I think we have all heard about people who worked for 5 or 10 years at more than one job earning multiple pensions and end up with higher income after retirement than when they were working. I just found out that my brother is in that situation. He is 68 and still happily working. He is already collecting small pension from job #1. If he stops working at 70 he will get a very generous pension from job #2, and with his full SS benefit (and I guess a spouse benefit) he will have more income than his current salary. I donāt hate him for that. 
He lives frugally and also has significant retirement savings.
@NJres, my father did that. He now has 4 pensions PLUS social security. 3 of his pensions are pretty small, and I donāt know if he brings in more now than when he was working, but considering his prolific saving tendencies, his living below his means for most of his life, etc, he now lives very comfortably off his pensions and never touches his principal. He feels very happy and secure at age 82, lives in a really nice retirement community that has all levels of care, so he can age out where he is. The grounds are fabulous, the activities are constant for those who want them, people look out for each other there, etc. He calls it his āshangri-laā and feels very very fortunate.
We had some fire/police in the area who didnāt need to work multiple jobs to end up with pensions that exceeded their incomes. Practice was all overtime was allocated to those near retirement. Pensions were based on average of highest 3 years of earnings. So their pensions were in excess of their normal earnings. Went on for a while. Supposedly stopped that now.
Wow. This is now a āfeatured thread.ā Hope it is not a KOD.
I honestly donāt know how much I need to retire as it is a long ways away but Iād want to have 2 million by the time I retire. With the time I have, itās possible if I make some wise investments.
If you have over 10 years before retirement. A 2 million savings probably wonāt be enough. Unless you live out of the country, such as Mexico. Inflation will eat you up alive. I believe in 10-20 years time, Arizona and Florida, the two major retirement states will become very expensive.
@artloversplus I have plenty of years before retirement but I wanted to say a price based on todayās money. Iād eventually adjust it for inflation.
Interesting thought, @artloversplus. Hadnāt thought about the increased demand for Florida and Arizona. I wonder if that will be counteracted in part by global climate change making both places hotter.
Iām not planning on retiring until Iām really unable to do what I do and love. But, my target is much higher than $2 MM. Then again, we live in the Boston area and also spend a few months some years in California and co-own my wifeās childhood cottage on a lake in Canada (which we have just knocked down and are rebuilding). So, living in some of the most expensive places in the country, our cost of living is higher. Plus, we travel a fair bit, both for work and fun. So, a much higher target.
@artloversplus What makes Arizona attractive to retirees? They tax is not low.
Some retirees are more motivated by weather (warmer in the case of Arizona and Florida) rather than taxes.
Older people were found in surveys to be less concerned about climate change in their lifetime, probably because their remaining life expectancy is less than that of younger people.
If you have been to Arizona and Florida, the living pace is much slower and the housing is much cheaper. Florida is especially attracted to the retirees from the NE highly competitive cities/areas, NY, Boston and Northern Va areas because they are easilly accessible and has lots of beaches.
California has good weather but the living cost is too high.
Arizona is good for the retirees, because it is dry and warm, it caters to older folks who do not like humid and wet weather.
My parents were looking towards Arizona as a good place to retire. They said the same thing as you @artloversplus that the cost of living in California is too high. Despite that, I would still want to stay in California because of the weather. However, if I ever have a kid and they move to a different city, I would either want to live there or have a house near there so I can stay close to them.
How do the red states with no state income tax or retirement income tax (obvs not just for SS ) do with health care? Is this something to consider? Do they end up having lesser options?
Iām not sure what red states vs blue states has to do with income tax, as there are blue states with no income tax. And most retirees are on Medicare, which is a national program, so why would income tax matter? States get their money somehow, even if they have no state income taxes. My state (Washington) is rolling in the dough, higher collections than ever. We have high property taxes, sales tax, excise tax,etc, but no income tax. Still not enough for them, they are addicted to spending and want to find new ways to tax.
I think the states with no income tax tend to rely on sales taxes or property taxes (like NH). By relying on sales and property taxes that are regressive rather than income tax, which is usually flat or progressive, no income tax states tend to be tougher places for the poor as there is less available to run the government. [Note that this isnāt necessarily true of Wyoming, which taxes the energy industry directly].
In general, red states provide fewer social services, spend less on education and health care, and have greater incidences of social dysfunction. There are a number of studies that show that red states on average are higher on pretty much every level of social dysfunction (teen pregnancy, infant mortality, divorce rate, even pornography use to the extent that it is a measure of social dysfunction, but also violent crime, property crime and I believe murder (for crime rates: see https://editions.lib.umn.edu/smartpolitics/2009/09/16/red-states-have-higher-crime-r/ than blue states. Moving to red states might mean moving to a state with less social support and higher levels of various kinds of problems. Red states do tend to have lower real estate values on average than either swing states or blue states and property values in blue states were growing at a faster rate. So you can expect your cost of living to be lower. Note that this is simply a question of supply and demand. Fewer people with money want to live in those places / alternatively companies that pay high wages donāt think the population of highly educated folks they want to hire are in those states and/or it is easier to build new housing because of less restrictive zoning laws (which is true in Texas and I believe in Florida). The latter increases the elasticity of supply of housing and reduces housing costs (other states like CA should probably be doing more of this.
Iām not really up on the research and didnāt see much on the difference between no income tax states and income tax states generally, but I found the following article (https://www.bankrate.com/finance/taxes/state-with-no-income-tax-better-or-worse-1.aspx) that suggests that the states with no income tax donāt have better economic prospects but will typically have lower budgets and be harder on the poor. Not inconsistent with the above.
Iāve also seen an argument that one also needs to look at county level data. I havenāt seen those studies, but I suspect that if you live in a well-to-do county in a red state, you can have low taxes and not feel the effects as strongly of the reduced social services, health and education spending.
I live in a no income tax state. Our property taxes are high, though, so I figured with the tax changes which no longer allow write offs for property taxes that real estate would be hit hard. Hasnāt really happened, surprisingly.
It could be the AMT. I have high property tax. Before the new tax, the deduction didnāt help much. I would deduct it in the regular tax but it got added back to in calculating AMT.
I think for people who are impoverished, much has to do with whether they live in a Medicaid expansion state (some of these are no state income tax states). People seem to be moving out of the high tax, high cost of living states to the low cost, low/zero tax states, so apparently people are seeing the benefit of keeping more of their own money.
Found this on problems of very early retirement: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/24/i-retired-at-34-with-3-million-here-are-the-downsides-of-early-retirement-that-no-one-tells-you.html?utm_source=pocket-newtab.
@busdriver11, one would think that if people were fleeing high tax states, the real estate prices would drop. I think there is in-migration to states like California of younger people who want to make money and drives prices up as they get good salaries and perhaps equity payouts. Then, there is out-migration for people who either have made their money and want to pay less tax and for people who didnāt succeed and canāt handle the cost of living in California. The rich often want to stay but leave for tax purposes. States like NY, CA and MA make it hard to leave for tax purposes unless they actually leaveā¦