determine how much you're charged. 'Businesses may be using this trove of personal information to charge each of us a different price for the exact same product or service,' she explained. Our phones and computers collect huge amounts of data on us every day. Companies tap into that data—like your location, income level, browsing habits, even your mouse movements—to figure out your 'pain point,' or the highest price you're likely to pay. 'And unlike being in a physical store where you generally see the same price tag as everyone else,' Khan said, 'online shopping is an individualized experience.' The goal? Maximize profit by charging each person as much as possible, without them even realizing it. Trending: Maximize saving for your retirement and cut down on taxes: . This isn't just theory. It's already happening across industries. Here are some examples Khan mentioned in the video: The Princeton Review charged higher prices for test prep to customers in ZIP codes with higher Asian populations. Rideshare apps charged more to users with low phone battery life. People booking hotel rooms from wealthier cities like San Francisco were shown prices up to $500 higher per night. Some internet providers charged the same fees for slower speeds in poorer, less white neighborhoods. 'These surveillance practices are opaque, so we don't know the full extent of how our personal information is being used against us,' Khan said. This goes further than mere inconvenience: it results in higher charges precisely when people are at their most vulnerable. For example, if you're a new parent searching for medicine, you could get hit with higher prices. If someone dies and you need a last-minute flight, your costs could jump just because of an email about funeral arrangements, Khan though she's not at the head of the FTC anymore, Khan says the agency should keep investigating. 'Americans deserve to know how their private data is being used,' Khan said. And stronger laws are needed to protect people from this kind of price discrimination. Some states are already proposing laws to ban surveillance pricing outright. In the meantime, there are a few steps individuals can take. For instance, regularly clear your cookies and browsing history, and use a virtual private network or private browser to limit data collection. 'Businesses shouldn't be able to weaponize our own data against us,' Khan concluded in the video. 'Charging each of us a different price just because they can.' Read Next:Inspired by Uber and Airbnb – Deloitte's fastest-growing software company is transforming 7 billion smartphones into income-generating assets – Up Next: Transform your trading with Benzinga Edge's one-of-a-kind market trade ideas and tools. Click now to access unique insights that can set you ahead in today's competitive market. Get the latest stock analysis from Benzinga? APPLE (AAPL): Free Stock Analysis Report TESLA (TSLA): Free Stock Analysis Report This article Corporations Have A 'Shady New Way To Charge You More.' It's Called Surveillance Pricing, And It's Weaponizing Your Own Data Against You originally appeared on © 2025 Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved. 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
an hour ago
- Yahoo
President Donald Trump Broke His Vow Not to Tax Social Security Benefits -- and Retirees Are Being Given This Concession Instead
Getting as much as possible out of Social Security isn't a luxury for most retirees -- it's a borderline necessity. Though President Trump's pledge to end the tax on Social Security benefits had overwhelming support from retirees, it would have been a fiscally irresponsible move. Trump's One, Big, Beautiful Bill offers a concession directed at low to mid earners aged 65 and up. The $23,760 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook › In May, the average monthly Social Security benefit for retired workers hit an important milestone by crossing above $2,000 for the first time in the program's history. Though this is a fairly modest monthly payout, Social Security income plays a foundational role for most retirees in helping make ends meet. Based on an analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Social Security helped pull more than 22 million people above the federal poverty line in 2023, including roughly 16.3 million adults aged 65 and above. What's more, the poverty rate for retirees would soar to an estimated 37.3% if Social Security didn't exist, compared to the 10.1% poverty rate with Social Security income, as of 2023. For many retirees, getting as much out of Social Security as possible isn't a luxury -- it's a borderline necessity to ensure a rock-solid financial foundation. When Trump campaigned on the idea of eliminating the taxation of Social Security benefits, which would allow select recipients to hang onto more of the benefits they receive, his idea garnered overwhelming support from current retirees. But with Trump's One, Big, Beautiful Bill working its way through Congress, it's become clear that the president's vow to shelve the taxation of benefits has been broken and replaced by a concession instead. On July 31, then-candidate Donald Trump posted on his social media platform Truth Social that "Seniors should not pay tax on Social Security." This message was followed up just months after his Jan. 20 inauguration with a speech during a town hall event that proclaimed: In the coming weeks and months, we will pass the largest tax cuts in American history -- and that will include no tax on tips, no tax on Social Security, and no tax on overtime. It's called The One, Big Beautiful Bill. Based on an informal poll from nonpartisan senior advocacy group The Senior Citizens League, well over 90% of retired survey-takers believe Social Security benefits shouldn't be subject to federal taxation. Taxing a portion of Social Security benefits for select individuals and jointly filing couples was implemented following the signing of the Social Security Amendments of 1983 into law. Beginning in 1984, up to 50% of benefits could be subject to the federal tax rate if provisional income -- adjusted gross income + tax-free interest + one-half of benefits -- surpassed $25,000 for single filers and $32,000 for couples filing jointly. A second tax tier allowing up to 85% of Social Security benefits to be subject to the federal tax rate was added a decade later for individuals and joint filers topping $34,000 and $44,000 in provisional income, respectively. Aside from the common misconception that this represents a form of double taxation, the reason the tax on benefits is so disliked is because these income thresholds that were introduced in the mid-1980s and mid-1990s haven't once been adjusted for inflation. Due to rising wages and salaries over time, coupled with near-annual cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs), the percentage of senior households subject to this tax has grown from around 10% four decades ago to approximately 50% of all senior households today. The president's One, Big, Beautiful Bill, which was narrowly passed by the House of Representatives and is currently being discussed by lawmakers in the Senate, covers a laundry list of tax changes. It would make the personal income tax brackets under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (which are on track to sunset on Dec. 31, 2025) permanent, increase the state and local income tax deduction, and provide temporary tax relief for overtime pay and tips for four years to qualified individuals. But one key provision that's missing is Trump's vow to eliminate the tax on Social Security benefits. If you're wondering why this promise failed to pass muster, look no further than the economics supporting America's leading social program. Social Security has three sources of funding: The 12.4% payroll tax on wages and salary up to $176,100 (as of 2025). In 2023, the payroll tax accounted for north of 91% of the income collected. The interest income earned on the asset reserves of the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance trust fund (OASI) and Disability Insurance trust fund. This excess capital is required by law to be invested in special-issue, interest-bearing government bonds. The taxation of Social Security benefits. The OASI's asset reserves are forecast to run dry by 2033. Though the OASI is in no danger of bankruptcy or insolvency, it does mean most of Social Security's interest income will go away over the next eight years. Furthermore, depleting the OASI's asset reserves would result in sweeping benefit cuts of up to 21% in eight years for retired workers and survivor beneficiaries, according to the 2024 Social Security Board of Trustees Report. Removing the tax on benefits at a time when Social Security is financially challenged would be a fiscally poor decision that can expedite the OASI's asset reserve depletion timeline and potentially result in steeper sweeping benefit cuts. Additionally, President Trump may not have wanted to risk the passage of the One, Big, Beautiful Bill on his "no tax on Social Security" provision. Amending the Social Security Act requires 60 votes in the upper house of Congress, and it's not even clear if all 53 members of his party in the Senate would vote in favor of such a measure. Rather than risk the potential embarrassment of defeat, the president left this provision out of his flagship bill. Although retirees aren't going to be getting rid of the hated tax on Social Security benefits anytime soon, the president and/or lawmakers did throw a concession into The One, Big, Beautiful Bill that's designed to help retirees who need it most. Donald Trump's original plan to shelve the tax on benefits would have padded the pocketbooks of Social Security's highest earners -- i.e., the roughly 50% of senior households whose provisional income surpassed the thresholds that trigger federal taxation on a portion of their Social Security income. The concession placed in The One, Big, Beautiful Bill is designed to reward low- and middle-income retirees who need the financial boost. Keeping in mind that bills are subject to change in Congress, one of the key provisions for retirees in the current bill would temporarily increase the standard deduction for single filers aged 65 and above by $4,000 (and $8,000 for qualifying couples filing jointly) from 2025 through 2028. The catch is that single filers and joint-filing couples would need to have modified adjusted gross incomes below $75,000 and $150,000, respectively, before a phase-out would kick in. This ensures that low- to mid-income retirees are the ones who'd receive the boost in their standard deduction. This enhanced deduction would come atop the extra $2,000 single filers and $3,200 married filers are already able to deduct if aged 65 and above. While this beefed-up standard deduction for seniors aged 65 and older is far less, in nominal dollar terms, than what would be seen if the taxation of benefits was eliminated, it does direct the benefit to those who need it most and likely rely on Social Security as a necessary source of income. If you're like most Americans, you're a few years (or more) behind on your retirement savings. But a handful of little-known could help ensure a boost in your retirement income. One easy trick could pay you as much as $23,760 more... each year! Once you learn how to maximize your Social Security benefits, we think you could retire confidently with the peace of mind we're all after. Join Stock Advisor to learn more about these Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. President Donald Trump Broke His Vow Not to Tax Social Security Benefits -- and Retirees Are Being Given This Concession Instead was originally published by The Motley Fool
